Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim

1. Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim

2. Table of Contents

Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim

"Crossroads of Continents--Cultures of Siberia and Alaska" Symposium (1988 : National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution)

Fitzhugh, William W., 1943-

Chaussonnet, Valérie

This book was produced in EPUB format by the Internet Archive.

The book pages were scanned and converted to EPUB format automatically. This process relies on optical character recognition, and is somewhat susceptible to errors. The book may not offer the correct reading sequence, and there may be weird characters, non-words, and incorrect guesses at structure. Some page numbers and headers or footers may remain from the scanned page. The process which identifies images might have found stray marks on the page which are not actually images from the book. The hidden page numbering which may be available to your ereader corresponds to the numbered pages in the print edition, but is not an exact match; page numbers will increment at the same rate as the corresponding print edition, but we may have started numbering before the print book's visible page numbers. The Internet Archive is working to improve the scanning process and resulting books, but in the meantime, we hope that this book will be useful to you.

The Internet Archive was founded in 1996 to build an Internet library and to promote universal access to all knowledge. The Archive's purposes include offering permanent access for researchers, historians, scholars, people with disabilities, and the general public to historical collections that exist in digital format. The Internet Archive includes texts, audio, moving images, and software as well as archived web pages, and provides specialized services for information access for the blind and other persons with disabilities.

Created with abbyy2epub (v.1.7.0)

Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim

Contents

xi Contributors

1 Introduction

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH AND VALERIE CHAUSSONNET

PART 1»

2^ Research History and American—Asian Links

1.

2 7 Crossroads of Continents: Review and Prospect

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH

J53

2.

American—Asian Ties as Reflected in Athapaskan Material Culture

GALINA I. DZENISKEVICH

3.

63 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition: A History ofRussian—American Cooperation

LIUDMILA P. KUZ'MINA

4.

-]() Collections of the Native Peoples of the Russian Northeast in thePeter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography

ELENA A. MIKHAILOVA

5.

87 The Paleolithic of Kamchatka and Chukotka and the Problemof the Peopling of America

NIKOLAI N. DIKOV

6.

97 New Dental Anthropological Observations Relevant to theHuman Population System of the Greater Beringian Realm

CHRISTY G. TURNER II

PART 2.

loj Symbol and Object: Complexity in North Pacific Cultures

7.

709 The Bleeding Coat: The Art of North Pacific Ritual Clothing

VALERIE CHAUSSONNET AND BERNADETTE DRISCOLL

^33

8.

Deciphering Aleut/Koniag Iconography

LYDIA T. BLACK

9.

147 Qasqiluteng: Feasting and Ceremonialism among theTraditional Koniag ofKodiak Island, Alaska

RICHARD H. JORDAN

10.

173 Eskimo Masks from Kodiak Island in the Collections of the

Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography inSt. Petersburg

ROZA G. LIAPUNOVA

11.

20^ Traditional Choreographic Art of Northeastern Siberia

MARIIA lA. ZHORNITSKAIA

12.

21J Koniag Eskimo Poisoned-Dart Whaling

ARON CROWELL

13.

24^ Watercraft in the North Pacific: A Comparative View

JEAN-LOUP ROUSSELOT

14.

239 Canoes of the Northwest Coast

BILL HOLM

263

13.

Social Structure of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia

VLADIMIR I. VASIL'EV

16.

2 73 Traditional Culture of the Peoples of the Russian Pacific Coast

CHUNER M. TAKSAMI

17.

281 Beads at the Crossroads of Continents

PETER FRANCIS, JR.

PART 3.

307 Interactions: Trade, War, and Peace

18.

309 Inter ethnic Ties in Far Northeastern Siberiail'ia s. gurvich

19.

^21 Eskimo War and Peace

ANN FIENUP-RIORDAN

20.

337 Aleut in the Kurile Islands: 1820—18jo

VALERII O. SHUBIN

21.

347 Recent Ethnic Processes among the Peoples of the RussianPacific Coast

ZOIA P. SOKOLOVA

22.

Historical Background and Modern Trends in Native-Russian Bilingualism among Siberian Native Peoples

SERGEI A. ARUTIUNOV AND VLADIMIR I. VASIL'EV

23.

Crossroads? A Twentieth-Century History of Contacts acrossthe Bering Strait

MICHAEL KRAUSS

This collection of essays is dedicated to the memory of Sergei la. Serov,our friend, colleague, and the helping spirit of "Crossroads ofContinents."

The first principle we can learn is how to coexist with nature, to live togetherwith nature and not destroy the environment. The second is that all peoples ofthe world may have different cultures, but the essence of their culture is human.We are the same breed. We are all human.

— SERGEI lA. SEROV, 194O-92

SERGEI A. ARUTIUNOV isa corresponding member of the Russian Acade-my of Sciences and chairman of the Department of Caucasian Studies, Insti-tute of Ethnology, Moscow. He obtained his doctoral degree from the Insti-tute of Oriental Languages in Moscow, specializing in traditional Japaneseculture, its transitions, and modernization. In the late 1950s, he became in-terested in prehistoric cultural relations in the North Pacific and Arctic, andsince then has made several trips to Northeast and Northwest Siberia. The re-sults of his research have appeared in numerous monographs—notably AncientCultures of the Asiatic Eskimos (Moscow, 1969) and Issues in Ethnic History of theBering Sea Region (Moscow, 1975), both coauthored with Dorian Sergeev, andThe Whale Alley (Moscow, 1982), coauthored with Igor Krupnik and MikhailChlenov—and numerous papers and international presentations.

LYDIA T. BLACK is professor of anthropology at the University of Alaska,Fairbanks. A specialist in anthropological theory and ethnohistory, she has fo-cused on Siberia, the North Pacific, and the circumpolar cultural regions.Since 1975 she has worked with native Alaskan communities, particularlywith the Unangan (Aleut). In 1992, she was elected foreign member to the

XI

XII

CONTRIBUTORS

"Crossroads of Continents" symposium participants and catalogue authors, September 1988.Standing, left to right: Galina Pendill, Richard Jordan f, Christy G. Turner II, Edwin Hall, AronCrowell, James W. VanStone, William W. Fitzhugh, Sergei la. Serov t, Ernest S. Burch, Jr.,Rudolf Its t, Vladimir I. Vasil'ev, Il'ia S. Gurvich f, Nikolai N. Dikov, Chuner M. Taksami,Michael Krauss, Valerii A. Tishkov, Stephen B. Young, Margaret Blackman, Liudmila P.

Center for the Study of Russian America and Russian-American Relations, In-stitute of History, Russian Academy of Sciences. Her recent publications in-clude Glory Remembered: Wooden Headgear of Alaska Sea Hunters. A major work,Russia's American Possession: Alaska 1J41—186'/, is in preparation.

VALERIE CHAUSSONNET has been associated with the Arctic Studies Cen-ter at the Smithsonian Institution since 1986. A member of the "Crossroadsof Continents" curatorial team, she contributed a chapter on clothing to theexhibition catalogue and translated the Russian chapters into English. She haslectured in the United States and Canada on Arctic clothing and on the peo-ples of Siberia. She is currently curating "Crossroads Alaska," a small travel-ing version of "Crossroads of Continents," designed for rural venues in Alaskaand Siberia.

Contributors Xlli

Kuz'mina, Bill Holm, George MacDonald, Elena M. Mikhailova, Bernadette DriscoU,Valerii O. Shubin, Jean-Loup Rousselot, William C. Sturtevant. Seated: Valerie Chaussonnet,Galina I. Dzeniskevich, Ann Fienup-Riordan, Mariia I. Zhornitskaia, Frederica de Laguna,Zoia P. Sokolova, Lydia Black, Rosita Worl. (Photograph by Chip Clark)t Deceased.

ARON CROWELL was the co-curator of the "Crossroads of Continents" exhi-bition. His research has focused on the archeology and cultural history ofsouthern Alaska, where he has directed projects for the Smithsonian Institu-tion, University of California, U.S. National Park Service, state of Alaska, andthe Kodiak Area Native Association. He is currently finishing dissertation re-search at the University of California, Berkeley, on the eighteenth-centuryRussian fur trade settlement of Three Saints Bay on Kodiak Island. In addi-tion to the Crossroads of Continents exhibition catalogue, his publications in-clude recent journal articles and reports on southern Alaskan ceremonialism,paleodemography, and settlement patterns in the Gulf of Alaska region.

NIKOLAI N. DIKOV isa corresponding member of the Russian Academy ofSciences and chairman of the Department of Archeology and Ethnography,

XII

CONTRIBUTORS

Contributors XIII

"Crossroads of Continents" symposium participants and catalogue authors, September 1988. Kuz'mina, Bill Holm, George MacDonald, Elena M. Mikhailova, Bernadette DriscoU,

Standing, left to right: Galina Pendill, Richard Jordan f, Christy G. Turner II, Edwin Hall, Aron Valerii O. Shubin, Jean-Loup Rousselot, William C. Sturtevant. Seated: Valerie Chaussonnet,

Crowell, James W. VanStone, William W. Fitzhugh, Sergei la. Serov t, Ernest S. Burch, Jr., Galma I. Dzeniskevich, Ann Fienup-Riordan, Mariia I. Zhornitskaia, Frederica de Laguna,

Rudolf Its t, Vladimir I. Vasil'ev, Il'ia S. Gurvich t, Nikolai N. Dikov, Chuner M. Taksami, Zoia P. Sokolova, Lydia Black, Rosita Worl. (Photograph by Ciiip Clark)

Michael Krauss, Valerii A. Tishkov, Stephen B. Young, Margaret Blackman, Liudmila P. f Deceased.

Center for the Study of Russian America and Russian-American Relations, In-stitute of History, Russian Academy of Sciences. Her recent publications in-clude Glory Remembered: Wooden Headgear of Alaska Sea Hunters. A major work,Russia's American Possession: Alaska IJ41-186J, is in preparation.

VALERIE CHAUSSONNET has been associated with the Arctic Studies Cen-ter at the Smithsonian Institution since 1986. A member of the "Crossroadsof Continents" curatorial team, she contributed a chapter on clothing to theexhibition catalogue and translated the Russian chapters into English. She haslectured in the United States and Canada on Arctic clothing and on the peo-ples of Siberia. She is currently curating "Crossroads Alaska," a small travel-ing version of "Crossroads of Continents," designed for rural venues in Alaskaand Siberia.

ARON CROWELL was the co-curator of the "Crossroads of Continents" exhi-bition. His research has focused on the archeology and cultural history ofsouthern Alaska, where he has directed projects for the Smithsonian Institu-tion, University of California, U.S. National Park Service, state of Alaska, andthe Kodiak Area Native Association. He is currently finishing dissertation re-search at the University of California, Berkeley, on the eighteenth-centuryRussian fur trade settlement of Three Saints Bay on Kodiak Island. In addi-tion to the Crossroads of Continents exhibition catalogue, his publications in-clude recent journal articles and reports on southern Alaskan ceremonialism,paleodemography, and settlement patterns in the Gulf of Alaska region.

NIKOLAI N. DIKOV is a corresponding member of the Russian Academy ofSciences and chairman of the Department of Archeology and Ethnography,

i

XIV

CONTRIBUTORS

Northeastern Pluridisciplinary Research Institute, Magadan, Siberia. In themid-1950s he became the director of a museum in Anadyr, in NortheastSiberia, where he pioneered extensive archeologicai surveys in both coastaland continental parts of the Chukchi Peninsula and Kolyma area. By the1960s he was a leading figure in regional archeology, following his discoveryof numerous Paleolithic and prehistoric sites in Kamchatka, Wrangell Island,and interior Chukchi Peninsula, among other locations. His publications in-clude The Chini Graveyard (Novosibirsk, 1974), Ancient Cultures of NortheastAsia (Moscow, 1977), Ancient cultures of Northeast Asia (Moscow, 1979), alongwith numerous papers. He also edited the reference regional handbook HistoryofChukotka{iCf-J4,iC)^<^).

BERNADETTE DRISCOLL, a Specialist in Inuit art and ethnography, is adoctoral candidate in the Department of Anthropology at the Johns HopkinsUniversity. Since the late 1970s she has worked on historical Inuit clothing inmuseum collections and through her fieldwork with seamstresses in the Cana-dian Arctic. As former curator of Inuit art at the Winnipeg Art Gallery, sheorganized more than 30 exhibitions. Her catalogue publications include TheInuit Amautik: I Like My Hood to Be Full (1980), Legends, and Songs (1982),Inuit Myths, and "Pretending to Be Caribou: The Inuit Parka as an ArtisticTradition" in The Spirit Sings: Artistic Traditions of Canada's First Peoples(1987). She is currently guest curator for the exhibition "Northern Light:Inuit Textile Art of the Canadian Arctic," organized by the Baltimore Muse-um of Art.

GALINA I. DZENISKEVICH is North American curator at the Museum/In-stitute of Anthropology and Ethnography in St. Petersburg. She is a recog-nized expert in traditional cultures of the Athapaskan Indians of Central andSouthern Alaska and of museum collections brought by the Russians in the1800s from their colonies in North America. She has published a monograph,"The Alaskan Athapaskans: Essays in Material and Spiritual Culture" (Lenin-grad, 1987), and several papers on those subjects.

ANN FIENUP-RIORDAN is an independent scholar with a doctorate in cul-tural anthropology. She has lived, worked, and taught in Alaska since 1973.Her work has focused on the history and oral traditions of the Yup'ik Eskimosof western Alaska. Her books include The Nelson Island Eskimo (1983), When

Our Bad Season Comes (1986), Eskimo Essays (1990), The Real People and theChildren of Thunder (1991), and Passages: Rule and Ritual in Central Yup'ik OralTradition (in press).

WILLIAM w. FITZHUGH is director of the Arctic Studies Center at theSmithsonian Institution, where he has served as chairman of the Departmentof Anthropology. A speciaHst in archeology and anthropology of Arctic re-gions, he has conducted fieldwork in Labrador, Baffin Island, and other north-ern areas. Special interests include prehistory and environmental archeology,circumpolar maritime adaptations, and culture contacts. He has produced sev-eral special exhibitions, most recently "Crossroads of Continents: Cultures ofAlaska and Siberia," which was a joint effort with American, Canadian, andRussian scholars. Recent books include Crossroads of Continents: Cultures ofAlaska and Siberia and Archeology of the Frobisher Voyages.

PETER FRANCIS, JR., is the director of the Center for Bead Research inLake Placid, New York, and a consultant to museums and other research in-stitutions around the world, including the Smithsonian and the University ofAlaska in Fairbanks. His research involves the manufacture, trade, and use ofall types of beads. He has written 20 monographs and nearly 300 articles,published in a dozen countries.

il'ia S. GURVICH, who died in 1992, was a leading figure in the studies ofnative peoples of Soviet Siberia throughout the 1970s and 1980s. His initialfieldwork was done among the Yakuts in northwestern Arctic Yakutia and itwas later expanded to include several other native nations of NortheastSiberia. Dr. Gurvich headed the Department of Northern Peoples of the for-mer Institute of Ethnography in Moscow for 20 years, and he personally su-pervised several long-term projects in ethnic history, the study of traditionalcultures, and Soviet-inspired modernization of the Siberian natives. He pub-lished several books, notably Ethnic History of Northeastern Siberia (Moscow,1966), and The Culture of the Northern Yakuts (Moscow, 1975), and about 200papers.

BILL HOLM is Curator emeritus of Northwest Coast Indian Art at theThomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum, University of Washing-ton, in Seattle. His major publications include Northwest Coast Indian Art: An

XVI

CONTRIBUTORS

Analysis of Form, Smoky-Top: The Art and Times of Willie Seaweed, and Spirit andAncestor: A Century of Northwest Coast Indian Art at the Burke Museum.

RICHARD H. JORDAN, who died in 1991, was chairman of the Departmentof Anthropology at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks. During his tragi-cally short life, he established an international reputation as a North Ameri-can Arctic archeologist whose field research ranged from Labrador and Green-land to Alaska. His major contributions were in Labrador prehistory andpaleoecology, Labrador Inuit historical archeology, the theory of Arctic culturechange and climatology, and the archeology of Kodiak Island, Alaska. Jordanwas an avid participant in the Crossroads project. He will also be rememberedas a superb teacher and as an early convert to community-relevant research inthe North.

MICHAEL KRAUSS is a professor of linguistics and director of the AlaskaNative Language Center at the University of Alaska in Fairbanks and a spe-cialist in Athapaskan-Eyak and Eskimo-Aleut languages since i960. The cen-ter's responsibilities include the documentation and study of all nativeAlaskan languages, and also their cultivation and promotion for future gener-ations in Alaska, as well as on an international scale. Krauss has accordinglybeen active in efforts to reestablish relations between Yupik Eskimos of Alas-ka and the former Soviet Chukotka who speak the same language but wereseparated by political barriers for 40 years.

LIUDMILA P. kuz'mina isa senior researcher at the Institute of Ethnologyin Moscow. Her fieldwork was done in the 1960s among the Russian peasantsand Old-Believers in Southern Siberia, mainly on their folklore and tradition-al beliefs. In the 1980s, Dr. Kuz'mina returned to the study of the SiberianOld-Believers, and began comparative studies on them and other RussianOld-Believers settled in Alaska, Oregon, and elsewhere in North America.

ROZA G. LIAPUNOVA, who died in 1992, was curator of North America atthe Museum/Institute of Anthropology and Ethnography in St. Petersburg.She was widely recognized as a leading expert in Russian museum collectionsfrom the Aleutian Islands and Southern Alaska dating to the 1700s and1800s. In the late 1970s, she became involved in various field projects amongthe Commander Island Aleuts of the Russian Far East with a view to record-

ing their cultural history and reestablishing their folk art and craft traditions.She published two books—Essays in Ethnography of the Aleuts (Leningrad,1975) and The Aleuts: Essays in Ethnic History (Leningrad, 1987)—and severalpapers.

ELENA A. MICKHAILOVA is a research fellow at the Institute/Museum ofAnthropology and Ethnography in St. Petersburg. Her Ph.D. dissertation fo-cused on cultural change and modernization among the Asiatic Eskimo in the1970s, and her later research shifted to traditional culture, rituals, and beliefsof the Siberian native people, as well as the Siberian and Alaskan Yupik Eski-mo.

JEAN-LOUP ROUSSELOT is curator of Arctic and North American ethnog-raphy at the Staatliche Museum fiir Volkerkunde in Munich. His long-termresearch interests include the ethnology, ethnic art, and traditional technolo-gies of the Western Arctic and the Caribbean, where he has conducted field-work since 1973. His recent publications include Masques Ekimo d'Alaska(1991), Kanuitpit? Due Aspetti delle Culture Eschimesi (Galleria Gottardo,Lugano, 1992), and a book on the Munich Museum Plains collection, Indianer^/(?r Pr^s^'m (Munich/Neuwied, 1993).

VALERll O. SHUBIN is a deputy director of the Sakhalin Regional Museumin the city of Yuzhno-Sakhalinsk, on Sakhalin Island. Her early work dealtwith the Neolithic history of Sakhalin Island and its local Neolithic cultures,ancestral to historic Ainu. During the 1980s, Dr. Shubin started a long-termarcheological survey of the post-contact sites on the Kurile Islands, mainly ofthe remains of the local outposts built by the Russian-American Company inthe late 1700s and early 1800s. Some of the findings have been published inseveral papers and reports. He is currently involved in several Russian-Ameri-can archeological projects on the Kurile Islands and Kodiak Island, and is thedirector on the Russian side for the small traveling version of the "Crossroadsof Continents" exhibition.

ZOIA P. SOKOLOVA is chairperson of the Department of the Peoples ofSiberia at the Moscow Institute of Ethnology. Her early fieldwork in the mid-1950s concentrated on the Khanty and Mansi people of Western Siberia, pri-marily on their dwelling and settlement patterns, traditional beliefs, social

XVIII

CONTRIBUTORS

Structure, and ethnohistory. Results of her extended research have been pub-lished in several monographs, including Social Organization of Khanty andMami during the i8th and ic^th Centuries (Moscow, 1983) and Endogamous Areaand Ethnic Group (Moscow, 1990). She has also published numerous papersand several books: The Land Yugoria (Moscow, 1976), In the Expanses of Siberia(Moscow, 1981), and The Trip to Yugra (Moscow , 1982). Recently, Dr. Sokolo-va has become involved in issues pertaining to native Siberian social and cul-tural development, self-determination, and modernization.

CHUNER M. TAKSAMI, chairperson, Siberian Department, Museum/Insti-tute of Anthropology and Ethnography, St. Petersburg, devoted his academiccareer to the study of his native people, the Nivkhs of the lower Amur Riverand of Sakhalin Island. His doctoral research focused on the traditionaldwelling and residential pattern of the Amur River Nivkhs, and the results ofhis extended research have appeared in several papers and monographs, no-tably The Nivkhs: Their Culture, Modern Economy, and Every-Day Life (Lenin-grad, 1967) and in Issues in Ethnography and History of the Nivkhs (Leningrad,1975). He is currently active in supporting political claims of the Siberian na-tive people, who are seeking the restoration of their hunting grounds, subsis-tence patterns, and cultural life.

CHRISTY G. TURNER II is Regents' Professor in the Department of An-thropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. His Arctic physical anthropo-logical and archeological research has been conducted in Alaska and in theformer Soviet Union. His bioarcheological studies on the peopling of the NewWorld have appeared in various publications, including National GeographicResearch and Scientific American.

VLADIMIR I. vasil'ev is a Senior research fellow at the Institute of Ethnol-ogy in Moscow. He began his field work among the Yenisei Nenets of the Cen-tral Siberian Arctic in the early 1960s, and he dedicated several decades to thestudy of the Samoyed peoples of northern Siberia. He was a student of the fa-mous Russian Siberian ethnohistorian Boris O. Dolgikh and under him be-came interested in ethnohistory, late prehistory, and the cultural dynamics ofnatives societies. His major publications include an ethnohistorical mono-graph. Issues in History of the Northern Samoyed Peoples (Moscow, 1979), several

Contributors xix

papers, and a number of contributions to volumes on the culture and historyof the Siberian native peoples.

MARIIA lA. ZHORNITSKAIA, of the Moscow Institute of Ethnology, beganher career as a professional ballet dancer who became an enthusiastic ethno-musicologist. With her original experience in native dancing and music ac-quired in Yakutia, in Central Siberia, in the 1970s, she expanded her researchto other native peoples of northeastern Siberia, mainly the Chukchi, Koryak,Siberian Eskimo, and Yukaghir. She has published two books: The Dances ofYakutia (Moscow, 1966) and Choreographic Art of the Indigenous Peoples of North-eastern Siberia (Moscow, 1983). She has also written several papers on tradi-tional dances, music festivals, games of the aboriginal Siberians, and theirtransformation under contacts, innovations, and governmental cultural poli-cies.

note: The editors are grateful to Igor I. Krupnik for his conscientiousproofreading of this volume and for his assistance with the contributors' list.

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH ANDVALERIE CHAUSSONNET

SOMETIMES IT HAPPENS THAT AN event, a discovery, or an undertak-ing, or a photograph, a snatch of poetry, or a slogan captures the dynamic of atime and in so doing comes to symbolize or represent these events to latergenerations. So it seems to have happened in the case of the joint UnitedStates—Soviet Union—Canadian exhibition program, "Crossroads of Conti-nents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska." What began as a scholarly project ex-ploring cultural, historical, and scientific exchange across a politically sensi-tive border at first seemed likely to invite censure and political or financialdisaster; but as it moved toward realization, the Crossroads program found it-self swept along in a tide of perestroika and glasnost, and its theme of culturalexchange and openness at Bering Strait found broader reverberations in theevolving international arena.

Even during the life of the project itself, previously unthinkable devel-opments occurred, such as the transformation of the previously hostile borderat Bering Strait into a zone of free travel and cultural exchange for native peo-ples. This fortunate coincidence of timing underlines the central theme of theCrossroads project—the need for a greater understanding of North Pacificpeoples and cultures, their relationships and histories, and the dynamics that

I

2

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH AND VALERIE CHAUSSONNET

shaped their development across this geographical frontier. None of these sub-jects can be studied or understood without reference to Asian—American con-tacts and history. It is to this subject that the current volume is dedicated.

The essays presented here were prepared as contributions to a two-daysymposium convened at the opening of the joint Soviet-American exhibition"Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska" at the SmithsonianInstitution's Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C., September18-19, 1988 (see figure i).^ This volume complements and expands on itscompanion volume, the exhibition catalogue, which bears the same title asthe show. Together, both volumes provide a regional overview of the anthro-pology, history, and art of the North Pacific region from a comparative, trans-Beringian perspective. This viewpoint, pioneered by Franz Boas with theMorris Jesup North Pacific Expedition (1898—1903), was the driving force ofintegrative Asian—American anthropological studies of the early twentiethcentury. But the political barriers imposed in the ensuing years severed tradi-tional contacts between native peoples and strangled a flourishing school ofNorth Pacific anthropological, linguistic, and folkloristic scholarship. There-fore subsequent work was forced into more politically and geographically con-fined modes. While these midcentury years brought a better understanding ofcultural diversity and dynamics within Siberia and Northwestern NorthAmerica (see, e.g., Handbook of North American Indians, vols. 5, 6, 7; and Levinand Potapov 1961, 1964), the political barriers had a devastating effect on in-tegrative North Pacific studies. Fieldwork exchanges were terminated, Russ-ian language training declined, and anthropologists and folklorists turnedelsewhere for research opportunities; even topographic maps portraying theSoviet Far East and Alaska on a single sheet ceased to be available.

From its inception, "Crossroads" was conceived as more than a jointSoviet—American—Canadian exhibition; its larger goal was to become a vehiclenot only for increasing public understanding of the little-known cultures ofthe North Pacific and Beringian region, but also for building scholarly con-tacts and future collaborative and research programs. At the time that the ex-hibit concept was formulated, from 1977 to 1983, these larger aspirationstook the form of dreams rather than of objective reality. In these difficultyears, when our work was interrupted because official contact had ceased—af-ter the 1979 invasion of Afghanistan and the 1983 downing of the Koreanjetliner—the participants were less than sanguine about the prospects of suc-cess. On more than one occasion we wondered if there would ever be an exhi-

FIGURE I. King Island Dancers at "Crossroads of Continents" opening, NationalMuseum of Natural History/National Museum of Man, Washington, D.C., September

1988. (Photograph by Jeff Tinsley)

bition and if perhaps the major contribution of the project might not be of amore personal and educational nature—that it would consist of developingscholarly contacts, learning about trans-Beringian cultures, and initiating in-ternational and institutional ties. At that time it was difficult enough toarrange a single scholarly visit without tempting fate with larger plans. Yet,as our work progressed and the outlines of the exhibition emerged, we becamebold enough to expand the framework of the traditional exhibition into alarger public and scholarly event and to think more seriously not only ofBeringian history but also of a significantly different political reality and thenew meaning of this continental "crossroads" today.

This volume is only one of the many "faces" of the Crossroads program,which also includes the central exhibition; film presentations; exchanges ofcurators and museum specialists; performances by native artists, dancers, andtradition-bearers; and smaller local exhibitions (still under development).Even museum activities are beginning to establish their own traditions; hap-pily for scholarship, one of these is the inaugural symposium. In our case, thisimportant event provided a mechanism to bring together a group of NorthPacific and Beringian scholars, some of whom were not able to take part di-rectly in the preparation of the exhibition but whose work was directly perti-nent to the subject matter. The symposium was convened under the auspices

of the Smithsonian Institution, the Institute of Ethnography of the thenUSSR Academy of Sciences, and the International Research and ExchangesBoard (IREX). Sponsorship for the program, which was held adjacent to the"Crossroads" exhibition in the Museum of Natural History's Evans Gallery,came from the National Museum of Natural History/Museum of Man, themuseum's Department of Anthropology and its newly created Arctic StudiesCenter, the Office of Conference Services, the Office of Interdisciplinary Stud-ies, the Office of International Relations, and the Office of Fellowships andGrants. Without this assistance and the help of many other organizations,such as the conference translations services of the Organization for AmericanSoviet Exchanges (OASES), the symposium could never have been held.

The purpose of the symposium was to provide an opportunity for NorthAmerican and Soviet scholars to present original scholarly papers on researchwithin the subject area of the exhibition, which included the Chukchi andBering Sea coasts and the North Pacific/Beringian rim from the Amur Riverto the southern Northwest Coast. This geographic region was selected for anumber of reasons—some cultural and historical; others related to pragmaticmatters of institutional relationships and capabilities, the availability of col-lections, and project protocol agreements.

This region of the North Pacific has long been considered fertile groundfor investigating the cultural and linguistic ties and cross-links between East-ern Siberia/the Russian Far East and Northwestern North America (Alaska/Northwest Coast) in prehistoric and historical times. Although the ties are tosome extent geographic and ecological in nature, they have a deep cultural,biological, and historical foundation. Far from being lost in an icy, fog-boundfastness at the ends of the "civilized" world, the North Pacific—Beringian re-gion can be more appropriately considered an "Arctic Mediterranean," a re-gion rich in natural resources and cultural diversity where the movements ofpeoples, materials, and ideas across a major geographic divide have given riseto a distinct heritage and several common bonds, ranging from similar subsis-tence strategies and technologies to comparable art forms, rituals, and reli-gious beliefs.

These ties appear especially strong when the groups on either side of thedivide are viewed with a comparative lens. One of the surprising discoveriesof the Jesup expedition was that widely separated fishing and seal-huntingcultures of the Northwest Coast and the Amur River/Sea of Okhotsk regionshow striking degrees of similarity in salmon and bear ceremonialism (Boas

1903, 1905; MacDonald 1983); likewise, some Siberian groups—such as theKoryak and Chukchi—have many folkloristic and mythological features incommon with Alaskan and Northwest Coast groups, most prominent in theirRaven cycle stories (see chapter 2). Whether or not these similarities resultfrom similar adaptations, similar resources and subsistence strategies, or per-haps from deeply rooted historical ties is a complex research problem of theregion. But as one follows the trend of coastal cultures north toward BeringStrait, Siberian and Alaskan groups increasingly shared a similar geographicaland ecological region and employed technologies and economies that empha-sized sea mammal hunting; and their cultural, biological, and linguistic rela-tionships can be explained more readily by a common origin and historicalcontact.

North Pacific and Bering/Chukchi Sea cultures also share a history ofcontact and historical exchanges following the arrival of Europeans, who firstcame to Siberia shortly after 1600 and whose numbers increased followingVitus Bering's first voyage in 1728. Anthropological knowledge of this regionis more specifically tied to the history of research on Siberian—American ex-changes that began with two projects having this geographic focus: the Mor-ris Jesup Expedition of the American Museum of Natural History, led byFranz Boas, which studied the ethnology, physical anthropology, folklore, lin-guistics, and ethnomusicology of the region; and Leroi-Gourhan's Archeologiedu Pacifique Nord (1946), which attempted the first archeological synthesis ofthe region.

The results of the Jesup expedition and analyses of other early ethno-graphic collections had a great impact on the later development of anthropo-logical theory in the Beringian region. Perhaps most important was the legacyof the "Americanoid" and "Eskimo wedge" theories developed by the Jochel-son, Bogoras, and Boas team, which built on previous work by Sternberg andothers (see chapter i). Both theories are still entrenched in current interpreta-tions of Beringian culture history; both need to be revised and reappraised.

After the Jesup expedition. North Pacific scholarship became eclipsed bydevelopments in circumpolar culture theory (Bogoras 1924, 1929; Gjessing1944). Then, with the onset of Stalinism, fieldwork and international contactsdeclined. Though folklorists and material culture specialists continued topublish comparative studies (e.g., Hatt 1969 [1914}, 1949), linguists andsocial anthropologists became disenchanted with the broad generalizationsderived from the Jesup expedition and turned away from comparative North

6 WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH AND VALERIE CHAUSSONNET

Pacific themes. Archeologists, however, continued to explore the possibility ofprehistoric contacts with distributional and stratigraphic techniques (Leroi-Gourhan 1946; Quimby 1947; Collins 1937; de Laguna 1934, 1940).

Throughout the twentieth century, studies of Asian-American contactand culture history have been the subject of a number of symposia, first at in-ternational meetings such as the Twenty-First Congress of Americanists (1925)and the Fifth Pacific Science Congress (1933). After a long hiatus, these meet-ings began again recently with the convening of special conferences, such asthe U.S.-USSR Symposium on the Peopling of the New World held in Wash-ington, D.C., in 1977, published in part in Arctic Anthropology 16(1), 1979.As the title suggests, most of the contributions were archeological, with a fewethnological presentations: "conspicuously missing from this symposium[were] linguistic studies" (Michael 1979:1)—a weakness that was to be some-what corrected by Michael Krauss at the next conference, held two years laterin Moscow. The most recent international conference to reflect this crescendoof interest was a meeting in Moscow in 1979, on the same theme, publishedin Russian under the title Traditsionnye Kul'tury Severnoi Sibiri i Severnoi Ameriki(Traditional cultures of Northern Siberia and Northern [North] America,Gurvich 1981), and distributed in the English translation under the title Cul-tures of the Bering Sea Region (Michael and VanStone n.d. [1983]). Also in 1983a collection of Soviet papers appeared: Na styke Chukotki i Aliaski (Crossroadsof Chukotka and Alaska, Alekseev 1983), consisting of ethnohistorical, demo-graphic, ethnological, physical anthropological, and archeological studies.That volume was followed in 1986 by another, focusing primarily on physicalanthropological data (Velikanova and Zolotareva 1986). IREX played a cen-tral role in supporting these later efforts through its Commission on Historyand Anthropology, whose sponsorship of scholarly exchanges beginning in1978 led directly to the "Crossroads" exhibition and research project.

The latest contribution in this series is the catalogue Crossroads of Conti-nents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988a). Planned asmore than an ordinary exhibition catalogue, its 360 pages of illustrated textsummarize the prehistory, history, anthropology, and art of the North Pacificregion from Paleolithic times to the present, with emphasis on- the materialculture and societies of the nineteenth century.^ A number of reviews of thismultiauthored book (it has 37 chapters) have appeared (see, for example.Gamble 1989; Krech 1989; Dyson 1989; Ray 1990; Steelquist 1990). A

Yale-Smithsonian seminar held in the spring of 1989 provided an additionalopportunity to discuss Crossroads themes (Hoover et al. 1990).

Like the exhibition itself, the symposium contributions presented hereaddress issues pertaining to cultural adaptation, the history and relationshipsof traditional cultures, archeological relationships and origins, material cul-ture studies, art, physical and cultural anthropology, and history. The contri-butions have been organized thematically rather than culturally, geographical-ly, chronologically, or by nationality of author. This arrangement betterreflects the orientation of the exhibition and the original comparative motivesof the organizers. Rather than emphasize differences in scholarly traditions,research topics, the degree of regional or topical knowledge, we intend thisvolume to promote greater understanding of the broader anthropological andhistorical issues surrounding the study of North Pacific peoples and to stimu-late new research across these long-sealed borders.

The first of these themes, treated in Part I, is the reinvestigation of thelong-standing questions concerning the links between Asian and Americanculture originally studied by the Jesup expedition and central to the exhibi-tion. Part II focuses on particular symbolic, ritualistic, or stylistic aspects of aspecific culture, developing this subject in greater detail than was possible inthe catalogue or in the exhibition itself. The essays in both parts point to aculturally rich and complex North Pacific region. Part III deals with thepeaceful and not so peaceful way in which exchanges, communication, cultur-al contacts, and contemporary "ethnic processes"^ occurred at the crossroads ofSiberia and Alaska from prehistoric times to the late 1980s and with thelong-awaited reopening of the border.

PART i: RESEARCH HISTORY ANDASIAN-AMERICAN LINKS

Few subjects have been of such long-standing interest to anthropologists asthe origin of New World peoples and their relationships to the Old World.The first scholar to propose affinities between American Indians and the peo-ples of Asia was Jose de Acosta (1598). In the sixteenth to seventeenth cen-turies, speculation on Indian and Eskimo origins concentrated on ties withWestern or Northern Europe, but in due course, knowledge of the peoples.

8

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH AND VALERIE CHAUSSONNET

culture, and languages of Asia and western North America gained throughthe observations of explorers like Krasheninnikov (1735-41, in Kamchatka),Steller (1741, in Alaska), and Cook (1778, in Alaska) led them and others toponder seriously the prescient views of de Acosta. In the mid-nineteenth cen-tury, geologists and paleontologists came to the conclusion that a land linkhad existed across Bering Strait during the last ice age and that animal andperhaps human migrations had used this route to enter (or leave) the NewWorld. Yet it was not until Franz Boas arrived at the American Museum ofNatural History that these hypotheses were put to the test in a systematicfashion. Boas's organization of the Morris Jesup Expedition was the first seri-ous investigation capable of confirming the extent and nature of these trans-Beringian ties, and his multidisciplinary, five-year research program was alogistical and intellectual tour-de-force without rival in subsequent anthropo-logical studies of large-scale regional relationships. Unfortunately for posteri-ty. Boas, who oversaw the completion of a 12-volume series of descriptivemonographs, grew increasingly skeptical of his early pronouncements sup-porting the theories of Asian—American ties and, perhaps for this reason, nev-er completed his own promised synthesis. The Crossroads of Continents cata-logue and symposium volume have been designed in part to fill this void andto serve as a starting point for reassessing this long-standing problem.

This history and the theories of Asian—American contacts are discussedin chapters 1—4, which present the intellectual foundations and historical is-sues that have motivated North Pacific anthropological studies. Chapter i ar-gues for a maritime North Pacific—Beringian entry route into the New Worldfor Early Man and supports the idea of a North Pacific, rather than a trans-V2i-cific, contact diffusion zone, with a predominantly west-to-east flow, as a con-tinuing force in cultural relations since the entry of man into the New Worldabout 14,000 years ago. These subjects, together with a discussion of thegoals and results of the Jesup expedition, amplify introductory materials pre-sented in the Crossroads catalogue (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988b).

These themes are developed further in chapter 2, by Dzeniskevich, whoconsiders the "unity" of North Pacific cultures to be well established andweighs issues of convergences against diffusion as explanations for Asian tiesof Athapaskan peoples—the latter usually considered the latest of the "Indi-an" groups to arrive in the New World (Turner 1988). Elements of Athapas-can material culture (such as quill work techniques) and mythological themes

Introduction 9

appear to support a trans-Beringian cultural linkage, Dzeniskevich argues.Her conclusions on mythology expand the results of the Jesup team and otherstudies pointing out Alaskan-Siberian links, especially in raven mythology(Bogoras 1902; Boas 1903, 1905; lokhel'son {Jochelson} 1904; Meletinskii1979; Gurvich 1979, n.d. [1983}; Liapunova 1987). As Dzeniskevich pointsout, however, "although not one of the facts mentioned contradicts the hy-pothesis about the possible migration of the NaDene-speaking tribes fromNortheastern Asia, none of these . . . serves as indisputable proof," with theresult that the debate wages on.

Chapter 3 examines the history of the Jesup expedition from both theRussian and American perspective. Kuz'mina amplifies Boas's description(1903, 1905) and explains the roles played by the wives of Bogoras and Jochel-son in the field research. Next, chapter 4 provides a summary of fieldwork andethnographic collections from the Russian Northeast in the Museum of An-thropology and Ethnography (MAE) in St. Petersburg (on MAE American col-lections, see Kinzhalov n.d. [1983}). Mikhailova notes important advances infield collecting techniques pioneered by Bogoras and Sternberg. Her essaycomplements the chapters on museum and collection history in the Crossroadscatalogue.

Chapters 5 and 6 present archeological and biological evidence (fromdental morphology) on Asian-American culture and population history thatreaches back to the appearance of late Pleistocene man in northeastern Siberiaand the peopling of the New World. In chapter 5, Dikov reviews importantfindings from the lower levels of the stratified site of Ushki on the KamchatkaRiver. Tools, dwellings, art, and other materials from this site date to ca.12,000—15,000 B.p. and bracket the earliest sites found in Alaska. New findsfrom early sites in the intervening regions of Chukotka are also discussed. Inchapter 6, Turner updates his contribution (1988) in the Crossroads catalogueon prehistoric population relationships with results from 700 additional indi-viduals from European and Asiatic skeletal populations. He defines a "GreaterBeringian" geopopulation center of distinct and long-standing tenure "whosepeople are distinct, yet resemble much more other northeast Asian Sinodontsthan European Russians, Mesolithic-Neolithic Ukrainians or hybrid WestSiberians. These data strongly dispute the notion that the Greater BeringianRealm inhabitants and other Native Americans had roots in late PleistoceneEurope."

lO WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH AND VALERIE CHAUSSONNET

PART II: SYMBOL AND O B J E C T — C O M P L E X I T Y INNORTH PACIFIC CULTURES

Part II moves off in another direction, departing from the broad geographic,cross-cultural approach of Part I. The essays here—except for those in chap-ters 7 and 13—treat the details of discrete cultural traditions that are boundup with another theme: the high degree of sociocultural complexity in the an-thropology of the North Pacific region.

Until a few years ago, most anthropologists saw little potential for com-plex forms of culture in the northern groups, which instead were consideredto be examples of extreme adaptations or analogs or relics of earlier (Paleolith-ic/Mesolithic) stages of evolutionary development. However, recent studieshave shown that northern maritime peoples may achieve remarkably high lev-els of cultural achievement (Fitzhugh 1975; Yesner 1980; Fitzhugh and Ka-plan 1982; Nash 1983; Jordan and Knecht 1988) and that of all northern re-gions, the North Pacific and Bering/Chukchi seas have higher populationdensities. In effect, the social, economic, and artistic achievements of this areaare comparable to, or even surpass, those of many simple chiefdoms andsmall-scale agriculturalists or more temperate regions (see, e.g., Price andBrown 1985).

Two chapters focus more particularly on the meaning and symbolism ofmaterial culture: chapter 7 on North Pacific clothing styles and chapter 8 onAleut/Koniag iconography. The extraordinary aesthetic quality of the artifactsdisplayed in the exhibition, noted by critics and reviewers alike, compels re-searchers to try to "decipher," as Black writes in chapter 8, its association withthe spiritual and the ritualistic. The study of symbolism is easily prone to at-tack at least on two fronts: first, the line between interpretation and specula-tion is often a thin one in areas where little oral tradition has survived andwhere historical sources must be viewed with caution; second, any compara-tive approach to style and symbolism raises the thorny issues of degrees ofsimilarity and questions of origin and function. Also, any significant localvariations within one cultural group in the meaning, the myth, or the rulesassociated with a certain practice or stylistic feature might seem to questionthe validity of one or another explanation, such as the variation in local inter-pretation of the meaning of "gusset" patterns (wedge-shaped fur insets on thechest, chapter 7) on the male Alaskan Eskimo parka. But these variations mayonly testify to the rich spiritual, symbolic, and aesthetic life of the native in-

habitants of the North Pacific area, as variation in mythology does also. In-spired by Hatt's classic study of circumpolar clothing (1969 [1914}) tracingrelationships between Arctic and Subarctic styles from Scandinavia to Green-land (but diverging from his stress on a search for origins and clothing-basedculture areas), Chaussonnet and DriscoU in chapter 7 analyze garments fromthe Crossroads of Continents catalogue (see also Chaussonnet 1988), as well asfrom various museum collections. They view clothing as a carrier of thegroup's sense of identity and beauty, but also, more significantly, of its cos-mology. Clothing is like a second skin that betrays a group's fears of powerfulspiritual forces through the display of equally powerful protective symbolsemployed on garments. In the socially stratified Northwest Coast cultures,these symbols are also, in an unclear combination of the secular and the spiri-tual, symbols of power over man. Similarly, Black explores iconographic tradi-tions and symbolism of the whaler's costume, especially the richly elaboratedbentwood hunting hat, whose signification or rank and prestige make this ob-ject the "Chilkat blanket" of the North Pacific Aleut tradition. These twochapters, following a path opened by Victor Turner (1967) and both provok-ing considerable conference debate, converge in characterizing North Pacific(or specifically Koniag/Aleut in the case of Black) clothing, headgear, andadornment as a means to seeking special power or protection by appearing asa transformed creature or animal spirit (a whale, in the Koniag/Aleut case; seealso Ivanov 1930). This theme was echoed in Fitzhugh's discussion of the im-portance of animal iconography in chapter i (see also Fitzhugh 1984, 1988;Fitzhugh and Kaplan 1982) and is further developed in chapters 9, 10, 11,and 16.

Closely linked to the theme of animal metamorphosis and hunting ritualis the subject of dance and dance costume. These subjects are addressed fromdifferent perspectives and traditions in chapters 7, 10, and 11. Chaussonnetand Driscoll (chapter 7) analyze the symbolic and ritual aspects of danceclothing, especially among the Koryak, and propose an astronomical theme inthe decoration of shaman clothing. Liapunova (chapter 10) discusses a groupof Koniag masks from the MAE collections obtained during a festival seasonin the 1840s by Ilia Voznesenskii, two of which appear in the Crossroads cata-logue (Fitzhugh and Crowell i988a:fig. 50 [MAE 571-6}; cover and fig. 368[MAE 571-12}). Liapunova presents a substantial part of Voznesenkii's de-tailed notes describing the Koniag "six-act mystery" in print for the firsttime. Zhornitskaia (chapter 11) examines the choreography among Northeast-

12

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH AND VALERIE CHAUSSONNET

ern Siberian groups and describes the pantomimic character of Eskimo, Itel-men, Koryak, and Chukchi dances. She relates choreography to festive occa-sions and the reenactment of a successful hunt (especially whaling), or to imi-tation of familiar animals. Dance, like masks and costumes bearing powerfulimages or animal representations, is an integral part of the rich cycle of cere-monials characteristic of North Pacific maritime cultures in particular. Theimportance of dance is also exemplified by two remarkable occurrences report-ed in chapters 19 and 23, where dance was used as a political strategy and amanifestation of joy after a long painful political situation.

Complexity in northern maritime cultures is expressed in many othercontributions in Part II. Rousselot (in chapter 13) and Holm (in chapter 14)describe stylistic, functional, and distributional aspects of the region's water-craft, which demonstrate the remarkable ingenuity used in applying local ma-terials to the creation of highly sophisticated, yet beautifully constructed, ves-sels (Sauer 1802:274; Dyson 1986). In addition, Vasil'ev (in chapter 15)discusses the social system of the cultures of Chukotka and Kamchatka, not-ing, in particular, the apparent lack of clan organization among the Chukchi,Koryak, Eskimo, and Itelmen. This issue was theoretically and historicallyimportant in Soviet anthropology because it was related to the definition ofclassic Marxist stages of cultural evolution. In chapter 16, Taksami describesfeatures of the cultures of the coastal Pacific Siberian cultures, "cultures offishermen and sea-mammal hunters," focusing on those common elements,ideological and cosmological, as well as material, found in all groups from thenorthern part of Chukotka to the delta of the Amur River. Crowell (chapter12) explores the technological, social, ritualistic, and symbolic aspects of theKoniag poison-dart whale-hunting complex, a practice that had only modestsubsistence value to Aleuts but that supported complex social and religioushierarchies and the transmission of esoteric knowledge. As with so many fea-tures of North Pacific cultures, even the origins and efficacy of poison technol-ogy itself is open to debate. In contrast to the strong economic basis of NorthAlaskan whaling, which was conducted by politically powerful umialiks withlarge skin boats and crews and was critical to community survival, Koniag(and eastern Aleutian) whaling had an esoteric, ritualistic cast and was carriedon, as Black notes in chapter 8, as "ritual warfare" waged one-on-one betweenindividual shaman-hunters and whales.

In chapter 9, Jordan shifts this discussion to matters of social, artistic,and technological production based on analysis of prehistoric Koniag settle-

ment patterns and material culture. The emergence of lineages, establishmentof elites, and growth of intervillage competition and warfare are all featuresassociated with a dramatic increase in cultural complexity that surround whatappears to be the emergence of the potlatching system shortly after a.d. 1400.These data scream for as-yet-unavailable comparative material from theNorthwest Coast.

What fueled these massive social changes, and where did they originate?Some Koniag elements, such as the technology of warfare (plate or rod armor),seem to have Aleutian and Asian origins, while its art has a Bering Sea Yupikcast and its dental morphology suggests Northwest Coast biological affinities.It seems that Kodiak, located in perhaps the most productive biological re-gion of the North Pacific and at the nexus of a number of different culturaltraditions, was a "crossroads" of its own.

One consequence of the high-density population and mobility of theNorth Pacific area was exchange, not only of ideas and technology, but also ofmaterial goods (see Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988a: 126—37, fig. 316). Chapter17's detailed catalogue of glass trade beads found on many of the exhibitionartifacts highlights cultural and individual preferences as much as it does ma-terial availability (see also Francis 1988:341). As Francis argues, the move-ment of beads and their usage as charms, items of value, and ornaments in allof these cultures testifies to the importance of trans-Beringian trade for allpeoples of this region; following the development of the historic sea otter furtrade, new trans-Pacific links began to unite Siberia, Alaska, the NorthwestCoast, the Pacific Islands, and China. Francis emphasizes the great utility ofthe lowly bead in the reconstruction of culture history and calls to mind theneed for detailed stylistic, functional, and symbolic studies of the relationshipof beaded designs to dyed hair and quill embroidery, precursors that have longbeen suggested as evidence of Asian—American contacts. Francis provides thelink to the third section of this volume, whose central theme relates to cultur-al and social processes.

PART III: INTERACTIONS — TRADE, WAR, AND PEACE

While the first two sections of the book present data and reflections on objectsand elements of cultural exchange, on history, the evolution of complexity,symbolism, and iconography. Part III is concerned primarily with the process-

es of sociocultural change in its social, cultural, technological, demographic,linguistic, and biological dimensions. The social relations of interchange are,after all, ultimately responsible for most of the changes recognized in the cul-tural record. The studies in this section are concerned not so much with thearcheological or ethnological elements proving (or disproving) the connectionbetween cultures in the North Pacific area as with the way peaceful or hostileexchanges took place before historical times (chapters i8, 19), with popula-tion movements related to Russian expansion in the North Pacific (chapter20), and with contemporary ethnic relations and the ethnic processes in thenortheastern part of the former Soviet Union and the impact of Russian nu-merical dominance on demography, ethnic identity, native language usage,and bilingualism (chapters 21 and 22). One conclusion that can be reached isthat the processes at work in the twentieth century do not seem qualitativelydifferent from those in early historical reports (Merck 1980), as discussed byGurvich and Fienup-Riordan here (chapters 18 and 19), and by Burch, Worl,and Lebedev in the Crossroads catalogue. In chapter 23, Krauss concludes witha review of the political history of border contacts.

Gurvich provides a scenario for interethnic contacts that emerges fromthe ethnohistorical record of the coastal peoples of Chukotka. Contacts be-tween these groups were based on economic and social exchanges, which werefrequently—but not always—beneficial to both parties. Economic exchangewas required to equalize regional imbalances in resources, or to acquire goodsthat could be exchanged through a remote network. Ritual exchanges werealso common, between individuals, villages, and even cultural groups. A vari-ety of mechanisms existed to support these exchanges, including long-dis-tance trade, trade fairs, and plunder and raiding for slaves, as well as goods.Historical analysis in Chukotka shows clearly the trend toward more competi-tive trading, raiding, and warfare after the establishment of the regional tradefairs in northeastern Siberia in the 1600s. In Siberia, this development causedthe expansion of reindeer breeding and European and Chinese trade goods,including tobacco, beads, and metal into eastern Chukotka and the gradualassimilation of Siberian Eskimo groups by the Chukchi traders. Effects werealso felt across Bering Strait as trade fairs, raiding, and general warfare in-creased in response to the expanding market for Siberian goods in exchangefor Alaskan furs.

War and peace are subjects that have been neglected in the anthropologi-

cal literature of the North Pacific, despite frequent note of warfare throughoutthe region. Here we encounter numerous stereotypes, but Httle in the way ofsolid data. Northeast Siberians, especially the Chukchi, are renowned warriorsof the open tundra who for centuries successfully resisted Cossack subjugationby force of arms. Warfare was also widespread in South Alaska and the North-west Coast. Some evidence suggests it was present as early as 2,000—3,000years ago (MacDonald 1983; Crowell 1988). Less well known is the fact thatwarfare was widespread among Eskimo groups of western Alaska, in contrastto the stereotype image of the smiling, "nonviolent" Eskimo. Violence was infact an important part of Alaskan Inupiat and Yupik life and was expressed ina wide range of behaviors between individuals, communities, and larger cul-tural groups (Burch 1974, 1988; Fienup-Riordan, this volume and 1990).This behavior is only beginning to be recognized and researched. Among themany facets needing investigation are the relationships between warfare andeconomic contacts, population growth, and population movements, all ofwhich increase dramatically in the North Pacific region beginning about2,500 years ago, as seen archeologically by the increased presence of exotictrade goods, war technology, the mutilation of human skeletal remains, ap-pearance of fortified sites, and other signs.

The impact of white presence and of what can be called white colonial-ism is also assessed in this last part of the volume. Fienup-Riordan notes inchapter 19 that although the advance of the whites in North American Indianterritory resulted from their more aggressive posture, the arrival of Europeansin Western Alaska marked the end of "the violent interregional struggles thathad characterized the region before their arrival." The impact of the Russianpresence in the Northern Pacific in the nineteenth century is assessed from anarcheological point of view by Shubin (chapter 20), who throws light on thelittle-known history of Kurile Island and shows that the involuntary partici-pation of Aleuts and Koniags brought there by Russians to develop the natur-al resources of the islands (fur) was crucial in the development of a distinctiveKurile culture through the influence of Russian and Ainu elements on Koniagculture.

The evolution of demography and ethnic identity in Siberia is discussedin chapter 21 and the shift in the use of native languages in chapter 22. Theapproach to questions of contemporary ethnic identity reflected in these chap-ters is characteristic of a dominant focus of research in former Soviet ethnogra-

phy (Bromlei 1974; Arutiunov 1989; see also Lebedev 1988). At the sametime, the recent opening of Soviet information about the situation of its "na-tionalities" brings a promise of more accurate and complete data than provid-ed in conservative works of the past 30 years.

At the same time that Siberian data were becoming scarce to the westernresearchers, the U.S.-USSR cold war was affecting millennia-old relationshipsbetween Siberian and Alaskan peoples. The volume closes with a comment onthe first sign of progress in the reopening of state-imposed boundaries in the"glasnost age." In chapter 23 Krauss explores the recent political history ofBeringian contacts and the circumstances leading to a long-awaited renewal ofdirect ties and concludes on a note of both hope and uncertainty about thefuture.

This section points out the uneven coverage given to many subjects thatreceived much attention in earlier research. In particular, contemporaryAmerican scholarship has given almost no attention to comparative folkloreand linguistics relating to Asian—American cross-ties, subjects that were ofprimary interest to the Jesup expedition and subsequent research through the1940s. Although these topics have been neglected in the North American tra-dition, they remain strong in Soviet and Russian scholarship (e.g., Chlenovn.d. [1983}; Meletinskii n.d. [1983}). Any new work in this area obviouslyneeds to take a structuralist approach.

We might also conclude with the obvious: that from the time of the Je-sup expedition, Asian—American anthropological, archeological, and historicalstudies have benefited enormously from internationalism and scholarly ex-change in which specialists trained in a Russian/Soviet or North Americantradition have conducted fieldwork across Bering Strait and have participatedwidely in conferences and publication projects. The decline in progress in re-solving many problems noted in recent years can be attributed directly to thiscentury's political history—the closing of borders and subsequent abandon-ment of Russian language scholarship and integrated North Pacific area stud-ies, especially by North Americans. From the chapters in this volume we canclearly see that our knowledge of trans-Beringian issues and dynamics hasbarely progressed beyond the level of the Jesup expedition's achievements.While our knowledge of Asian and American cultures has advanced greatly,our knowledge of their interrelationships is almost nil. The time is now ripefor a reanalysis and rediscovery of culture contacts and exchange in this vastnorthern crossroads region.

NOTES

We have respected the authors' transliteration of Russian sources in English languagepapers, but for those contributions originally written in Russian and translated by us,we have followed the simplified Library of Congress transliteration system used in theCrossroads of Continents catalogue. Valerie Chaussonnet translated the Russian contribu-tions, and edited those previously translated in the Soviet Union; Muriel Joffe andValerie Chaussonnet jointly translated Vasil'ev's contribution. Between the time thisvolume was prepared and was printed, the Soviet Union ceased to exist. The referencesto the former Soviet Union as a country have therefore been "updated" when appropri-ate, but the references to Soviet social sciences, politics, and so on have accurately re-mained "Soviet" in the text, as historical realities.

1. Except for one communication, all given at the symposium were included;three contributions, namely by Holm, Vasil'ev, and Francis and originally written forthe Crossroads catalogue but omitted or dramatically shortened because of space consid-erations, were added to this volume as important contributions to the research themes.

2. References to artifacts and illustrations from the Crossroads of Continents cata-logue are indicated by figure number, followed by the museum of origin and the origi-nal museum catalog number in brackets.

3. "Ethnic processes" is part of Soviet anthropological terminology. Soviet studiesof ethnic processes describe the dynamics of ethnic identity and include, among otheraspects of cultural phenomena, studies of linguistic evolution (e.g., the impact ofbilingualism, loss of native languages), demographic changes (e.g., the shift in ethnicaffiliation and merging of ethnic groups, impact of mixed marriages), and the generaltransformation of the way of life and ethnic self-identity. These studies were numerousin Soviet ethnographical research and focused, as a rule, on the evolution in the twenti-eth century of ethnic groups under the tremendous economic, social, and politicalchanges of the contemporary world (see, e.g., Bromlei 1974).

REFERENCESAcosta, Jose de

1598 Historia naturaly moral de las Indias. Enchuysen: Jacob Lenaertsz Meyn.Reprinted. Madrid, 1792, 2 vols.

Alekseev, Valerii (ed.)

1983 Na styke Chukotki i Aliaski (Crossroads of Chukotka and Alaska).Moscow: Nauka.

l8 WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH AND VALERIE CHAUSSONNET

Amtiunov, Sergei A.

1989 Narody i kul'tury, Razvitie i vzaimodeistvie (Peoples and cultures, theirdevelopment and interaction). Moscow: Nauka.

Arutiunov, Sergei A., and William W. Fitzhugh

1988 Prehistory of Siberia and the Bering Sea. In Crossroads of Continents:

Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell,eds., pp. 117-29. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Boas, Franz

1903 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. American Museum Journal3(5):72-ii9.

1905 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. In Proceedings of the InternationalCongress of Americanists, i ph Session, pp. 91—100. New York.

Bogoras, W. G.

1902 Folklore of Northeastern Asia as Compared with That of NorthwesternAmerica. American Anthropologist 4:577—683.

1924 New Problems of Ethnographical Research in Polar Countries: The 21st Inter-national Congress of Americanists. The Hague.

1929 Elements of the Culture of the Circumpolar Zone. American Anthropolo-gist n.s. 31 (4): 5 79-601.

Bromlei, Yu. (ed.)

1974 Soviet Ethnology and Anthropology Today. The Hague/Paris: Mouton.Burch, Ernest S., Jr.

1974 Eskimo Warfare in Northwest Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the Uni-versity of A laska 16:1-14.

1988 War and Trade. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and

Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds., pp. 227-40.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Chaussonnet, Valerie

1988 Needles and Animals: Women's Magic. In Crossroads of Continents: Cul-tures of Siberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell,eds., pp. 209—26. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Chlenov, Mikhail A.

n.d. [1983} The Whale in the Folklore and Mythology of Asian Eskimo. In Cul-

tures of the Bering Sea: Papers from an International Symposium. Henry N.Michael and James VanStone, eds., pp. 209—226. New York: Interna-tional Research and Exchanges Board.

Collins, Henry

1937 Archaeology of St. Lawrence Island. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Col-

lections (96)1. Washington, D.C.

Crowell, Aron

1988 Prehistory of Alaska's Pacific Coast. In Crossroads of Continents: Culturesof Siberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds.,pp. 130—40. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press.

de Laguna, Frederica

1934 The Archaeology of Cook Inlet, Alaska. University of Pennsylvania Press.

Reprint. Anchorage Historical Society, 1975.1940 Eskimo Lamps and Vot^. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Society ofGreat Britain and Ireland 70:53-76.

Dyson, George

1989 Review of Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Alaska and Siberia. SeaKayaker (Spring).

Fienup-Riordan, Ann

1990 Eskimo Essays. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.

Fitzhugh, William W.

1975 A Comparative Approach to Northern Maritime Adaptations. In Pre-historic Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone. William W. Fitzhugh, ed.,pp. 339—56. The Hague: Mouton.

1984 Images from the Past: Thoughts on Bering Sea Eskimo Art and Cul-ture. Expedition 26(2):24-39.

1988 Comparative Art of the North Pacific Rim. In Crossroads of Continents:Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell,eds., 294-312. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Fitzhugh, William W, and Aron Crowell

1988a (eds.) Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. Washington,D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press.1988b Crossroads of Continents: Beringian Oecumene. In Crossroads of Conti-

20

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH AND VALERIE CHAUSSONNET

nents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and AronCrowell, eds., pp. 9-16. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

Fitzhugh, William W, and Susan A. Kaplan

1982 Inua: Spirit World of the Bering Sea Eskimo. Washington, D.C.: Smith-sonian Institution Press.

Francis, Peter, Jr.

1988 Beads and Bead Trade in the North Pacific Region. In Crossroads ofContinents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh andAron Crowell, eds., p. 341. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institu-tion Press.

Gamble, Clive

1989 Editorial. A«//^^/>y 63(239): 1-3.

Gjessing, Gutorm

1944 The Circumpolar Stone Age. Acta Archaeologica 2.

Gurvich, Il'ia S.

1979 An Ethnographic Study of Cultural Parallels among the Aboriginal

Populations of Northern Asia and Northern North America. Arctic An-thropology 16(1): 32-38.

1981 Traditsionnye kul'tury Severnoi Sibiri i Severnoi Ameriki (Traditional cul-tures of Northern Siberia and Northern [North] America). Moscow:Nauka.

n.d. [1983} Concerning the Problems of Parallels in the Traditional Culture of theAborigines of North Asia and North America. In Cultures of the BeringSea Region: Papers from an International Symposium. Henry N. Michaeland James VanStone, eds., pp. 158-68. New York: International Re-search and Exchanges Board.

Hatt, Gudmund

1969 {1914] Arctic Skin Clothing in Eurasia and America: An Ethnographic Study.Arctic Anthropology 5(2):i-i32.1949 Asiatic Influence in American Folklore. Det. Kgl. Danske VidenskabernesSelskab, Historisk-Folologiske Meddelelser 31(6):!—122. Copenhagen.

Hoover, C, et al.

1990 Crossroads of Continents: Culture of Alaska and Siberia. Proceedings of the1989 Yale-Smithsonian Seminar in Material Culture Studies.

lokhel'son, V. I. {Jochelson}

1904 Ob aziatskikh i amerikanskikh elementakh v mifakh Koriakov (Asiaticand American elements in the Koryak myths). Zemlevedenieii(3):33-4i.

Ivanov, Sergei V.

1930 "Aleut Hunting Headgear and Its Ornamentation." Proceedings of the25d International Congress of Americanists. New York.

Jochelson, W. (see lokhel'son)

Jordan, Richard H., and Richard A. Knecht

1988 Archaeological Research on Western Kodiak Island, Alaska: The De-velopment of Koniag Culture. In Late Prehistoric Development of Alaska'sNative People. Robert D. Shaw, Roger Harritt, and Don E. Dumond,eds. Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series 4. Anchor-age: Aurora Press.

Kinzhalov, R. V.

n.d. [1983} History of the American Collections in the Museum of Anthropologyand Ethnography, Leningrad. In Cultures of the Bering Sea Region: Papersfrom an International Symposium. Henry N. Michael and James Van-Stone, eds. New York: International Research and Exchange Board.

Krech, Shepard III

1989 Northern Connection: Review of Crossroads of Continents: Cultures ofAlaska and Siberia. Science 19 May 1989:865-67.

Lebedev, V. V.

1988 Siberian Peoples: A Soviet View. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures ofSiberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, pp.314—18. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Leroi-Gourhan, Andre

1946 Archeologie du Pacifique-Nord. Materiaux pour I'Etude des Relations entre les

Peuples Riverains d'Asie et d'Amerique. Travaux et Memoires de I'lnstitutd'Ethnologie 42. Paris: Institut d'Ethnologie.

Levin, M. G., and L. P. Potapov (eds.)

1961 Istoriko-etnograficheskii atlas Sibiri (Historico-ethnographic atlas of

Siberia). Moscow-Leningrad: ANSSSR.1964 The Peoples of Siberia. Translated and edited by Stephen Dunn. Chicago:

University of Chicago Press. Originally published as Narody Sibiri.

Moscow: ANSSSR, 1956.

Liapunova, R. G.

1987. Raven in the Folklore and Mythology of the Aleuts. Soviet Anthropologyand Archaeology 26(i):3—20. Translated from Voron v fol'klore i mi-fologii Aleutov. In Fol'klor i ethnografiia. B. N. Putilov, ed., pp. 23—34.Nauka, 1984.

MacDonald, George

1983 Prehistoric Art of the Northern Northwest Coast. In Indian Art Tradi-tions of the Northwest Coast. Roy L. Carlson, ed., pp. 99—121. Burnaby,British Columbia: Simon Fraser University.

Meletinskii, E. M. (see also Meletinsky)

1979 Paleoasiatskii mifologischeskii epos (Paleoasiatic mythological epos).Moscow: Nauka.

n.d. [1983} The Paleo-Asian Raven Epos and the Relationship between NortheastAsia and Northwest America in Folklore. In Cultures of the Bering SeaRegion: Papers from an International Symposium. Henry N. Michael andJames VanStone, eds., pp. 227-48. New York: International Researchand Exchange Board.

Merck, C. H.

1980 Siberia and Northwestern America lySS—ijc)!: The Journal of Carl Hein-rich Merck. . . . Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press.

Michael, Henry N. (guest editor)

1979 U.S.-U.S.S.R. Symposium on the Peopling of the New World. ArcticAnthropology 16(1).

Michael, Henry N., and James VanStone (eds.)n.d. [1983} Cultures of the Bering Sea Region: Papers from an International Symposium.New York: International Research and Exchange Board.

Introduction 2 3

Nash, Ronald J.

1983 The Evolution of Maritime Cultures on the Northeast and Northwest Coasts ofAmerica. Department of Archaeology Publication 11. Burnaby, BritishColumbia: Simon Fraser University.

Price, T. Douglas, and James A. Brown (eds.)

1985 Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Complexity. Orlan-do, Fla.: Academic Press.

Quimby, George

1947 The Sadiron Lamp of Kamchatkla as a Clue to the Chronology of theAleut. American Antiquity 11(3):202—3.

Ray, D.J.

1990 Crossroads of Continents: Culture [sic} of Siberia and Alaska. Book Review.American Indian Art Magazine i5(3):83—95.

Sauer, Martin

1802 An Account of a Geographical and Astronomical Expedition to the NorthernParts of Russia . . . in the Years ijS^ to 1794. London: T. Cadell.

Steelquist, Robert

1990 Exhibit/Book Review; Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia andAlaska. Public Historian 12(2): 136—39.

Turner, Christy III

1988 Ancient Peoples of the North Pacific Rim. In Crossroads of Continents:Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell,eds., pp. Ill—16. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Turner, Victor

1967 The Forest of Symbols: Aspects ofNdembu Ritual. Ithaca, N.Y.: CornellUniversity Press.

Velikanova, M. S., and I. M. Zolotareva (eds.)

1986 Etnicheskie sviazy narodov Severa Azii i Ameriki po dannym antropologii(Ethnic links of the peoples of Northern Asia and America, based onphysical anthropological data). Moscow: Nauka.

24 WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH AND VALERIE CHAUSSONNET

Worl, Rosita

1988 Alaska Natives Today. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia andAlaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds., pp. 319—25.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Yesner, David

1980 Maritime Hunter-Gatherers: Ecology and Prehistory. Current Anthropol-ogy ^iq^j-'^o.

Research History and American-Asian Links

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE Cultures of the New World and theOld is one of the most enduring subjects in American anthropology (Boas1925). The central problem has persistently been whether native cultures ofthe Americas are a product of a unique history and development or whetherthey were significantly changed after the peopling of the Americas by OldWorld migrations or influences. Does the geographic isolation of the NewWorld cultures warrant studying them as an evolutionary system separatefrom the Old World? Or should they be considered part of a larger, interac-tive world system?

NEW WORLD CONTACTS

Early theories of New World civilization attributed many achievements ofAmerican Indian cultures to foreign intervention. These theories argued thatmidlatitude voyages by European, Asian, or Oceanian peoples account forsimilarities between the Old World and the New in architecture, technology,art, religion, language, and cultigens (Heine-Geldern and Ekholm 1951;

27

28

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH

Ekholm 1953, 1964; Smith 1953; Heine-Geldern 1959; Estrada and Meggers1961; Meggers, Evans, and Estrada 1965; Riley et al. 1971; Barnard 1972;Meggers 1975). Few such theories traced out any associations with North At-lantic voyaging, despite the acceptance of Norse contacts (Jones 1968; In-gstad 1977; McGhee 1984); those that have (Greenman 1948; Ridley i960;Kehoe 1962, 1971; McGhee 1983) are generally discounted.

Strangely enough, in the past diffusionist and migration investigationsgave little thought to the possibility of contacts around the rim of the NorthPacific and Bering Sea. Non-arctic specialists were usually concerned withonly the transit span of the "first Americans." Apart from the claims of vision-aries like Jose de Acosta (1598), Thomas Jefferson (1787), and the dispassion-ate Thomas Haven (1856), who chronicled early theories of New World na-tive peoples, little attention has been given to the region where the continentsvirtually touch and geography has channeled the movement of people sinceman arrived in the New World 14,000 years ago. It was almost a century afterthe 1741 voyages of Bering and Chirikov that paleontologists and anthropolo-gists began to accept the reality that man came to the New World as a resultof Beringian migrations. In view of the similarities that Steller, Krashenin-nikov. Cook, Sauer, Merck, and other explorers noted across the Bering Strait,this neglect is surprising.

In recent decades the isolationist position has become entrenched in aca-demic circles, partly in reaction to an excess of epigraphic and linguistic con-tact theories spawned by lingering beliefs in Phoenicians (Gordon 1971) anddynoflagellates borne by ocean currents (Fell 1978), and partly in reaction tothe more scholarly diffusion literature of the mid-twentieth century. As a re-sult, many archeologists apart from those familiar with Alaskan evidence al-most automatically reject claims of external contact except for a few popula-tion influxes across Bering Strait. In accepting this widely publicizedview—which is supported by some interpretations of linguistic, dental, mor-phological, and genetic evidence (e.g., Greenberg, Turner, and Zegura1986)—people tend to overlook the fact that Asian and Alaskan Beringianpeoples have shared a similar territory, ecology, and way of life for thousandsof years. Throughout this period, Bering Strait has been more a link than abarrier to cultural transmission. In rejecting the claims of transoceanic con-tacts, researchers have been so blinded by midlatitude bias that both diffu-sionists and isolationists have ignored the large body of archeological evidencefor contacts in the North Pacific and Bering Sea, believing it to be of only re-

29

gional significance (e.g., Collins 1937a, 1937b, 1951; de Laguna 1940; Leroi-Gourhan 1946; Quimby 1947; Larsen and Rainey 1948; Griffin 1953, i960;Rudenko 1961; Arutiunov and Sergeev 1968; Irving 1970; Alekseev 1979;Arutiunov 1979; Mochanov 1980; Ackerman 1982; Dumond 1982; Dikov1985; Fitzhugh 1988; Powers and Jordan 1990, and essays in this volume).

Historical trends are apparent in the dififerent cultural polarities of theEast and West coasts of the Americas. Although the Archaic cultures of theFar Northeast are similar to those of the Scandinavian Younger Stone Age(owing to convergence and parallel development {Fitzhugh 1975]), laterNorth European cultures, having come under the influence of Western civi-lization, exhibit few similarities to Northeast American cultures; and, exceptfor early theories of an Argentinean "Paleolithic," eastern South American cul-tures have never been seriously studied for African or European contacts. Bycontrast, contact theories concerning the cultures of western North and SouthAmerica have long cited similarities to Asian and Oceanian cultures. Whetheror not one agrees with the transoceanic mechanism (e.g., Heyerdahl 1963;Edwards 1972), the stylistic parallels around the Pacific rim are more abun-dant and more convincing than those around the Atlantic. While the greatestattention has been directed at the common features in Asian art and the archi-tecture of the high civilizations of Central and South America, the number ofparallels increases and becomes more specific as one proceeds north from themouth of the Columbia River to Bering Strait.

THE JESUP NORTH PACIFIC EXPEDITION

This brings us to the art and culture history of the North Pacific and BeringSea. Strictly speaking. Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim is about an exhibi-tion and not a research project. Its primary aim is not to settle Boas's questionsabout the history and relationships of American and Northeast Asian peoplesand cultures, but rather to explore these questions; to display the remarkablediversity as well as the similarities of cultures; to illustrate, mostly fromethnographic data, processes that resulted in Asian—American interactions inthe historic period; and to spark renewed research. Boas and his Russianethnographer colleagues, Bogoras and Jochelson, concluded that the culturesof the North Pacific, from the central Northwest Coast to the Amur River,were linked by a wide range of linguistic, folkloristic, and ethnographic ties.

30 WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH

Lacking sufficient archeoiogical and physical anthropological information, theybased their reconstructions on ethnographic and linguistic evidence. However,Boas never wrote his promised monograph synthesizing the Jesup North Pacif-ic findings, and the only other comparative project on this region—^Leroi-Gourhan's Archeologie du Pacifique-Nord {iC)^G)—also failed to produce a synthe-sis. As a result, compilation and comparison became a Crossroads priority.

The first question we posed, then, was what do we know and what do weneed to find out about Siberian—Alaskan relationships? The first half of thetwentieth century saw many contributions built on Jesup research data andnew discoveries in Alaskan archeology. Many were presented at AmericanistCongress meetings and at special symposia devoted to American—Siberian re-lationships and the "Eskimo problem." The death of many primary scholarsand the cold war put an end to these exchanges, which were not revived untilrecent years by the International Research and Exchanges Board (Michael1979; Michael and VanStone n.d. [1983}). Today the ground is prepared butnot thoroughly plowed. I. S. Gurvich (1979, n.d. [1983}), the most activeethnologist writing about Siberian—Alaskan cross-ties in recent years, hascalled attention to the shortcomings in ethnographic data and pointed out theneed for more detailed studies of trans-Beringian cultural elements (see alsoChlenov n.d. [1983}; Faynberg n.d. [1983}; Meletinsky n.d. [1983}). But thetruth is that there are no ethnographers practicing today with a thoroughknowledge of Soviet and American literature and collections. A generation ofpolitically imposed isolation has stifled the tradition of scholarly exchange be-gun by Boas and his colleagues. Consequently, we need a fresh start, new pro-jects, language training, and greater access to research collections and dataacross international borders; indeed, it is necessary to repeat the call issued 55years ago at the 1933 Pacific Science Congress by Knud Rasmussen, the greatarctic scientist, for an internationally integrated program of northern research(Rasmussen 1934:2772).

ETHNOGRAPHY OF THE NORTH PACIFIC ANDBERING SEA

The great problem confronting us is in identifying and understanding thesimilarities and differences between the cultures surrounding the northern

rim of the Pacific (figure i-i). This subject, of course, was at the heart of theJesup North Pacific Expedition (see bibhography) and has been treated bymany other specialists. After reviewing the Jesup data, Boas (1903, 1905),Bogoras (1902), Jochelson (1908, 1926a), and Laufer (1902) came to the fol-lowing general conclusions: (i) strong ethnographic ties linked NorthwestCoast cultures with Shrenk's (1883) linguistically defined "Paleo-Asiatic"groups of eastern Siberia—specifically, the Itelmen, Koryak, Chukchi, Chu-vantsy, and Yukaghir; (2) these ties were established when American culturesspread back into northeastern Siberia sometime after people first migrated tothe New World from Asia, an idea Jochelson (1928) called the "Americanoid"theory (now discounted by most scholars, even though the cultural similari-ties it was based on—Raven mythology, linguistic, and ethnological traits—remain unexplained); (3) this distribution of North Pacific culture traits ter-minated at the border between Paleo-Asiatic, Turkic-, and Tungus-speakingYakut, Evenk and Even; and (4) the distribution of similar cultures was inter-rupted in the middle by a group of Eskimo cultures that intruded into theNorth Pacific culture group from Canada (Boas 1905; this idea later becomeknown as the "Eskimo wedge" hypothesis).

Through the years, many of the conclusions reached by the Jesup teamhave remained influential, whereas others have proven controversial and havebeen substantially modified or abandoned (e.g., theories of linguistic ties).Henry Collins's archeological work on St. Lawrence Island (1937a, 1937b,1951) firmly established the ancient origins of Eskimo culture in BeringStrait and laid to rest Boas's theory of a Canadian origin; but Collins contin-ued to believe in a Thule "back-migration" into Alaska and Siberia from theeastern Arctic, ideas that supported, in part, the Jesup Americanoid theory.Hatt (1949) and Collins also pointed out that these conclusions relied on Inu-piat Eskimo mythology and failed to note that the Raven mythology of theBering Sea Eskimo (Yupik) (Nelson 1899) closely resembled Northwest Coastand Siberian mythology. Thus, only the Inupiat-speaking Eskimos north ofNorton Sound were possibly part of the "wedge" population. Apart from thenow-discounted Canadian origin theory, the Eskimo wedge theory has neverhad a full critique in American literature, probably because most Americanspecialists continue to favor a Bering Sea/Bering Strait origin of Eskimo cul-ture, while most Soviet specialists emphasize Siberian origins (Zolotarev1937:51—52; Okladnikov 1941:30-31; Rudenko 1961:179). Nevertheless,

33

the wedge concept still figures prominently in modern interpretations, manyof which suggest that an "ethnic mass" of Bering Strait Eskimo was a barrierto the wider distribution of Asian elements (e.g., iron, Asian tobacco andpipes) beyond Eskimo culture borders. This notion has led researchers to in-vestigate alternate routes, via the Aleutian Islands, for the non-Eskimoid sim-ilarities (roof-entry dwellings, mummification rituals, oil lamps, labrets, slatarmor, poison hunting techniques, and so on [Collins 1937a, 1937b; de Lagu-na 1932/33; Quimby 1947}).

Today, we recognize a host of cultural ties among cultures across BeringStrait, Raven mythology being but one of them. Others include plate and rodarmor, the sinew-backed bow, wrist-guards, and sinew-twisters; snow goggles;semisubterranean log houses with roof entries; the use of ground slate, oillamps, ulus, and skin boats; dog or reindeer traction; whaling by both floatand poison techniques; mummification ritual; harpoon and fishing technolo-gy; spring traps; beliefs about similarly named evil spirits {kele, kala, kalag)and similar deities of the sky and sea world; harvest festivals (whale, bladder,keretkun); specific features of the shamanism complex; and many more.

This literature of trait comparison and ethnic reconstruction, however,speaks little about history and process. How and when did these parallels be-come established? How are the traits distributed geographically, and in whatcultural or economic contexts? Why do they occur in some groups and not inothers? How can the study of parallels lead to an understanding of the historyof North Pacific peoples and of relationships between groups? In searching forculture elements and traits, twentieth-century anthropology has neglectedBoas's original goal and has failed to realize the potential of the Jesup expedi-tion data. Therefore, rather than review ethnological parallels, I will concen-trate here on distributions of systems, complexes, and structures that mayprovide evidence of a larger historical framework surrounding Bering Strait. Ibelieve that ethnographic distributions in particular, together with historicaland archeological data, provide insight into the cultural processes at work inthe Beringian region for at least the past 2,000 years. A similar approach wastaken in a study of Inupiat-Yupik relationships in western Alaska (Fitzhugh1988). In addition, recent studies have applied linguistic and physical anthro-pological data to these trans-Beringian questions (e.g., Greenberg, Turner,and Zegura 1986).

34 WILLIAM W. FITZHUGHSIMILARITIES

Crossroads encompasses many of the same culture groups included in the Jesupexpedition. The emphasis is on groups adapted to the Pacific and Bering Seacoast, beginning in the south with the subarctic fishing and marine mammalhunting cultures of the Northwest Coast (principally Tlingit) and the AmurRiver groups of southern Okhotsk Sea (figure 2-1). Both groups inhabited re-gions with ice-free waters, used toggling and barbed harpoons (Fitzhugh andCrowell 1988:161), lived in large plank houses (Fitzhugh and Crowell1988:205—6), had clan-based social organizations (Fitzhugh and Crowell1988:28, 60), and exhibited considerable specialization in their social, eco-nomic, and religious life (de Laguna 1988). Many specific features of bear cer-emonialism, especially in connection with harvest festivals, are found in thesegroups (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:29, 274). Graphic and sculptural art(Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:294) was important in the life of both Tlingitand Amur peoples and was conspicuously displayed on garments and everydayartifacts (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:209—26) and in similar types of petro-glyphic art (Okladnikov 1981; Lundy 1983). Of course, there were also greatdifferences, not the least of which had to do with metal technology, which wasimportant to peoples of the Amur region but did not exist in Alaska and onthe Northwest Coast, where smelted metal was present in pre-contact timesonly as a rare trade item or as a scavenged find from disabled Asian driftwrecks (Brooks 1876; Quimby 1985). Chinese and Japanese cultures alsoplaced a special stamp on the culturally diverse Amur peoples, who have com-plex and deeply rooted traditions about which little is yet known archeologi-cally.

In similar ways, Itelmen and Koryak can be compared with the Aleutculture (which Soviet archeologists often see as closely related to, if not de-rived from Kamchatka) and with Bering Sea Eskimos, with whom MaritimeKoryak share many cultural parallels, including hunting methods and equip-ment (harpoon equipment, skin kayaks; Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:158—9,168), hunting festivals (Nelson 1899:379; Jochelson 1908:65; Fitzhugh andCrowell 1988:255, 267), raven mythology (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:243),ritual life (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:49, 88, 222, 225, 255, 265), belief inthe spiritual power of grass (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:255), and shamanism(Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:246-8; Fitzhugh and Kaplan 1982). A third setof interesting comparisons lies with the interior-dwelling Reindeer Even,

Reindeer Koryak, and Reindeer Chukchi groups and the interior AthapaskanIndians. Despite a radical difference in their economy, subsistence technology(Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:183-93), and material culture (related to the ex-istence of reindeer nomadism on the Siberian side), interior Siberians andAthapaskan Indians shared certain clothing concepts and embroidery tech-niques and designs (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:220, 23).

The fourth group, the Maritime Chukchi/Asian Eskimos and theAlaskan Eskimos share a large array of cultural traditions, as expected, giventheir close linguistic and historical ties. Among the parallels worthy of noteare similar marine hunting technologies and transportation (Fitzhugh andCrowell 1988:159), spring traps (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:187) and rifleequipment (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:186), parka clothing styles, religiouslife, festivals, and fur embroidery. Of course, some cultural features are spreadthroughout the region, many of which have both general and specific similari-ties, including shamanism, hunting equipment, weapons and military tech-nology, and aspects of ceremonial and religious life.

South to north, these four groups (Amur River peoples and NorthwestCoast Indians; Maritime Koryak and Aleut/Bering Sea Eskimo; ReindeerEven/Koryak/Chukchi and Athapaskan Indian; and Maritime Chukchi/AsianEskimos and Alaskan Eskimos) inhabit an area ranging from temperate forest-ed coasts, to cold but ice-free coasts, to coastal ice-choked coasts, and treelesstundra environments. Several general observations can be made about thesegroups: (1) some similarities between Northeast Asia and North America arethe result of parallel changes in environment, ecology, and economic potential(e.g., wood/hide boats and open water/ice hunting harpoon gear); (2) therewas a significant decrease in geographic distance separating Asian and Ameri-can cultures and increased opportunities for indirect and direct contact; (3)specialized arctic adaptation was required in northern regions; (4) systematicchanges in social, demographic, and economic structures are evident as onemoves from temperate coastal environments to arctic regions; and (5) cross-cutting all of the above is a fifth factor relating to history and acculturation.Cultures on both sides of Bering Strait were in direct or indirect contact withmore advanced societies in Asia and were progressively acculturated or modi-fied by animal domestication, metal production, trade, warfare, and the intro-duction of products such as glass, cloth, and ceramics and artistic designs(geometric and floral themes). This acculturation gradient followed a distinctwest-to-east trend in Siberia. Its effects were also felt in western Alaska, in the

36

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH

Canadian Arctic, and to a lesser degree on the Northwest Coast. In northernNorth America, there was nothing comparable to the pervasive force of thesocial, economic, and technological change emanating from Eastern Asia andSiberia. In the historic period traditional Siberian influence in Alaska becameattenuated south of the Kuskokwim and nearly ceased in Bering Strait afterAmerican whaling began in 1850.

DIFFERENCES

These Asian and American cultures, especially the maritime groups, also dif-fered in important respects. One of these, as already mentioned, was the dis-tribution of higher technology. Metal production was not known amongAlaskan peoples, but they were at the receiving end of an Asian and Europeantrade that supplied them with metal products such as firearms, along withglass beads, cloth, tobacco, and other items. Knowledge of metal productionspread into northeastern Siberia during the contact period from the south andwest. Until Europeans disrupted native trade (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:234—40), Alaska was part of an expanding Siberian trade frontier that linkedpeoples with diverse cultures and economies in a far-reaching network whosecenters lay to the west in Siberia and south in Korea, China, and Japan.Archeological finds suggest that metal, shamanistic paraphernalia, and orna-mental objects from Siberia were important in the Eskimo culture of westernAlaska for more than 2,000 years (Collins 1937a; Larsen and Rainey 1948;McCartney 1988). Although economic ties in the historical period were pri-marily Siberian, the presence of Chinese pipe styles, trade beads, and tea, andearlier Chinese influence in art, mythology, religion, and military technology(Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:127-8, 230, 235, 238; Larsen and Rainey 1948;Collins 1971; Fitzhugh 1988:103) suggest eastern Asia was an importantsource of early influence.

Second, the marked diversity in the ethnic clothing and decorative stylesof all the coastal North Pacific groups, Siberian and American, is in sharpcontrast to the rather similar styles of clothing worn by the interior Siberiangroups, namely, the Even, Evenk, Evenk-acculturated Yukaghir, and ReindeerKoryak. The similarities among the interior Siberians resulted primarily fromtheir having adopted a reindeer economy and its associated technology, dress,and decorative patterns from Evenk (Tungus) and Yakut peoples (Fitzhughand Crowell 1988:35-38; Krupnik 1975; Vainshtein 1986). Their cultural

orientation was therefore to the west, to the Siberian interior, rather than tothe North Pacific maritime regions and cultures. These styles of clothing,geometric embroidery in reindeer hair and beads (Fitzhugh and Crowell1988:36—37, 210), and artifacts associated with reindeer nomadism (saddles,cradles, bags, hobbles, prods; Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:178-82, 297) con-tinued to expand into the Maritime Koryak and Chukchi areas together withthe reindeer economy in the historical period.

Third, differences are also evident in charms and amulets. Alaskan peo-ples universally ornamented their hunting equipment and many other imple-ments with hunting art depicting semihuman or beastly animal spirit helpersor spirit controllers intended to please or influence guardians, master deities,and spirits of their prey (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:122—23, 151—72).North of the Amur River, Siberian cultures rarely decorated their tools, whichtended to be designed for function, without symbolic overtones. However,many of their charms and spirit images were anthropomorphic (Fitzhugh andCrowell 1988:152, 194, 244, 248—49, 254, 297), in contrast to the animal oranimal-human imagery used by most American groups (Fitzhugh and Crow-ell 1988:152, 173, 166, 168, 256—60; but note the exception in Alaskan dollcharms, death masks, and ancestor figures, Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:84,126, 135, 171). This pattern of conventionalized anthropomorphic guardianswas especially common in Chukchi material culture but is also present inEven and Koryak implements. The pattern was most accentuated among rein-deer herding groups; it was less developed among the Maritime Koryak(Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:34, 254, whale effigies), and even less among theAmur groups, whose artifacts and charms frequently were ornamented withanimal art, as were those of the American cultures (Fitzhugh and Crowell1988:296).

Fourth, one of the most striking differences occurs in Siberian andAlaskan masking complexes. Masking was extremely important to Alaskancoastal groups south of Bering Strait (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:256—70,306—7). While each group and region had its own characteristic styles, thereare nevertheless some pronounced similarities between some types of Eskimo,Aleut, and Northwest Coast masks. An especially close relationship exists be-tween Yupik Eskimo and central Northwest Coast (Tsimshian, Kwakiutl)plaque, animal, and human-animal mechanical transformation masks. The ab-sence of a strong masking tradition among the Tlingit is a peculiar feature ofthis distribution (Drucker 1955). Still more unusual, perhaps, is the fact thatTlingit shaman masks (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:272) bear closer stylistic

38

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH

relationships to North Alaskan Inupiat Eskimo representational masks(Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:301) than to geographically closer Yupik con-ventionalized ones.

In contrast, Siberian masking complexes were weakly expressed in thenineteenth century. Siberian masks were extremely simple; most were used infunerary ritual, to drive away evil spirits, or "to scare children" (Jochelson1908:79—86; Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:300). These Asian masks representfaces with human anatomical features that emphasize gaunt demeanor and fa-cial hair (cf. Japanese Samurai helmets). Alaskan masks (with the exception ofInupiat Eskimo masks) rarely portray human faces and are often very elaborateportrayals of beastly or semihuman forms (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:256—70, 306—7). Simple grass masks were also used in the Koryak whale fes-tival (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:255).

The contrast between the highly developed American masking traditionand the weakly expressed Siberian complex is especially interesting, becausemasking was once more widespread in Siberia, according to archeological evi-dence: for example, the portrait-like funerary masks and semihuman spiritimages in Old Bering Sea culture (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:126—27);semihuman visages in North Pacific rock art (Okladnikov 1981; Lundy1983); and, farther afield in southern Asia, semihuman beastly faces in ethno-graphic Chinese, Japanese, and Buriat traditions (Ivanov and Stukalov 1975).Jesup expedition ethnographic data suggest that at that time masking tradi-tions were dying out in northeastern Siberia, where they were once more com-mon. In contrast, masking remained a vibrant tradition elsewhere in Asia andin Northwestern North America.

Differences in the geographic distribution of masking traditions mustreflect important changes in the history of North Pacific cultures. To NorthPacific peoples, masking symbolized a core belief about human identity—about one's definition of self with respect to economic, social, and spiritualforces. What factors caused masking traditions to diminish in importance innortheastern Siberia while they maintained or elaborated their function innorthwestern North America and Asia south of Siberia?

ICONOGRAPHY OF NORTH PACIFIC CULTURE CHANGE

These patterns are likely an expression of a long-standing Asian-American in-teraction that began when humans first crossed Bering Strait about 14,000

years ago. At present we cannot be certain about the nature of the earliesttrans-Beringian contacts, which resulted in at least some degree of culturalhomogeneity, probably Asian-inspired, in the form of the Siberian-AlaskanPaleoarctic tradition. But by 5,000 years ago, archeological evidence of Asianinfluence on Alaskan cultures begins to mount. An Asian neolithic-derivedtradition (ASTt/Denbigh) appears in the American Arctic after 4,500 b.p.(Irving 1970; Dumond 1977:92; Powers and Jordan 1990), and by the latefirst millennium B.C. similarities between Okhotsk and Norton cultures sug-gest a possible Asian influx (Dumond 1982:47). By 2,000 years ago, bronzeand iron artifacts appear in early Eskimo sites in Bering Strait as a result ofthe northeastward expansion of Asian metallurgy and trade contacts. New ele-ments of Asian shamanistic art also appear at this time (Larsen and Rainey1948; Collins 1971; Fitzhugh 1988), as does Asian military technology,which suggests increased warfare and population movements.

One of the elements shared by the cultures of the North Pacific at thistime (ca. 2,000 b.p.) was the elaborate decoration of material culture, especial-ly of hunting implements. The profusion of hunting art, including the deco-ration of even simple tools like ulu knives and boot creasers used to processanimal materials, is a striking feature of archeological complexes. Old BeringSea, Ipiutak, Kachemak, Locarno/Marpole, and other American cultures alldemonstrate this characteristic. Asian cultures (e.g., Okhotsk, Old Koryak,early Ainu, and others) also utilize hunting art, while the presence of Asianelements incorporating Scytho-Siberian elements in early Alaskan complexessuggests a widespread distribution of animal-style hunting art in northeasternSiberia (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:129; Dikov 1972; Okladnikov 1981).

The function of hunting art in these prehistoric societies is perhaps bestunderstood by analogy with the Old Bering Sea culture's spiritual descendant,ethnographic Bering Sea (Yupik) Eskimo in southwest Alaska. Here we see artused as one of the hunter's principal means of communicating respect for preyspirits through artfully designed and decorated hunting implements, imagesof helping spirits depicted as powerful predators or mythological beasts onharpoon gear, and private and public ritual honoring animal spirits and spirit-controllers (Nelson 1899; Fitzhugh and Kaplan 1982). As in the prehistoricperiod, even implements used to process animal materials are decorated inthis fashion. Similar concepts motivate the ethnographic arts of the Koryak,Ainu, and Amur River peoples.

About 2,000 years ago, the bearers of these traditions came under theinfluence of reindeer herding peoples who were expanding into western

40

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH

Northeast Siberia. As they advanced, taking over prime grazing lands andexterminating wild reindeer stocks to reduce competition, resident hunterswere displaced or assimilated, and some adopted herding themselves (Krup-nik 1975; Vainshtein 1986). By this process, between 500 and 1,000 yearsago. Even and Chukchi herders reached the Chukotka and Okhotsk coasts;came in contact with Koryak, Eskimos, and other maritime groups; and es-tablished themselves as middlemen in the rapidly expanding Siberia-Alaskatrade.

The reindeer herding economy drastically changed the lives of the for-mer hunting peoples of interior Siberia. In addition to providing a more se-cure subsistence, herding brought opportunities for population growth, terri-torial expansion, and trade and produced changes in dress and ornamentation;it also gave rise to increased use of metal and other foreign products. More-over, because the new economy made it necessary to manage and control ani-mals whose spirits had previously been considered independent and beyondhuman powers to control (except through gentle persuasion), herding re-quired new religious beliefs and iconography.

Judging from ethnographic evidence, one of the principal consequencesof this Siberian economic transformation was a devaluation of animal-stylehunting art in weapons, clothing, and other types of material culture. Whatappeared in its place, and is seen throughout the region occupied by herdinggroups, is a religious view that portrayed guardians and other spirits as simpleconventionalized human figures (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:194) and crotch-shaped human stylizations (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:242, 244). Whereasprevious religious iconography was dominated by semihuman spirit-con-trollers and human-animal transformation art symbolizing reciprocity, part-nership, and mutual respect as operative principles governing human-animalrelationships, the reindeer economy was contextualized in a human-formiconography that defined the human-animal relationship in human terms. Inthis system spirits formerly defined as "non-human persons" (Fienup-Riordan1988) and visualized as part-man/part-animal took strictly human shape, andnew forms of ritual, including blood sacrifice, appeared.

Yet whereas human-image charms predominated in the reindeer herdingareas, they only partly replaced zoomorphic and semihuman spirit figuresamong the sedentary Maritime Koryak sea mammal hunters and fishermen,and among the Amur groups where the ancient animal-based art (seeminglywith a strong t'ao-t'ieh legacy) continued in the decoration of clothing and

other material culture. In Alaska and the Northwest Coast, beyond the influ-ence of Asian reindeer-herding peoples, the old tradition of animal and ani-mal-human transformation art continued, except among the Alaskan Inupiat.Here, the Asian social and economic influence caused a decline in animal-hu-man hunting art with the appearance of Punuk culture and the whaling econ-omy ca. A.D. 700.

This hypothesis, which is grounded more in ethnographic than in arche-ological data, may help explain some of the larger patterns in iconography andmaterial culture in Siberia and Alaska during the past 2,000 years. It links adecline in masking and animal-human transformation art in Siberia to the ex-pansion of reindeer herding, the growth of Asian-Alaskan trade, and new reli-gious concepts. (Not all of these changes are necessarily original to the rein-deer economy and may have originated elsewhere, e.g., in Taoism.) It alsoallows for a buffering of these changes among Asian coastal populations in theAmur-Kamchatka region where a marine mammal hunting and fishing econo-my persisted, together with traditional North Pacific hunting art and ritual.That this shift in ancient patterns was essentially a Siberian/Central Asianphenomenon is suggested by the continuation of masking and zoomorphic orsemihuman beastly art in eastern Asia, where domesticated economies werealso present but did not result in a similar loss of masking and animal art.Furthermore, it explains the persistence among Alaska's Yupik Eskimo,Aleut, and Northwest Coast hunting and fishing peoples of the ancient hunt-ing religion and hunter's art, the roots of which ultimately lie in Old WorldPaleolithic traditions. For this reason, I believe that the thematic and designsimilarities seen in the ethnographic art of Northwest Coast and Amur peo-ples (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988: 309) will eventually be linked archeologi-cally to Old Bering Sea, Ipiutak, and ancient Chinese art. If so, theories suchas Covarrubias's (1954) Shang ties and Heine-Geldern's (1966) "Old PacificStyle" will eventually be recognized as convincing frameworks for a North Pa-cific oecumene.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, Robert E.

1982 The Neolithic-Bronze Age Cultures of Asia and the Norton Phase ofAlaskan Prehistory. Arctic Anthropology 19(2):! 1-38.

42

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH

de Acosta, Jose

1598 Historia Natural y Moral de las Indias. Enchuysen: Jacob Lenaretz Meyn.Reprinted. Madrid 1792, 2 vols.

Alekseev, Valerii

1979 The Genetic Structure of Asiatic Eskimos and Coastal Chukchis Com-pared to That of American Arctic Populations. Arctic Anthropology16(1): 147-64.

Arutiunov, Sergei

1979 Problems of Comparative Studies in Arctic Maritime Cultures Basedon Archaeological Data. Arctic Anthropology i6(i):27-3i.

Arutiunov, Sergei, and D. Sergeev

1968 Two Millennia of Cultural Evolution of Bering Sea Hunters. Arctic An-thropology 5(i):72-5.

Barnard, Noel (ed.)

1972 Early Chinese Art and Its Possible Influence in the Pacific Basin. 3 vols.New York: Intercultural Arts Press.

Boas, Franz

1903 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. American Museum Journal3(5):72-ii9.

1905 The Jesup North Pacific Expedition. In Proceedings of the InternationalCongress of Americanists, 13 th session, pp. 91-100. New York.

1908 Die Resultate der Jesup-Expedition. In Congres International des Ameri-canistes, i6th Session, pp. 3—18. Vienna.

1910 Ethnological Problems in Canada. Journal of the Royal AnthropologicalInstitute of Great Britain and Ireland 40:529—39.

1925 America and the Old World. In Proceedings of the International

Congress of Americanists, 21st Session, vol. 2, pp. 21-28. Goteborg.

1933 Relationships between North-west America and North-east Asia. InThe American Aborigines: Their Origin and Antiquity. Diamond Jenness,ed., pp. 357—70. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Bogoras, Waldemar

1901 The Chuckchi of Northeastern Asia. American Anthropologist 3:80—108.

1902 Folklore of Northeastern Asia as Compared with That of NorthwesternAmerica. American Anthropologist 4:577—683.

1904-09 The Chuckchee. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition 7. Memoirs of the

American Museum of Natural History. Leiden/New York.Reprinted.

New York: AMS Press, 1975.1910 Chuckchee Mythology. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition 8(1). Memoirs

of the American Museum of Natural History. Leiden/New York.

Reprinted. New York: AMS Press, 1975.1913 The Eskimo of Siberia. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition 8(3).

Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History. Leiden/New

York. Reprinted. New York: AMS Press, 1975.1935 Drevneishie elementy v iazyke aziatskikh eskimosov (Ancient elements in

the language of the Asiatic Eskimo). Sbornik AN SSSR 16.

Brooks, Charles Wolcott

1876 Report of the Japanese Vessels Wrecked in the North Pacific Ocean, from Earli-est Records to the Present Time. Proceedings of the California Academy ofSciences, 6.

Chlenov, Mikhail A.

n.d. [1983] The Whale in the Folklore and Mythology of Asian Eskimos. In Cul-tures of the Bering Sea Region: Papers from an International Symposium.Henry N. Michael and James W. VanStone, eds., pp. 209—26. NewYork: International Research and Exchanges Board.

Collins, Henry B.

1937a Culture Migrations and Contacts in the Bering Sea Region. AmericanAnthropologist 39(3):375-84.

1937b The Archeology of St. Lawrence Island. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collec-tions 96(1). Washington, D.C.

1951 The Origin and Antiquity of the Eskimo. In Annual Report of the Smith-sonian Institution for 1930, pp. 423-67. Washington, D.C.

1971 Composite Masks: Chinese and Eskimo. Anthropologica n.s. 13(1-2):271-78.

Covarrubias, Miguel

1954 The Eagle, the Jaguar, and the Serpent: Indian Art of the Americas; NorthAmerica: Alaska, Canada, and the United States. New York: Alfred A.Knopf.

de Laguna, Frederica

1932/33 A Comparison of Eskimo and Paleolithic Art. American Journal of Ar-chaeology 36(4):477-511 and ^j(i):j-j—io-/.

1940 Eskimo Lamps and Vots. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute ofGreat Britain and Ireland 70(1): 5 3—76.

1988 Potlatch Ceremonialism on the Northwest Coast. In Crossroads of Conti-nents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. William Fitzhugh and Aron Crow-ell, eds., pp. 271-80. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Dikov, Nikolai N.

1972 Les Petroglyphes de Pegtymel et leur Appartenance Ethnique. Inter-Nord 12:245-61.

1985 The Paleolithic of Northeastern Asia and Its relations with the Pale-olithic of America. Inter-Nord 17. Paris.

Dumond, Don E.

1977 The Eskimos and Aleuts. London: Thames and Hudson.1982 Trends and Traditions in Alaskan Prehistory: The Place of Norton Cul-ture. Arctic Anthropology 19(2): 11-38.

Edwards, C. R.

1972 New World Perspectives on Pre-European Voyaging in the Pacific. InEarly Chinese Art and Its Possible Influences in the Pacific Basin, vol. 3.Noel Barnard, ed., pp. 843-88. New York: Intercultural Arts Press.

Ekholm, Gordon F.

1953 A Possible Focus of Asiatic Influence in the Late Classic Cultures ofMesoamerica. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 9:72—89.

1964 Transpacific Contacts. In Prehistoric Man in the New World. J. D. Jen-nings and E. Norbeck, eds., pp. 489-510. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

Estrada, Emilio, and Betty J. Meggars

1961 A Complex of Traits of Probable Transpacific Origin on the Coast ofEcuador. American Anthropologist 63(5): 913-39.

Fagan, Brian M.

1987 The Great Journey: The Peopling of Ancient America. New York/London:Thames and Hudson.

Faynberg, L. A.

n.d. [1983} On Certain Parallels in the Culture of the Samoyeds and Eskimos:

Concerning Ancient Ethnic Relationships between Asia and America.In Cultures of the Bering Sea Region: Papers from an International

Symposium. Henry N. Michael and James W. VanStone, eds., pp.150—57. New York: International Research and Exchange Board.

Fienup-Riordan, Ann

1988 Eye of the Dance: Spiritual Life of the Bering Sea Eskimo. In Crossroadsof Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh andAron Crowell, eds., pp. 256-70. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Insti-tution Press.

Fell, Barry

1978 America B.C.: Ancient Settlers in the New World. New York: PocketBooks.

Fitzhugh, William W.

1975 A Comparative Approach to Northern Maritime Adaptations. In Pre-historic Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone. William W. Fitzhugh, ed.,pp. 339—56. The Hague: Mouton.

1988 Persistence and Change in Art and Ideology in Western Alaskan Eski-mo Cultures. In Late Prehistoric Development of Alaska's Native People.Robert Shaw, Roger K. Harritt, and Don E. Dumond, eds., pp.81—106. Anchorage: Alaska Anthropological Association.

Fitzhugh, William W, and Aron Crowell (eds.)

1988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Fitzhugh, William W, and Susan A. Kaplan

1982 Inua: Spirit World of the Bering Sea Eskimo. Washington, D.C.: Smith-sonian Institution Press.

Gordon, Cyrus H.

1971 Before Columbus; Links between the Old World and Ancient America. NewYork: Crown.

Greenberg, Joseph H., Christy Turner II, and Stephen Zegura

1986 The Settlement of the Americas: A Comparison of the Linguistic,Dental, and Genetic Evidence. Current Anthropology 27:477-97.

Greenman, Frank E.

1948 The Killarney Sequence and Its Old World Connections. Papers of theMichigan Academy of Science, Arts and Letters 32: 313—32. Ann Arbor.

46 WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH

Griffin, James B.

1953 A Preliminary Statement on the Pottery from Cape Denbigh, Alaska.

Memoirs of the Society of American Archaeology 9 (Asia and North Ameri-ca, Transpacific Contacts). Jesse D. Jennings, ed., pp. 40—42. Salt LakeCity, Utah: Society of American Archaeology.

i960 Some Prehistoric Connections between Siberia and America. Science131: 801-12.

Gurvich, Il'ia S.

1979 An Ethnographic Study of Cultural Parallels among the Aboriginal

Populations of Northern Asia and Northern North America. Arctic An-thropology i6(i):32-38.n.d. [1983} Concerning the Problems of Parallels in the Traditional Culture of theAborigines of North Asia and North America. In Cultures of the BeringSea: Papers from an International Symposium. Henry N. Michael andJames Van Stone, eds., pp. 158—68. New York: International Researchand Exchanges Board.

Hatt, Gudmund

1949 Asiatic Influences in American Folklore. Det kgl. Danske VidenskabernesSelskab, Historisk-Filologiske Meddelelser 3i(6):i-i22. Copenhagen.

Haven, Samuel

1856 Archaeology of the United States. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowl-edge. Washington, D.C.

Heine-Geldern, Robert von

1959 Representations of the Asiatic Tiger in the Art of the Chavin

Culture: A Proof of Early Contacts between China and Peru. Actas del

XXXIII Congresso de Americanistas, tomo II. pp. 195-206. San Jose,

Puerto Rico: Lehmann.1966 A Note on Relations between the Art Styles of the Maori and of

Ancient China. Weiner Beitrage zur Kulturgeschichte und Linguistik

15:47-68. Vienna.

Heine-Geldern, Robert von, and Gordon F. Ekholm

1951 Significant Parallels in the Symbolic Arts of Southern Asia and Middle Amer-ica. Selected Papers of the 29th International Congress of Americanists,vol. I. Sol Tax, ed., pp. 299-309. Chicago: University of ChicagoPress.

Heyerdahl, Thor

1963 Feasible Ocean Routes to and from the Americas in pre-ColumbianTimes. American Antiquity 28:482-88.

Ingstad, Anne Stine

1977 The Discovery of a Norse Settlement in America. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Irving, William N.

1970 The Arctic Small Tool Tradition. In Proceedings of the 8th InternationalCongress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, vol. 3. pp. 340—42.Tokyo/Kyoto: Science Council of Japan.

Ivanov, I., and V. Stukalov

1975 Ancient Masks of Siberian Peoples. Leningrad: Aurora.

Jochelson, Waldemar

1905 Essay on the Grammar of the Yukaghir Language. American Anthropolo-gist n.s. 7:369-424.

1907 Etnolingvisticheskie problemy na severnykh beregakh Tikhogo okeana. IzvestiiaRusskogo Geograficheskogo Obshchestva 13 (Ethno-linguistic prob-lems of the Northern Coasts of the Pacific Ocean). Bulletin of theRussian Geographic Society 13.

1908 The Koryak. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition 6. Memoirs of theAmerican Museum of Natural History. Leiden/New York. Reprinted.New York: AMS Press, 1975.

1926a The Yukaghir and the Yukaghirized Tungus. The Jesup North Pacific Ex-pedition 9. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History.Leiden/New York. Reprinted. New York: AMS Press, 1975.

1926b The Ethnological Problems of the Bering Sea. American MuseumJournal 26(1):90—95.

1928 Peoples of Asiatic Russia. New York: American Museum of NaturalHistory.

1933 History, Ethnology, and Anthropology of the Aleut. Washington, ^D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Jones, Gwynn

1968 The History of the Vikings. New York: Oxford University Press.

Kehoe, Alice B.

1962 A Hypothesis on the Origin of Northeastern American Pottery. South-west Journal of Anthropology 18:20-29.

48

WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH

1971 Small Boats upon the North Atlantic. In Man across the Sea. CarrollRiley, J. Charles Kelley, Campbell W. Pennington, and Robert L.Rands, eds., pp. 275—92. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Krasheninnikov, Stepan P.

1755 [1972] Exploration of Kamchatka. Translated with introduction notes byE. A. P. Crowhart-Vaughn. Portland: Oregon Historical Society. Origi-nally published as Opisanie Zemli Kamchatki.

Krupnik, Igor I.

1975 Prirodnaya sreda i evoliutsiia tundrovogo olenevodstva (The NaturalEnvironment and the Evolution of Reindeer Herding among theTundra People). Moscow. In: Karta, Skhema, i Chislo v EtnicheskoiGeografii (Map, diagram, and number in the ethnic geography). Editedby S.A. Arutiunov, pp. 26^3- Moscow: Geographical Society.

Larsen, Helge, and Froelich Rainey

1948 Ipiutak and the Arctic Whale Hunting Culture. Anthropological Papers ofthe American Museum of Natural History 42. New York.

Laufer, Berthold

1902 The Decorative Art of the Amur Tribes. The Jesup North Expedition 4.

Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History. Leiden/NewYork. Reprinted. New York: AMS Press, 1975.

Leroi-Gourhan, Andre

1946 Archeologie du Pacifique-Nord. Materiauxpour I'etude des Relations entre lesPeuples Riverains d'Asie et d'Amerique. Travaux et Memoires de L'Institutd'Ethnologie 42. Paris.

Lundy, Doris

1983 Styles of Coastal Rock Art. In Indian Art and Traditions of the NorthwestCoast. Roy L. Carson, ed., pp. 89-98. Burnaby, B.C.: ArchaeologyPress, Simon Eraser University.

McCartney, Allen P.

1988 Late Prehistoric Metal Use in the New World Arctic. In The Late

Prehistoric Development of Alaska's Native Peoples. Robert D. Shaw, RogerK. Harritt, and Don E. Dumond, eds., pp. 57—80. Anchorage: AlaskaAnthropological Association.

McGhee, Robert

1983 Eastern Arctic Prehistory: The Reality of a Myth? Musk-Ox33:21—25. Saskatoon.

1984 Contact between Native North Americans and the Medieval Norse: AReview of the Evidence. American Antiquity 49(i):4-26.

Mallery, Arlington, and Mary Roberts Harrison

1979 The Rediscovery of Lost America. New York: E. P. Dutton.

Meggers, Betty J.

1975 Transpacific Origin of MesoAmerican Civilization: A Preliminary

Review of the Evidence and Its Theoretical Implications. American An-thropologist -]~j:i—2'].

Meggers, Betty J., Clifford Evans, and Emilio Estrada

1965 The Early Formative Period of Coastal Ecuador: The Valdivia and

Machallila Phases. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology, i.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Meletinsky, E. M.

n.d. [1983} The Paleo-Asian Raven Epos and the Relationship between NortheastAsia and Northwest America in Folklore. In Cultures of the Bering SeaRegion: Papers from an International Symposium. Henry N. Michael andJames W. VanStone, eds., pp. 227-48. New York: International Re-search and Exchanges Board.

Michael, Henry N. (ed.)

1979 A U.S.-U.S.S.R. Symposium on the Peopling of the New World. ArcticAnthropology 16(1).

Michael, Henry N., and James W. VanStone (eds.)n.d. [1983] Cultures of the Bering Sea Region: Papers from an International Symposium.New York: International Research and Exchanges Board.

Mochanov, lu. A.

1980 Early Migrations to America in the Light of a Study of the DyuktaiPaleolithic Culture in Northeast Asia. In Early Native Americans.D. L. Browman, ed., pp. 119-33. The Hague: Mouton.

50 WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH

Nelson, Edward W.

1899 The Eskimo about Bering Strait. Bureau of American Ethnology

Annual Report 18. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.Reprinted with introduction by William W. Fitzhugh. Classics ofSmithsonian Anthropology Series. Washington, D.C.: SmithsonianInstitution Press, 1983.

Okladnikov, A. P.

1941 Paleoliticheskie zhilishcha v Bureti (Paleolithic dwellings at

Buret). Kratkie Soobshchenia IIMK Akademii Nauk SSSR 10.1981 Ancient Art of the Amur River. Leningrad: Aurora Art.

Powers, W R., and R. H. Jordan

1990 Human Biogeography and Climate Change in Siberia and Arctic North

America in the Fourth and Fifth Millennium B.P. Philosophical Transac-tions of the Royal Society of London, Series A. Cambridge.

Quimby, George I.

1947 The Sadiron Lamp of Kamchatka as a Clue to the Chronology of the

Aleut. American Antiquity 11(3):202—3.1985 Japanese Wrecks, Iron Tools, and Prehistoric Indians of the

Northwest Coast. Arctic Anthropology 22(2):7-i6.

Rasmussen, Knud

1934 Eskimos and Stone Age Peoples. In Proceedings of the Fifth Pacific ScienceCongress, vol. 4, pp. 2767-2772. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Ridley, R

i960 Transatlantic Contacts of Primitive Man: Eastern Canada and North-western Russia. Pennsylvania Archaeologist 3o(2):46—57.

Riley, Carroll L., J. Charles Kelley, Campbell W. Pennington, and Robert L. Rands(eds.)

1971 Man across the Sea, Problems of Pre-Columbian Contacts. Austin: Universi-ty of Texas Press.

Rudenko, S. I.1961

The Ancient Culture of the Bering Sea and the Eskimo Problem. Translatedby Paul Tolstoy. Translations from Russian Sources i. Henry N.

Crossroads of Continents: Review and Prospect 51

Michael, ed. Toronto: Arctic Institute of North America Anthropologyof the North.

Shrenk, L. I.

1883 Ob inorodtsakh Amurskago kraia (The natives of the Amur Region), vol.I. St Petersburg. Translated from Reisen undForschungen im Amur-Lande, 3 vols.

Smith, Marian (ed.)

1953 Asia and North America: Transpacific Contacts. Memoirs of the Society forAmerican Archaeology 9. Jesse D. Jennings, general ed. Salt Lake City.

Turner, Christy II

1988 Ancient Peoples of the North Pacific Rim. In Crossroads of Continents:Peoples of Siberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell,eds., pp. 111-16. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Vainshtein, S. I.

1986 Origin of Reindeer-Herding in Eurasia. In Traces of the Central AsianCulture in the North. Memoires de la Societe Finno-Ougrienne 194.Ildiko Lehtinen, ed., pp. 279—86. Helsinki: Suomalais-UgrilainenSeura.

Zolotarev, A.

1937 K voprosu o proiskhozhednii eskimosov (The problem of the origin ofthe Eskimo). Antropologicheskii Zhurnal i.

) American—Asian Ties as Reflected in§ Athapaskan Material Culture

GALINA I. DZENISKEVICH

FOR MANY DECADES ANTHROPOLOGISTS, archeologists, and ethnog-raphers have speculated about the ancient relationships between the peoples ofNorth Asia and North America. The extensive literature that has accumulatedon the subject over this period provides some evidence to suggest that Ameri-ca was populated from Asia in a few migrational waves across the BeringStrait. For example, geologists have found indications of a Late Quaternaryland bridge and archeologists have discovered microblades in the early indus-tries of Alaska and Northeastern Siberia (Dikov 1967:22—28; Mochanov1977; Fladmark 1979:63—64). Physical anthropologists believe that the kin-ship between the aboriginal population of these northern regions goes back toa very early epoch and that these two populations display genetic continuity(Hrdlicka 1923; Debets 1951:523-38; Roginskii 1969:5-32). Folkloristspoint to the presence of a similar raven mythology as a striking cultural phe-nomenon uniting the peoples of Northeastern Asia and Northwestern Ameri-ca (Meletinskii 1981:182).

The problem for ethnographers dealing with the origins and genetic tiesof these populations is that the archeological evidence they need to substanti-ate their hypotheses is as yet scant and does not establish clear ties between

53

archeological complexes and historic peoples. Nevertheless, archeological dataon the theme of American—Asian ties continue to come in, with the resultthat some new ideas about the role of Bering Strait in the history of these tieshave begun to take shape (Gurvich 1981). One view in particular that hasbeen gaining strength is that contacts between Alaska and Northeastern Asiawere not discontinued after the final disappearance of Beringia. This chapterdraws on materials from the Athapaskans of Alaska to offer support for thispoint of view.

Ethnographers long ago noticed the cultural unity of the circumpolar ar-eas of Asia and America. Franz Boas (1929:4—7) pointed to elements such asreinforced bows, dwelling designs, dog traction, the use of birchbark for uten-sils, and the flat drums of shamans; he also noted similarities in religious cere-monies and beliefs, as well as common folkloristic traditions.There are alsomany similarities in clothing, decoration, and ritual. Despite the numerousconcrete examples illustrating cultural analogies on the two continents, thereasons for this similarity are as yet unexplained. The question remains, is itconvergent development, genetic kinship, or cultural exchange? This questionis difficult to answer definitively, even with respect to the much later mi-grants such as the NaDene-speaking tribes, including the Athapaskans whoare believed to have appeared on the North American continent in the lastmigrational wave that took place some 6,000 to 10,000 years ago (Boas1933:357-70; Dumond 1969).

We should not forget that the modern Athapaskans are separated fromthe migrants, who could, hypothetically speaking, be their ancestors, by atleast a few thousand years. Can any elements of the cultural tradition of such aremote past be preserved over that length of time? Even its most stable ele-ment, language, must have been completely transformed over that period.^Through the many millennia, the culture of the Alaskan Indians has devel-oped along a path in many ways different from that of the inhabitants ofSiberia; hence, even if the Athapaskans are the direct descendants of the Pale-olithic migrants from Siberia, they have not preserved unchanged those ele-ments of their earliest material culture that they brought with them fromAsia. This does not mean, however, that we should not search for ethnograph-ical traces of their ancient relationships with the peoples of Northeastern Asia.Rather, our task is to select from the multitude of analogues those that makea convincing argument in favor of our suppositions.

We might ask, for instance, whether the similarity in the types and de-

sign of dwellings prove that there are genetic ties between the Northern Indi-ans and the peoples of Northeast Asia. The answer is most probably not, al-though it has been established that Upper Paleolithic man was already able tobuild skin tents and consequently could have brought this tradition with himwhen he migrated to new areas with similar climatic conditions. Although itmay be tempting to use the parallel existence of the conical skin-covered tent{chum) to verify the genetic relationship between the territorially separatedethnic communities, the notion of convergent development of similar tradi-tions is equally plausible if we consider that these communities had a similarecology, hunting economy, and seminomadic way of life.

Comparative studies in the clothing styles of the Alaskan Athapaskansand of the aboriginal population of northern Siberia provide little help in clar-ifying the matter. The tribes that migrated across Beringia a few millenniaago undoubtedly wore warm clothes because the prevailing conditions thereat the time were those of the tundra and cold steppes. Many elements ofAthapaskan clothing were similar to the clothes worn by the Chukchi, Ko-ryak, Tungus, and other peoples of Siberia, as demonstrated by materials inthe "Crossroads" exhibition (see also Chaussonnet and Driscoll, this volume).Clothes are a part of the cultural complex of northern hunters that eithercould have formed before the migration to America or, with equal probability,could have developed independently in the New World. Therefore certainparallels in clothing appear to argue in favor of ancient historical ties, whereasothers—such as footwear styles, which coincide with the Evenk (Tungus), andthe cut of their hoods, which is similar among many North Siberian peo-ples—most probably indicate later ties.

In some instances, similar elements in the culture of the Athapaskansand North Siberian peoples are more likely the result of borrowing than con-vergence. The trigger mechanism of pressure-type traps is a case in point (Os-good 1937:98, fig. 24/Yupa, #16; Popov n.d.:d.3, table 8). It seems highlyimprobable that exactly the same complex mechanism would have been in-vented a second time. It is more realistic to attribute this to borrowing, and alate one at that. By themselves, studies of hunting tools and comparisons be-tween similar hunting techniques do not throw much light on the problem ofthe ancient historical ties of the Athapaskans. If judged by the inventory ofsites classed as Proto-Athapaskan culture (Dixthada, Campbell, Old-Crow,Tuktu), however, the hunting economy of the Indians had very deep roots,and according to the archeological data, the tribes that moved along the

Bering bridge some ten millennia ago were mostly hunters of large forestgame.

Noteworthy among the examples of possible early borrowing is the orna-mentation of Athapaskan buckskin clothing with split and flattened porcu-pine quills. That there are common elements in the technique of decoratingwith reindeer neck hair among the peoples of Siberia and with porcupine quillsamong the Athapaskans is indisputable. As some researchers have pointed out,such an involved ornamentation technique could hardly have developed inde-pendently, and since the reindeer hair ornamentation is probably the more an-cient one, the borrowing in this particular instance came from Asia.

It is still impossible to ascertain when porcupine quill ornamentationfirst appeared among the Athapaskan Indians. The only available evidenceconsists of some fragments of clothing with porcupine quills sewn onto themthat were found in Lovelock cave, Nevada, in 1929. This clothing dates to ap-proximately the sixth century a.d. It can therefore be concluded that this tra-dition of ornamentation was known to American Indians at least thirteen cen-turies ago. Because there is no evidence to suggest that this tradition emergedduring the earliest stage of Proto-Indian culture, that is, during the time oftheir hypothetical split from the peoples of Siberia (Turner 1955:70—71;Sternberg n.d.:d.24, 1.23), and because specialists think that the traditionoriginated in Asia, the only possible conclusion is that Alaskan Indians ex-changed cultural traditions with their northern Asiatic neighbors many cen-turies before the contact period (in the seventeenth century).

The most convincing evidence of very ancient Athapaskan ties with thepeoples of Northeast Asia can be found in folklore parallels, or, to be moreprecise, in the Raven myths. Some researchers even see this as testimony toethnogenetic relations. That is to say, they argue that the Raven series mayserve to confirm a single origin for the peoples of America and Northeast Asiaat that remote stage of their history.

Even a brief comparison points to some common traits in the Atha-paskan and northeastern Paleoasiatic variations. The analogies become partic-ularly distinct when we compare the plots and themes that preserve the traitsof the most ancient stage of the series, namely, those related to the obtainingof light and to the making of land in the Ocean. Note, too, that the coinci-dence is not limited to the thematic range of the myths and that the formaltraits of the Athapaskan myths about Raven also bring them close to the Pale-oasiatic ones.

From the late nineteenth century on, the epic Raven series was investi-gated by ethnographers searching for the most ancient American—Asian cul-tural and historical ties. Although their conclusions do not altogether coin-cide, they have some bearing on the discussion here and merit some attention.

Without negating the possibility of cultural ties in the distant past, F.Boas (1914:310) argued that it would, however, be impossible to prove thatthe similar folkloristic series of the peoples of these areas had a common ori-gin. In his opinion, the Raven series had developed independently on theAsian and American coasts. Jochelson (lochel'son 1904:41), in contrast, ar-gued that such a close similarity could not be explained by an independentemergence and suggested that either their kinship is a result of the commonorigin of the tribes presently in possession of similar myths or that the mythsthemselves have a common source from which they spread by way of borrow-ing. Convinced that America was peopled from Asia across the Bering bridge,Bogoras (1902:636, 670) surmised that, having migrated to America, thefolklore traditions of the Paleoasiatic peoples were able to maintain a feedbackconnection with the folklore of the northeastern tribes in Asia until newcom-ers, Eskimos, arrived in the Bering sea area and separated the carriers of a kin-dred culture on the two continents.

Note that all three researchers supposed that in the distant past therecould have existed some close and stable ties between the population of NorthAmerica and the ancestors of the modern inhabitants of Far NortheasternAsia.

More recent explanations for the Raven myth's similarities have beensummarized by Soviet folklorist Meletinskii (1959:88-89, 92—95). After care-fully analyzing the texts of the epic, he concluded, first, that the oral tradi-tions about Raven have a common base and constitute the most ancientmythological series of the early inhabitants of the North, moreover, that thenucleus had formed among the northeastern Paleoasiatic people. Second, thesimilarity between the Asiatic and American series reflects both typologicaland genetic analogies, as well as contact ties in the past. Like his predecessors,Meletinskii thus confidently speaks about contact in the past.

Many other examples can be found to illustrate the striking similarity inthe phenomena of the spiritual culture (notions about the soul, burial cult,shaman practices, etc.) among the northern peoples of Siberia and the north-ernmost Indians, but they would not help us move beyond what has alreadybeen established. In the final analysis, the conclusion that suggests itself is as

indefinite as before: the resettlers from Asia to America could have broughtwith them a number of archaic ideas, but the possibiHty remains that pastcontacts and similar environments played a role in producing the similar cul-tural forms. Gurvich (1981:125—27) arrived at almost the same conclusionfollowing a detailed analysis of the burial ceremonialism among the peoples ofSiberia and North America.

To sum up, although none of the facts mentioned above contradicts thehypothesis that the NaDene-speaking tribes migrated from NortheasternAsia, neither do they offer indisputable proof of this theory. The folkloristparallels are the most convincing (but not irreproachable) evidence of anethnogenetic relationship between the Athapaskans and the population of thenortheastern areas of Siberia, but this is certainly an insufficient basis for turn-ing the hypothesis into an axiom. At the same time, although the similar ele-ments of traditional culture may not shed much light on genetic ties, they dodraw attention to the influence of historical ties on this similarity.

If it is difficult to see the ethnic cultures of the northern area of Asia andAmerica as a single whole a few millennia ago, it is equally difficult to acceptconvergence as the explanation for the entire complex of similar traditions.However, there is a third possibility to consider: that the parallels are to alarge extent a result of continuing contacts, since it is improbable that Ameri-ca remained completely isolated.

As is well known, the Athapaskans had obtained some European goodsand artifacts from the peoples of Eastern Siberia long before the early Euro-peans came to Alaska. These goods arrived through exchanges with MalemiutEskimo, who were closer to Bering Strait than any other peoples and for along time had acted as mediators in the exchange operations with the north-eastern inhabitants of Asia. The collecting point for the Asiatic and Americantraders were the Diomede Islands, which the Indians could reach by canoe orby dog sled in the winter. To Chukchi traders, the trip across the BeringStrait was a routine part of life and it was timed to coincide with the endof winter or the beginning of spring (Anonymous 1978:121; Wrangeln.d.:d.34i, i. 30—32 ob.). Occasionally, raids were organized from both sides,as a result of which some inhabitants of Alaska found themselves captive inChukotka and those of Siberia in Alaska. Some cases of marriage between cap-tive Indian women and the aboriginals of Kamchatka and Chukotka have alsobeen reported, as well as some cases in which captive women were used to es-

tablish trade contacts with the neighbors on the opposite side of the Strait.

If the narrow strait between the continents did not obstruct the diffusionprocesses two or three centuries ago, then it could hardly have been insur-mountable in the fifth to tenth centuries, and earlier. Thus it should not besurprising that some similar, although distinctly specific, features (such as thetechnique of ornamentation with reindeer hair and porcupine quills, or theidentical ornamentations found on the Kenai tomahawks and Koryak bonetools) come to us as traditional elements in the culture of the inhabitants ofboth Alaska and Northeastern Siberia. Some exchanges did not require repeat-ed or lengthy contacts. It was quite sufficient to have sporadic ties for the ex-change to take place, which seems to have been the situation within the con-tact area of the two continents over the centuries. In other words, the contactbetween Northeastern Asia and Alaska was not interrupted, even after the fi-nal disappearance of Beringia.

I. According to Michael Krauss, the Proto-Athapaskan language is no more than2,500 years old, and its motherland is Eastern Alaska and Northwest Canada (Krauss1981:152, 155).

REFERENCESAnonymous

1978 Etnografuheskie mater'taly Severo-Vostochnoi ekspeditsii, / 78^-1793 (Ethno-

NOTES

graphical material from the North-Eastern Expedition, 1785-1793).Magadan.

Boas, Franz

1929

1914

1933

Mythology and Folk-Tales of the North American Indidnis. Journal ofAmerican Folk-Lore 27(io6):374—411.

Migration of Asiatic Race and Cultures to North America. ScientificMonthly 28:110-17.

Relationships between North-West America and North-East Asia. InThe American Aborigines: Their Origin and Antiquity, pp. 357-70. Toron-to: University of Toronto Press.

Bogoras, W. G.

1902 The Folklore of Northeastern Asia, as Compared with That of North-western America. American Anthropologist 4:577—683.

Debets, G. F.

1951 Proiskhozhdenie korennogo naseleniia Ameriki (Origins of the aboriginalpopulation of America). Trudy Instituta Ethnografii AN SSSR 14.Moscow, Leningrad: AN SSSR.

Dikov, N. N.

1967 Otkrytie paleolita na Kamchatke i problema pervonachal'nogo zase-leniia Ameriki (Discovery of the paleolithic in Kamchatka and theproblem of the early peopling of America). In Istoriia i kul'tura narodovsevera Dal'nego Vostoka (History and culture of the peoples of the Northof the Far East). Moscow: Nauka.

Dumond, D. E.

1969 Toward Prehistory of NaDene, with a General Comment on Popula-tion Movements among Nomadic Hunters. American Anthropologist71:857-63.

Fladmark, K. R.

1979 Routes: Alternate Migration Corridors for Early Man in North Ameri-ca. American Antiquity 44(1):55—69.

Gurvich, I. S.

1981 K voprosu o paralleliakh v traditsionnoi kul'ture aborigennykh naro-dov Severnoi Azii i Severnoi Ameriki (The question of parallels in thetraditional culture of the aboriginal peoples of North Asia and NorthAmerica). In Traditsionnye kul'tury Severnoi Sibiri i Severnoi Ameriki (Tra-ditional cultures of Northern Siberia and North America), I. S. Gur-vich, ed. Moscow: Nauka.

Gurvich, Il'ia (ed.)

1981 Traditsionnie kul'tury Severnoi Sibiri i Severnoi Ameriki (Traditional cul-tures of Northern Siberia and North America). Moscow: Nauka.

Hrdlicka, Ales

1923 Origin and Antiquity of the American Indian. In Smithsonian Institu-tion, Annual Reports. Washington, D.C.

Athapaskan Material Culture 6i

lokhel'son, V. I. {Jochelson}

1904 Ob aziatskikh i amerikanskikh elementakh v mifakh Koriakov (Asiaticand American elements in Koryak myths). Zemlevedenie 11(3):33-41.

Jochelson, see lokhelson.

Krauss, M. E.

1981 Languages of the Aboriginal Population of Alaska: Past, Present andFuture. In Traditsionnye kul'tury Severnoi Sibiri i Severnoi Ameriki (Tradi-tional cultures of Northern Siberia and North America), I. S. Gurvich,ed. Moscow: Nauka.

Meletinskii, E. M.

1959 Skazaniia o Vorone u narodov Krainego Severa (Raven myth among thepeoples of the Far North). Vestnik istorii mirovoi kul'tury (Newsletter ofthe history of world culture) 1959(1). Moscow.

1981 Paleoaziatskii epos o Vorone i problema otnoshenii Severo-VostochnoiAzii i Severo-Zapadnoi Ameriki v oblasti fol'klora (Paleoasiatic epicabout Raven and the problem of the relationship between Northeast-ern Asia and Northwestern America in the sphere of Folklore). In Tra-ditsionnye kul'tury Severnoi Sibiri i Severnoi Ameriki (Traditional culturesof North Siberia and North America), I. S. Gurvich, ed. Moscow:Nauka.

Mochanov, lu. A.

1977 Drevneishie etapi zaseleniia chelovekom Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (Ancientstages of the peopling of North-East Asia). Novosibirsk: AN SSSR.

Osgood, C. B.

1937 Ethnography of the Tanaina. Yale University Publictions in Anthro-

pology 16. New Haven, Conn.

Popov, A. A.

n.d. Orudiia okhoty u narodov Sibiri v XIX i nachale XX vekov (Hunting

tools among the peoples of Siberia in the nineteenth and early twenti-eth centuries). Archives of the Institute of Ethnography, F. 14, op. 4.

Roginskii la. la.

1969 Sovremennie problemy antropogeneza (Contemporary questions of anthropo-genesis). Moscow.

62 GALINA I. DZENISKEVICH

Sternberg, L. la.

n.d. Zapiski po chasti geognosticheskogo obozreniia Kamchatki (Notes on

the geographical survey of Kamchatka). Archives of the USSR Academy ofSciences, F. 282, op. I.

Turner, G.

1955 Hair Embroidery in Siberia and North America. Oxford: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Wrangel, F. P.

n.d. Izvestiia i zamechaniia F. P. Vrangelia o rossiiskikh koloniiakh v

Amerike, narodakh Severo-Zapadnoi Ameriki i ikh torgovykhsnosheniiakh s Chukchami i dr. /1831-1835/ (News and notes by F. P.Wrangel on the Russian colonies in America and on the peoples ofNorth-Western America and their trade relations with the Chukchiand others, 1831-1835). State Archives of Estonia, F. 2057, op. i.

The Jesup North Pacific Expedition:§ A History of Russian—AmericanCooperation

LIUDMILA P. KUZ'MINA

RUSSIAN-AMERICAN COOPERATION in the scientific investigation andcomparative study of traditional cultures of the aboriginal populations ofNorth Siberia and North America has a long history. One instance of this co-operation is the North Pacific expedition, organized by the American Muse-um of Natural History and its president, Morris Jesup, in the early 1900s.The scientific leader was Professor Franz Boas of Columbia University. Withstrong support from St. Petersburg's Academy of Sciences, he was able to con-duct a long-term survey of Northeast Asia and of the northwestern coasts ofNorth America, which yielded significant results. The two Russian ethnogra-phers on the team, W. G. Bogoras and W. I. Jochelson, had already participat-ed in Sibiriakov's Yakut expedition of 1895—97 and thus brought valuable ex-perience to the Jesup venture (Zelenin 1937; Tokarev 1956; Gurvic andKuzmina 1985:145-51).

The Jesup expedition collected a vast amount of data using the methodsof various disciplines, including ethnography, anthropology, archeology, lin-guistics, folkloristics, and history. These materials yielded valuable informa-tion on the traditional cultures of the peoples of the North Pacific area andproved that the cultures on both sides of Bering Strait represent a single

63

64

LIUDMILA P. KUZ'MINA

ethnocultural territory, which was an important scientific discovery of thattime (Gurvich 1981).

Bogoras and Jochelson used these materials to prepare a series of exten-sive monographs published in English by the American Museum of NaturalHistory (Bogoras 1902, 1904—9, 1910, 1913; Jochelson 1908, 1926) thatprovided new insight into the ancient cultures of these areas. Unfortunately,only a small part of this work has been translated into Russian (Bogoraz 1934,1936a, 1936b; lokhel'son 1904). A wealth of interesting material also residesin their diaries, correspondence, unfinished scientific articles, reviews, andmaterial gathered during subsequent expeditions with the St. PetersburgAcademy of Sciences—all of which create a broad picture of the history of theethnocultural ties and ethnolinguistic studies in these northern regions. Thischapter focuses on just a small group of sources, the documents and letterspertaining to the history of the organization of the Jesup expedition, itsroutes, and program.

Preparations for the expedition began in 1897. The scientific programwas organized by specialists with much experience in long-term field researchand provided detailed instructions in gathering anthropological, zoological,and linguistic data, as well as collecting ethnological artifacts. The organizingcommittee—which included Franz Boas, Alfred Kroeber, and D. Allen—selected the following groups for study: Eskimo, Aleut, and Indians in Alaskaand British Columbia; and Koryak, Chukchi, and Yukaghir in Siberia. It wasnecessary to study such a large number of peoples if the expedition expectedto fulfill its purpose, which was to explore the history of the peopling of theAmerican continent and of the ethnic relationships between the peoples ofNortheast Asia and Northwest America. The thought that such ties might ex-ist had already been entertained by scholars and travelers as far back as theeighteenth century, particularly among the participants of the Second Kam-chatka Expedition.^ In the nineteenth century, the question attracted evenwider attention, especially in relation to the communities near the Bering Seaand in the adjacent areas. Among the various points of view that emerged, onewas that the aboriginal population of America had developed as a separate in-dependent group; another was that most of it arrived some time in the pastfrom Asia via Northeastern Siberia (Bogoraz 1926:40—46).

In their quest for a solution to the question, scholars turned their atten-tion to the little-known peoples of the Northeast Asia. The American Muse-um of Natural History invited the St. Petersburg's Academy of Sciences to

cooperate in such studies and to recommend specialists who had done ethno-graphical work in the circumpolar north. The director of the Peter the GreatMuseum of Anthropology and Ethnography, Academician V. V. Radloff, rec-ommended Jochelson and Bogoras for the project, who were both members ofthe Russian Geographical Society and were experienced in conducting re-search in the rigorous climatic conditions of Northeast Asia.^

Jochelson was working at the University of Berne in Switzerland whenhe received a letter from Boas in early 1898 inviting him to take part in theexpedition and to conduct an ethnographical study of the Koryak. Shortlythereafter, Jochelson left for St. Petersburg to draw up suggestions for thecomposition of the group and the route they should follow. He strongly urgedBoas to include Bogoras in the expedition: "In regard to my friend Bogoras, Ibeg to repeat that he is by far the best man for the investigation of theChukchee and the other tribes of the Bering Peninsula. Mr. Bogoras speaksChukchee fluently. He is well prepared to conduct ethnological work, and heis willing to start at once, if so required" (Jochelson to Boas, November1898).^

By early 1900 the planning committee had settled on the main subjectsof the scientific studies, the forms of financial support, the composition of theexpedition, and the participants' duties. Jochelson was put in charge of theentire project in Northeastern Asia. As Morris Jesup, president of the Ameri-can Museum of Natural History, told him: "You {are to} take charge of thework of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition in Northeastern Asia. ... It willbe your duty to plan and arrange the expedition in such a way as to ensure itsmost complete success. You will take charge of, and be responsible for, theproperty of the expedition, including funds, outfit, and collection; and youwill take such steps that the property will be secured to the Museum under allcircumstances. . . . Your party is to consist of yourself as leader, Mr. WaldemarBogoras, Mr. N. G. Buxton, and Mr. Alexander Axelrod. ... In considerationof the fact that, at your request, Mrs. Jochelson and Mrs. Bogoras are going toaccompany the expedition to the field, and thus form part of your party andthat [you] will have to purchase provisions and clothing for this part of yourfamilies before starting, I agree to pay in advance $1700 on account of yoursalary, and $1200 on account of the salary of Mr. Bogoras. . . . We have pro-vided for the possibility of hiring workers and guides from local people"(Morris K. Jesup to Jochelson, 24 March 1900).

On the eve of the expedition, the participants turned their attention to

66

LIUDMILA P. KUZ'MINA

the details of the route and the anticipated results. The initial plan was tohave the two Gizhiga-Kolyma and Anadyr parties would work separately, butlater it was decided both groups should begin studying the Koryak in Gizhi-ga together to shorten the time allotted to learning the Koryak language.Since Bogoras knew Chukchi, he could quickly learn Koryak and help Jochel-son in the process. Thus they expected to depart from Gizhiga for Anadyr atthe end of winter in 1900 and planned to spend three or four months inAnadyr. They were to split up in the spring of 1901, with Jochelson return-ing to Gizhiga to complete his Koryak studies and then proceeding by theKolyma River to the Yukaghirs. Meanwhile, the Bogoras party was to go tothe Arctic seacoast of the Bering Strait (Bogoras and Jochelson to Jesup, 30October 1899).

Jochelson and Bogoras planned to prepare monographs on the Chukchi,Koryak, and Yukaghir with the scientific results of the expedition, and to pro-vide a comparative analysis of their material culture, original forms of beliefs,and social organization. There was also to be an analysis of the mythologicalepic traditions of the Chukchi-Koryak language group, based on generic-typological and cultural-historical comparisons with the epic traditions foundalong the entire northwestern coast of North America. These were added tothe plan of publication for the materials from the North Pacific Expedition,and Boas was recommended as editor of the basic studies of the 12-volume se-ries. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History.

It is important to point out that the organizers of the expedition paid agreat deal of attention to collecting items of material culture. Specialists inthis field—namely. Professors Allen, Boas, ButenmuUer, and Gratakap—puttogether some guidelines for the preparation and description of thematic col-lections.

Technical equipment for the expedition received special attention. M. Je-sup wrote in this connection: "You are to receive, in addition, necessary med-ical and scientific outfit, including drugs, plaster of Paris, photo equipmentand materials, meteorological, geological and anthropometric instruments,weapons and ammunition" (Jesup to Jochelson, 24 March 1900). Up-to-datescientific equipment was bought in Western Europe and sent to Vladivostokfrom Antwerp; equipment acquired in St. Petersburg was shipped north fromOdessa. These and other operations, including financial transactions, wereperformed by the German firm Kunst and Albers through its branch in Vladi-

vostok. The firm was in permanent contact with the expedition and transmit-ted all the information to St. Petersburg and New York through Mrs. A. I.Gromova, who was living in Irkutsk at that time."^

The Russian Imperial Academy of Sciences and the Russian Imperial Ge-ographical Society provided local support along the planned route. Jochelsonand Bogoras wrote: "Being members of the Russian Geographical Society weapplied to it for assistance and obtained it on the same terms as from Acade-my of Sciences: to wit, the Society wishing to promote our investigation willgive us recommendation letters and will employ its influence on the authori-ties in all those districts we intended to go" (Bogoras and Jochelson to Jesup,30 October 1899).

The expedition was to depart from Vladivostok in the spring of 1900.Axelrod arrived from Germany in April and was later joined by Jochelson,Bogoras, and Buxton. Mrs. Jochelson and Mrs. Bogoras arrived a week later,for they had stopped off at Irkutsk to meet Mrs. Gromova on their way toVladivostok.

The road to Gizhiga ran along the coast of the Okhotsk Sea, which nor-mally remains frozen from October to June. In the spring of 1900, however,navigation began earlier than usual and the steamer that expedition memberscounted on left on May 23, before the party was completely ready. Since thenext Gizhiga-bound steamer was not scheduled to leave until July, theplanned program and route had to be scrapped. Bogoras and his wife left inJune for Anadyr aboard a steamer used by the gold extracting industry andwere to meet the other participants in Gizhiga two or three months later. Inthe meantime, the other members of the expedition paid a visit to the gover-nor-general in Khabarovsk. They enlisted his support and learned that twoRussian-American expeditions were scheduled to carry out surveys for de-posits of rare metals around Gizhiga and the eastern coast of the Bering Sea.The heads of these expeditions promised to maintain contact with them andto provide whatever assistance they could. On the eve of their departure, theyfinished checking the cargo that had arrived in Vladivostok, replenished theirstocks of food and warm clothes, and, most important, managed to find a se-cure place to store their property and collections. Jochelson sent the Museumof Natural History his financial account for the period of their stay in Vladi-vostok and informed the museum that the last steamer would be leaving forGizhiga on August 4 and that all the mail should be sent to Vladivostok in

68

LIUDMILA P. KUZ'MINA

care of the governor of Primorie Province with a request that it be forwardedto Gizhiga, to the chief of the Siberian Department of the North Pacific expe-ditions (Jochelson to Jesup, 30 October 1899).

The steamer that Bogoras and his wife took from Vladivostok made afew stops, and after a brief stay in Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskii and in theBaron Korf Harbour, it reached Anadyr on July 13. The scholars arrived atMariinski Post and were offered lodgings in a log house specially set up fortheir stay. The chief of the Anadyr territory, Mr. N. P. Sokol'nikov, was well-known for his articles about Russian culture in circumpolar Siberia, and heshowed great interest in the scholars' program. He presented the AmericanMuseum of Natural History with a valuable collection of Chukchi clothes anddecorations and provided Bogoras with an interpreter, workers, and guides(Sokol'nikov 1913; Zenzinov 1914).

The scholars planned to do a great deal of work during their long stay inthe vast Anadyr territory, located in the center of the Chukotka Peninsula. Inthe late nineteenth century, the area was inhabited by Chukchi, Eskimo,Lamut (the name for Evens that was in use until the 1930s), Yukaghir, Chu-van, and Russian. The total population amounted to some 6,000 persons, orless than one person per square kilometer. The nomadic Reindeer Chukchi oc-cupied the greater part of the area, while the Maritime Chukchi and Eskimolived in the coastal parts of the peninsula, and the Russian old-settlers,Chuvan, and Yukaghir lived in Markovo village and in a few other small settle-ments scattered over the middle reaches of the Anadyr River (Olsuf'ev 1896).

Over a period of three and a half months Bogoras visited many Chukchisettlements. Being an ethnographer, a physical anthropologist, a folklorist,and a linguist, he was able to collect data and record the essential details ofthe life and culture of the peoples of the Anadyr territory. He was particularlycareful to establish the historical authenticity of the materials he collected.

It was a difficult year. An epidemic of smallpox had swept over manynorthern settlements, and the guides refused to go north. Bogoras was forcedto postpone his visit to the northern parts to the spring of 1901. The epidem-ic disrupted life all over the Chukotka Peninsula. There was no annual sum-mer fair at the mouth of the Kolyma River that year, and as a result theplanned program of studies and the collecting work suffered another setback.At that time, the ethnographical objects Bogoras mentioned in his account—such as carved bone items, amulets, idols, and stone arrowheads and spear-heads—could be acquired from the Maritime Chukchi who, in contrast to

their reindeer counterparts, had a great deal of trading experience. In ex-change for their furs, they obtained textiles and rum from the Americans andtea and tobacco from the Russian settlements, primarily Markovo, whose in-habitants received supplies of these goods from Nizhnii-Kolymsk and Gizhi-ga. The account also mentioned the work that was started on describing theflora and fauna of the Anadyr territory. It noted, in particular, that Bogoras'swife had collected an extensive herbarium and a few stones with the imprintsof plant seeds.

On October 20, 1900, Bogoras left his wife at Mariinski Post and wentto Markovo, where he joined up with a company of guides and then headedfor Kamchatka and Kamenskoe settlement, where he was to meet the Jochel-sons and the other members of the party. The difficulties he encountered onthe way are, in his words, beyond description: "Two times we were overtakenby heavy rains, which melted away any snow before our sledges. The snowstorms were frequent and fierce, almost the third part of the journey we madesimply on foot. Therefore I could reach Kamenskoe only on the 20 of Novem-ber. I spent a little less than a month in Kamenskoe" (Bogoras to Boas, April1901). Waiting for him there were the Jochelsons, Buxton, and Axelrod.

Jochelson's party did not leave Vladivostok until July and reached Gizhi-ga by steamer on August 3, 1900. In the next three months his party con-ducted an extensive ethnographical survey among the Koryak and gathered aunique collection of artifacts, as noted in the letters of Jesup and Boas. Inview of the difficulties the collectors had encountered in acquiring theseethnographical objects, the museum allotted an extra $800 to cover their un-forseen expenditures (Boas to Jochelson, 9 January 1902).

When Jochelson's party arrived at the mouth of the Gizhiga, they firstworked in the small settlements of Kushka and Krestovo, and then among theMaritime Koryak in the settlements of Paren' and Kyuel.*^ Jochelson provedto be a gifted organizer of fieldwork, and as a result of the instructions and as-signments he gave to the personnel provided by the local authorities, he wasable to obtain some valuable materials and data on the pattern of settlementand number of Koryak. Some beautiful sketches, of their life were also com-pleted.

Bogoras and Jochelson had known each other for a long time and fre-quently discussed questions of common interest. It was also important forthem to be in constant communication since the expedition operated under asingle program. Thus, when Bogoras finally reached Kamenskoe, the scholars

exchanged information regularly and, having analyzed the materials the expe-dition obtained, they arrived at a number of scientific conclusions, which havecome down to us in their manuscript notes. Some of these were preliminaryconclusions that were later revised, but many constituted the basis of futuremonographs and articles.

After four weeks in Kamenskoe, the expedition members began to splitup. Axelrod went to Anadyr to continue the work started by Bogoras, in par-ticular, to describe and evaluate the ethnographical items collected there, aswell as to acquire more. Another of his tasks was to help Bogoras's wife de-scribe the flora and fauna of the Chukotka Peninsula and take anthropometricmeasurements.

Jochelson, together with his wife and Buxton, continued workingamong the Reindeer Koryak. Snowstorms and fierce winds that season keptthe reindeer breeders in the vicinity of their dwellings, and therefore thescholars were able to collect a great deal of material. Upon his return to Ka-menskoe in January 1901, Jochelson decided "to return to Gizhiga to getsome necessary things and provisions and then to go skiing with two guidesnorthwards to the mouth of the Penzhina River, where in March there is usu-ally a great fair and I will probably have a chance to assist at the gathering ofthe Penzhina Tungus [the Even}. If time permits, I still intend to make a tripto Olutora and at the end of spring will return to Gizhiga in order to preparethe collections for the steamer. After the ice on Gizhiga River breaks up, Iwill go in the boat to the mouth of Ovekova River, where the reindeer men ofTaigonos catch fish about that time. In July, after . . . sending the collectionsto Vladivostok, I will begin my journey to Kolyma" (Jochelson to Boas,1901).

After his painstaking work in Kamenskoe—where, in addition to every-thing else, he studied the Koryak language, recorded folklore texts, and col-lected information on the grammar and vocabulary—Bogoras went to north-ern Kamchatka to work among the Reindeer Koryak and Kamchadal. In thesettlements of Tigil and Sedanka he gathered some ethnographical materialand prepared it for shipping to Vladivostok. After two months in Kamchatka,he traveled back along the coast to Anadyr and on the way visited all the out-lying maritime settlements and even separate dwellings of the Koryak. "Mylong journey from the mouth of the Anadyr River through the Gizhiga dis-trict to Kamchatka . . . was not made by any civilized man till now. Our jour-ney took us through an unpeopled country, where we could find no guides

and had to make our way by following the sun and the rivers. I returned in avery poor state of health. There were a few days when I almost thought Iwould not be able to reach Anadyr at all. I still cannot say what kind of illnessI caught; I have lost my voice, and my cough will not subside" (Bogoras toBoas, 1901).

Bogoras went back to Anadyr in early 1901. After a few weeks of rest, hestarted working on his report for the Museum of Natural History in NewYork. In addition to analyzing the work done and outlining his plans for thefuture work, Bogoras described the unusually hard winter of 1900 thatbrought hunger and numerous diseases to the population of the ChukotkaPeninsula: "Last winter was unusual. According to the old people, such win-ters happen once in fifty years. After the October rains, the ground was cov-ered with a sheet of ice and the reindeer were left with no food. . . . The win-ter affected every aspect of the life of the people. It was for this reason thatthree out of the five fairs that usually are held in this time of the year did nottake place at all and the two that did were very poor" (Bogoras to Boas,1901). Bogoras also mentioned that his wife and A. Axelrod, who had arrivedat Markovo in December 1900, visited two fairs and obtained a large andvaluable collection with the help of some Russified aboriginals who lived onthe rivers of Northern Siberia, from the Ob to Kamchatka.

In April the preparations for the journey to the Bering Strait were com-pleted. The packed collections were transported to Mariinski Post for ship-ment south once the waters were again open to navigation. The rest of theoutfit was left in the care of Cossacks. Bogoras wrote Boas about the forth-coming journey: "As I am writing this letter we stay on at the Mariinski Post,pack our things, and prepare ourselves for the journey north. Our party of sev-en people with seven dog sleds will move northward till, possibly, the IndianPoint [Chaplino}" (Bogoras to Boas, April 1901). That area around BeringStrait was not chosen by accident: Bogoras considered it to be the most inter-esting for ethnographical, anthropological, folkloristic, and linguistic surveysbecause he believed it was where the most intensive contacts had occurred be-tween the peoples of North Siberia and North America.

The party worked for two months (May-June, 1901) in the Eskimo set-tlement on the Chaplino Cape (Indian Point) and on St. Lawrence Island. Ac-cording to the report of the Anadyr party of the North Pacific expeditions, alarge collection of valuable artifacts was amassed and some examples of Eski-mo folklore were recorded. Bogoras later published the folklore texts in the

72 LIUDMILA P. KUZ'MINA

monograph The Eskimo of Siberia, which appeared in the Memoirs of theAmerican Museum of Natural History in 1913. The original transcriptions ofthe folk poetry are presented in Eskimo dialects with parallel English transla-tions. Each text is supplemented with ethnographical and philological anno-tations. (Unfortunately The Eskimo of Siberia has not been translated into Russ-ian.) Bogoras was also planning to compare the folklore songs and oraltraditions of the Eskimo people of Northeast Asia and North America, theCanadian Arctic, and Greenland with a view to learning more about the his-tory of ancient contacts among the cultures of sea mammal hunters and to de-termine the regularities in the interethnic folklore relations between circum-polar peoples. He only had enough time, however, to complete part of thisproject (Bogoraz 1936a).

A number of problems arose in the work on the Chaplino Cape. To beginwith, expedition members did not know whether they would be able to re-turn to Anadyr in the summertime. Bogoras felt he himself should be presentat the final stage of the expedition. Since steamers, which were the only meansof transportation at that time of year, seldom visited Chaplino Cape, he had toask the local authorities to assist him by sending a postal vessel to the area tobe investigated. Unfortunately, the steamer Bear that he had pinned his hopeson was delayed in the vicinity of Bering Strait helping a whaler wrecked onSt. Lawrence Island and was unable to come to the northeastern coast. Theethnographical collections acquired at Indian Point were placed on board theAmerican whaler W. Beyiiss, whose captain agreed to deliver them to the NewYork Museum of Natural History.

By late June 1901 it was clear that if they had to wait any longer for apostal steamer the work in Anadyr would be delayed, and that meant theywould be late for the last Russian steamer from Vladivostok. Bogoras thus de-cided to try a different course of action: "Because we were unable to induceany steamer to take us to Anadyr we had to make a skin canoe of medium sizeand try to make the trip together with my people. This alternative was nottoo convenient because I had to sell 100 dogs at a considerable loss. However,I cannot follow your advice and go to America—for there will be nobody totake care of the collections either in Anadyr or in Vladivostok. Moreover, Ihave to settle my accounts with the state depot in Anadyr. And, again, I havefour people from Anadyr with me. If they are taken to America through St.Michaels Island, their return back to Russia will involve considerable expen-ditures" (Bogoras to Boas, Indian Point, Siberia, 18 June 1901).

Having reached Anadyr, Bogoras undertook two more trips to Chukchisettlements to check the data obtained earHer. In addition, he took care of hisfinancial matters and spent nearly a month in Vladivostok preparing andpacking the collections. Over 100 boxes with artifacts and materials were sentby steamer to Vladivostok—Shangai—New York, Vladivostok—Vancouver—NewYork, and Vladivostok-Nagasaki—San Francisco—New York.

The plan was that after a brief rest in Petersburg, Bogoras would go toNew York to edit the Jesup expedition's materials at the museum and preparethem for publication. However, the intensive work and the severe illness hehad contracted during the trip to Kamchatka forced him to delay the journeyfor a few months.

In January 1902 Boas informed Jochelson, who was staying in Irkutskafter completing the work in Kolyma (Gurvich 1963:248—58), that Bogorashad not come to New York as planned and that illness had forced him to re-main in St. Petersburg for a time (Boas to Jochelson, in care of Miss AnnaIvanovna Gromova, Irkutsk, Siberia, 9 January 1902). It was not until sixmonths later that Bogoras was able to leave for the United States and beginwork there. Writing to Boas from Paris, he mentioned that he had receivedBoas's letter a day earlier and was glad that the collections had safely arrivedin New York. He informed Boas that he would be leaving from Liverpool onApril 9 and departing from Cherbourg on April 12. He still had littleprogress to report as far as his health was concerned. His doctors had insistedthat he go to Karlsbad for a month or two, but he believed that the most im-portant thing was to reach America. He had great difficulty walking and wasunable to stand much physical exercise. Still, he hoped to feel better in thenear future (Bogoras to Boas, 2 April 1901).

In June 1902, Bogoras began working as an expert for the exhibition onthe Chukchi and other peoples of the North that was being prepared by theMuseum of Natural History. Since Boas was ill at the time, Bogoras, assistedby the museum's workers, prepared the model, having resolved all the spatialand design problems of the complex. With the arrival of Jochelson in NewYork, Bogoras could step up the preparations for publishing the twelve vol-umes on the results of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition.

In 1907 Jochelson spoke to a meeting of the Department of Ethnogra-phy of the Russian Geographical Society on the ethnological problems of theNorthern seacoasts of the Pacific Ocean. In brief, his preliminary conclusionswere as follows: The anthropological type of the aboriginals of the North

74

LIUDMILA P. KUZ'MINA

Pacific coasts is a mixed one. The northwestern Indians are quite similar inthis respect to the Asians, while the northeastern peoples carry many Indiantraits. The material culture of these peoples has three primary elements:Chukchi (i.e., reindeer-breeding), Eskimo (skin boats and sea mammal hunt-ing tools), and Indian (e.g., plaiting technique). The Kamchadal, Koryak,and, in part, Chukchi mythology, on the one hand, and the mythology of theIndians (of the Tlingit and other tribes), on the other, form a single body oflegends about the world's creator, that is, about Raven. At the same time, thePaleoasiatic peoples and Indians say nothing in their tales of Eskimo mythsabout the female deity called Sedna. There are some common elements in thereligious and cultural ritual ceremonies and sacrifices of all the peoples(lokhel'son 1907:33-35).

It is important to note that some of the preliminary conclusions drawnby Jochelson were revised by him and substantiated at length by additionalmaterials from the Kamchatka expedition of 1908—10.

The Jesup North Pacific Expedition and its wealth of collected materialsmade it possible to describe the traditional cultures of the peoples of theNorth Pacific and to prove that the circumpolar territories found on bothsides of the Bering Strait constitute a single ethnocultural area. This conclu-sion in itself was an important contribution, but in addition, with the help offactual materials, these scholars substantiated some important principles con-cerning the cultural and, possibly, ethnic kinship of the peoples inhabitingthe northern parts of the Pacific basin. The articles and books published byJochelson and Bogoras are among the world's finest ethnographical studies.

Since then, new and valuable archeological, anthropological, and ethno-graphical materials have been collected that in some cases have led to new in-terpretations of the role of the Bering Sea area in the history of the aboriginalpopulations of North Siberia and North America and of the ancient culturalties between the peoples of the Old and New worlds. Despite these advances,the Jesup North Pacific Expedition indicated clearly the need for further re-search in this direction.

NOTES

I. The second Kamchatka Expedition, 1733-1743, headed by Russian naval offi-cer V. I. Bering. A participant in this expedition, S. P. Krasheninnikov, prepared the

first description of the land of Kamchatka and put forward the idea that North Ameri-ca had probably been peopled from Asia.

2. As a matter of fact, Bogoras and Jochelson's first experience of Siberia was ex-ile, which they owed to their participation as students in the revolutionary movement,the People's Will.

3. The correspondence quoted in this paper is kept at the American Museum ofNatural History in New York, The Jesup North Pacific Expedition, Dept. 26/1.

4. Anna Ivanovna Gromova assisted in the scientific studies organized by the EastSiberian department of the Russian Geographical Society. V. L. Seroshevskii's basicwork The Yakuts was published with the money donated by Gromova.

5. The work in the Koryak camps is documented day by day in the Jochelson'sfield notes, found by I. S. Gurvich in the archives of the Institute of the Peoples of Asiain Leningrad (Gurvich 1963).

REFERENCESAnonymous

1930 Sbornikpamiati L. la. Shternberga, i86i—ic}2j (Memorial volume forL. la Sternberg, 1861-1927). AN SSSR.

Bogoras, W. G. (see also Bogoraz)

1902 Folklore of Northeastern Asia as Compared with that of Northwestern

America. American Anthropologist 4:577—683.1904—9 The Chukchee. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition 7. Memoirs of the

American Museum of Natural History. Leiden/New York. Reprinted.

New York: AMS Press, 1975.1910 Chukchee Mythology. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition 8(1). Memoirs

of the American Museum of Natural History. Leiden/New York.

Reprinted. New York: AMS Press, 1975.1913 The Eskimo of Siberia. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition 8(3). Mem-oirs of the American Museum of Natural History. Leiden/New York.

Reprinted. New York: AMS Press, 1975.

Bogoraz, V. G. (see also Bogoras)

1926 Drevnie pereseleniia narodov v Severnoi Evrazii i v Amerike (Ancientmigrations of peoples in Northern Eurasia and in America). SbornikMAE 4.

1934 Chukchi (The Chukchi). Part i. Leningrad.

76

LIUDMILA P. KUZ'MINA

1936a Osnovnye tipy folklora Severnoi Evrazii i Severnoi Ameriki (Funda-mental types of folklore of Northern Eurasia and North America).Sovetskii folklor (4-5).

1936b Sotsial'nyi stroi amerikanskikh Eskimosov (Social structure of the

American Eskimo). In Voprosy istorii doklassovogo obshchestva (Problems ofthe history of pre-classist societies). Moscow-Leningrad: AN SSSR.

Gurvic, I. S, and L. P. Kuzmina

1985 W. Bogoras et W. lochelson: Deux eminents representants de I'ethno-graphie russe. Inter-Nord 17. Paris.

Gurvich, I. S. (see also Gurvic)

1963 Polevye dnevniki V. I. lokhel'sona i D. D. lokhel'son-Brodskoi (W. I.

Jochelson's and D. D. Jochelson-Brodsky's field diary). In Ocherki istoriirusskoi etnografii, folkloristiki i antropologii (Essays on the history of Russ-ian ethnography, folkloristics, and physical anthropology). Trudy Insti-tuta Etnografii n.s. 85.

Gurvich, Il'ia (ed.)

1981 Traditsionnye kul'tury Severnoi Sibiri i Severnoi Ameriki (Traditional cul-tures of Northern Siberia and Northern North America). Moscow:Nauka.

lokhel'son, V. I. (see also Jochelson)

1904 Ob aziatskikh i amerikanskikh elementakh v mifakh Koriakov (Asiaticand American elements in the myths of the Koryak). Zemlevedenieii(3):33-4i.

1907 Etnologicheskie problemy na severnikh beregakh Tikhogo okeana(Ethnological questions of the northern coasts of the Pacific Ocean)/Zhivaia Starina 3. St. Petersburg.

Jochelson, W. (see also lokhel'son)

1908 The Koryak. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition 6. Memoirs of theAmerican Museum of Natural History. Leiden/New York. Reprinted.New York: AMS Press, 1975.

1926 The Yukaghir and the Yukaghirized Tungus. The Jesup North Pacific Ex-pedition 9. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History. Lei-den/New York. Reprinted. New York: AMS Press, 1975.

The Jesup North Pacific Expedition 77

Olsuf ev, A. V.

1896 Obshchii ocherk Anadyrskoi okrugi, ee ekonomicheskogo sostoianiia i byta nase-leniia (General description of the Anadyr territory, its economic state,and the life of its population). St. Petersburg.

Sokol'nikov, N. P.

1913 Bolezni i rozhdenie cheloveka v s. Markovo na Anadyre (Diseases andhuman birth in Markovo settlement on the Anadyr River). Etnografich-eskoe Obozrenie 90—91.

Tokarev, S. A.

1956 Vklad russkikh uchenykh v mirovuiu ethnografiiu (Contribution ofRussian scholars to world ethnography). In Ocherki istorii russkoi etno-grafii, folkloristiki i antropologii (Essays on the history of Russianethnography, folkloristics, and physical anthropology). Trudi InstitutaEtnografii n.s. 30.

Zelenin, D. K.

1937 V- G. Bogoraz-Tan—etnograf i folklorist (W. G. Bogoras, anthropolo-gist and folklorist). In Pamiati V. G. Bogoraza i86^-ic}^6 (In memoryof W. G. Bogoras, 1865-1936). Moscow.

Zenzinov, V.

1914 Markovtsy i Russko-ust'intsy: Etnograficheskie paralleli i sravneniia

(People of Markovo and of Russian-Ustie: Ethnographical parallels andcomparison). Etnograficheskoe obozrenie ioi-2(i-2): 155—61.

1

(1

/i Collections of the Native Peoples ofthe Russian Northeast in the Peter theGreat Museum of Anthropology andEthnography

ELENA A. MIKHAILOVA

THE PETER THE GREAT MUSEUM OF ANTHROPOLOGY and Ethnog-raphy (MAE) in St. Petersburg was established through the merger of twoacademic museums, the Museum of Ethnography and Anatomy and the St.Petersburg Kunstkamera. In turn, its Research Division became the modernM. N. Miklukho-Maklai Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy ofSciences, now the Peter the Great Institute-Museum of Anthropology andEthnography. Both the MAE and the Institute of Ethnography have tradition-ally concentrated primarily on ethnographic studies of the native peoples ofSiberia and the north and the gathering of artifacts. The accumulation of col-lections from Chukchi, Koryak, and Siberian Eskimo cultures began in thefirst half of the eighteenth century and continues to this day. Because informa-tion on these collections has not been fully published, this chapter provides abrief description of the Far Northeast Asian ethnography collections availablein the MAE Siberian Department.

The first Northeast Siberian collections came from the famous expeditions ofthe middle and late eighteenth century: namely, the Second Kamchatka Expe-dition (1733-43), which included G. E Miiller, I. G. Gmelin, and S. P.

79

Krasheninnikov; the Academic Expedition of 1768—74, with P. S. Pallas, I.Lepekhin, N. la. Ozeretzkovskii, V. F. Zuev, and others; and the NortheasternGeographical Expedition of I. I. Billings and G. A. Sarychev (1785—94). Thesignificance of these expeditions for Russian science is widely acknowledged.A great number of artifacts were brought back to the Kunstkamera from theseexpeditions (Staniukovich 1978:50—51), but unfortunately some were lost inthe Kunstkamera fire of 1745. Others present in today's collections cannot bepositively identified because of poor documentation. Like many other muse-ums, the MAE did not introduce the scientific artifact-by-artifact method ofregistration until the late nineteenth century. Before that time, the museummerely prepared lists of accessions indicating dates of arrival and short noteson the collection contents. However, part of the material from the Billings-Sarychev collection has been identified and the results published by R. G. Lia-punova (1980:173—77). This collection contains ten unique Koniag Eskimoartifacts from Kodiak Island. It is believed that some of the eighteenth-centu-ry material is stored in the museum's Siberian section, mixed in with the col-lections assembled and described much later. The origin of these collections israther vague; for example, some are said to be "from Kunstkamera," "fromone of the old collections of Kunstkamera," or "from old unnumbered arti-facts." By and large, however, the MAE collections consist of artifacts collect-ed in the nineteenth century, following the discovery and development of thenorthern territories in North America during the late eighteenth and earlynineteenth centuries. During this period several round-the-world voyages weremade by Russians attempting to establish direct ties with Russian America.Apart from various other tasks, the participants were engaged in exploringthe geology of the new lands and the ethnology of its peoples. These expedi-tions made extremely valuable contributions to the museum, primarily to theforeign sections, but some of the artifacts came from Northeastern Siberia,which was also visited by the expeditions. F. P. Liitke, for example, is knownto have gathered several pieces that are now in the Siberian collection.^

Two other individuals who contributed to the museum collections wereconnected with the Russian American Company: L. A. Zagoskin (a companyofficer) and I. G. Voznesenskii. A preparator at the Zoological Museum, V02-nesenskii was sent to Russian America as an associate of the Academy of Sci-ences specifically to help build up the academy's natural science collections,which included ethnographic artifacts. Up to that time, items of interest fromNortheast Siberian were gathered only incidentally; the systematic collecting

8i

of museum objects had not been practiced on any of the early expeditions, butwith Voznesenskii, fieldwork was for the first time specifically planned for ar-tifact collection. A special program for ethnographic collecting was drawn upfor Voznesenskii by Academician Shrader. The expedition took place between1839 and 1849, and over these ten years approximately half of Voznesenskii'stime was spent in North America, where he compiled a unique systematizedcollection, which today constitutes nearly two-thirds of the MAE's entireNorth American collection (Kinzhalov 1980:167). Voznesenskii also workedin Northeastern Siberia for almost five years, collecting artifacts of Siberianethnography. Being a zoologist accustomed to collecting large biological se-ries, Voznesenskii applied the methods of that discipline to gathering ethno-graphic materials, and thus collected whole series of clothing, boats, masks,and other objects. Voznesenskii also paid close attention to conservation andlabeling (Staniukovich 1978:80).

The MAE inventory from the first half of the nineteenth century is com-posed of five collections, totaling 260 artifacts gathered by Liitke, Zagoskin,and Voznesenskii. These are the earliest collections and are of particular inter-est to scholars. Two out of the five can be clearly attributed. One, collectionnumber 20, includes 41 artifacts brought back by Voznesenskii. It containsChukchi, Koryak, and Itelmen artifacts such as bone pipes, Chukchi clothes,Koryak opuvans (embroidered fur bands), small ivory sculptures, and minia-tures of dwellings and means of transportation. The Geographic Society pro-vided another collection, number 337, which was gathered by A. F. Postels, aparticipant of Liitke's expedition. It contains six artifacts: ivory smokingpipes, an encased arrow, an ice-breaker of walrus tusk, and a necklace of den-talium shells. The origin of the three other collections is unclear, althoughthey contain certain artifacts whose provenance has been identified. The bow,the tobacco-box, the plaited bag, and some other artifacts from collection704, for example, retain their original labels from Liitke's collection. Collec-tion 752 contains quivers, bows, arrows, and fishing rods—173 artifacts in all.

In the late nineteenth century the task of systematically organizing the muse-um's collections was undertaken by V. V. Radlov, a prominent orientalist whobecame director of the MAE in 1894. With the support of the General As-sembly of the Academy of Sciences, he enlisted the aid of local administratorsand amateur museologists to achieve his goals, and the results of this endeavorwere extremely fruitful. N. V. Kirillov, a corresponding member of the muse-

um, collected and handed over to the museum 68 artifacts from Eskimo andChukchi everyday life.

The pride of the museum is the late nineteenth-century collection madeby N. L. Gondatti, which consists of more than 500 artifacts, mostlyChukchi, but also Koryak, Kerek, and Siberian Eskimo. One collection is ex-clusively archeological. Gondatti also made an extensive collection of artifactsfrom the Anadyr Russians (the "Markovtsy"). In the 1890s, Gondatti was sec-retary of the Society for Anthropology and Ethnography affiliated withMoscow University and consequently had some knowledge of ethnographyand was interested in ethnographical themes. In 1893 he was appointed chiefof the vast Anadyr territory, and during the three years of his administrativework he gathered some outstanding complete collections. Gondatti's collect-ing activities were held in high esteem by the Academy of Sciences, and hewas awarded a gold medal for these efforts. Thanks to the systematic arrange-ment and completeness of Gondatti's collections, Waldemar Bogoras was ableto prepare an essay on the material everyday life of the Reindeer Chukchi,published in 1901. This essay describes the material in detail, and touches onthe spiritual culture of the Chukchi. The essay has sections on food, clothing,ornamentation, dwellings, utensils, weapons, implements and tools, reindeer-breeding, hunting, games and toys, idols and domestic guardian spirits, andbone and ivory artifacts.

In 1910 the museum received two extensive collections on the ethnogra-phy of Chukchi (some 300 artifacts) from M. la. Kozhevnikov, ship captain,and I. P. Tolmachev, senior geologist of the expedition organized by the Mar-itime Department of the Ministry for Trade and Industry to survey the coastsof the Arctic Ocean.

The work of the prominent scholars and collectors Waldemar Bogorasand Waldemar Jochelson began on the eve of the twentieth century. Theywere both recruited by D. A. Klements to participate in the ethnographicalwork of the Academy of Sciences. In 1900-1901, they took part in the JesupNorth Pacific Expedition of the American Museum of Natural History (see L.Kuz'mina, this volume). The expedition's goal was to study the ethnoculturalcontacts and ties between the population of Northwestern America andNortheastern Siberia. It was organized by Franz Boas and carried out jointlyby the Academy of Sciences and the American Museum in New York. Underthe terms of their agreement, all the collections were to go to the AmericanMuseum, and it was only later that some of them were sent to Russia by way

of exchanges. A total of 176 artifacts reached Russia, and these now formMAE Collection 956.

These scholars made an invaluable contribution to ethnography throughtheir innovative approach to fieldwork, which included stationary observationand collecting during a long stay among the people being studied and anobligatory knowledge of the native language. This approach not only in-creased the value of the artifacts they collected for the museum, but also hadan important impact on their interpretations. The ethnographical traditionsintroduced by Bogoras and Sternberg were passed on to Soviet ethnography(Gurvich 1968:110). Bogoras and Sternberg brought up the next generationof students interested in Siberia in the same tradition, requiring both libraryresearch and fieldwork in the most remote areas of Siberia and the North.

Beginning in the late 1920s, the museum acquired new collections thanks toethnographers working in the Far North in the so-called Kul'tbazas (culturecenters) as schoolteachers and as participants of different expeditions. One ofthe students of the Department of Ethnography of the Geographical Institute(and, later, Leningrad University) taught by Bogoras and Sternberg was S. P.Stebnitskii, who worked as a teacher among the Koryak people of Kamchatka.In 1929—32, Stebnitskii contributed 80 artifacts from the Koryak people. K.S. Sergeeva, a scientific associate of the Scientific Research Association of theInstitute of the Peoples of the North, worked as a schoolteacher in ProvideniiaBay in Chukotka in the 1930s and gave the museum 11 Siberian Eskimo arti-facts. In 1935 a few other Eskimo artifacts were collected by another school-teacher, I. Bratyshkina, who worked in the Eskimo settlement of Chaplino.The MAE received further material from N. B. Shnakenburg, a student of theEthnography Department of the Leningrad Institute of Historical Linguistics,who worked at a Chukotka kul'tbaza in the 1930s and later participated inethnographical expeditions to Chukotka. The collectors of the 1930s also in-cluded G. A. Menovshchikov, who began his career as a teacher in the Eskimosettlement of Sireniki, and who was a well-known specialist in the languagesof the Asiatic Eskimo and an associate of the Institute of Philology. Anotherin the cohort of Bogoras and Sternberg students was A. S. Forstein, whotaught among the Chukchi of Chaun and in the Eskimo settlement of Naukanin the early 1930s and made collections for the MAE there.

During the late 1930s and 1940s the museum received large works ofart in walrus tusk to add to its collections. The earliest walrus and mammoth

ivory artifacts date to the early nineteenth century. These are mostly minia-ture sculptures, figurines of animals and people, bone needles, and pipes, all ofwhich are characteristic of the Eskimo, Koryak, and Chukchi up to the end ofthe nineteenth century. The great interest in carved ivory and bone in the1930s and 1940s reflects the sharp increase in the art of the Eskimo andChukchi carvers; the range of their artifacts expanded during this time, andthey mastered new carving techniques, especially after the establishment ofthe famous Uelen carving workshop in 1931. Last but not least, much of thepopularity of this original art was due to the recognition and awards won bythe Uelen carvers at international exhibitions.

A rich collection of carved ivory came to the Museum of Anthropologyand Ethnography in 1951 (Collection 6010). Almost all the artifacts in thecollection were produced by the Uelen workshop in 1945—49. This collectionis valuable not only because of the large number of artifacts (354) it contains,but also because of its artistic quality (Antropova 1953:9). Particularly strik-ing is the diversity of the objects, which range from miniature sculptures toengraved tusks and utensils, and the great variety of the artistic techniques,which include bas-relief and fretting. All the artifacts are clearly dated andeach carries the name of its carver. Prominent among the carvers' names areVukvutagin, Emkul', Ichel', Renvil', and Khukhutan.

The Institute of Ethnography staff engaged in scientific research amongvarious northern groups with the Northern Expedition of the Academy of Sci-ences contributed further to the growth of the MAE's Northeastern Siberiancollections. Over 80 Chukchi and Koryak artifacts were presented to the mu-seum by I. S. Gurvich in 1957 and 1971—73, 72 artifacts were presented byV. V. Antropova and Ch. M. Taksami in 1961, and 59 artifacts by I. S. Vdovinin 1969. The museum also has an extensive collection of archeological materi-al from the ancient Eskimo burial sites of Uelen and Ekven resulting from ex-cavations led by M. G. Levin, D. A. Sergeev, and S. A. Arutiunov (Arutiunovand Sergeev 1975).

Thus, as a result of more than 200 years of collecting activities, the Museumof Anthropology and Ethnography now owns an extensive collection of ethno-graphic artifacts from the peoples of Far Northeastern Siberia. These collec-tions contain over 80 accessions with some 3,700 artifacts that reflect diverseaspects of the culture of the Chukchi, Koryak, and Eskimo peoples. It is therichest collection from these peoples in our country, and it continues to grow.

Collections in the Peter the Great Museum

85

Over the years, the museum's collections have been the basis for numer-ous publications by ethnographers, archeologists, and art students. These in-clude such seminal works as Peoples of Siberia (from the series Peoples of theWorld), published in 1956 in Russian and translated into English in 1964,and the Historico-ethnographic Atlas of Siberia, published in 1961, soon to beavailable in English, both volumes originally edited by Levin and Potapov;Ornamentation among the Peoples of Siberia as a Historical Source, and Sculpture ofthe Peoples of Siberia, both by S. V. Ivanov (in Russian); and numerous "SiberianCollections" ("Sbornik" series). The museum collections are also used for edu-cational purposes. In the mid-1920s, some temporary exhibitions of religiouscults and art forms were on display within the permanent Siberian section.The "Gallery of Shamans" was composed of full-clad figures of shamans fromall the peoples of Siberia, and of shamans' tombs (Taksami and Khomich1980:46). Today, the MAE has no exhibits on peoples of the former SovietUnion in order to avoid duplicating the exhibits of the State Museum ofEthnography of the Peoples of the USSR. The material from the MAE, how-ever, is widely used for temporary exhibits, both in Russia and abroad.

NOTES

, I. Liitke's collection is mainly known for the remarkable artifacts brought backfrom the Caroline Islands (Micronesia).

REFERENCESAntropova, V. V.

1953 Sovremennaia chukotskaia i eskimosskaia reznaia kost' (ContemporaryChukchi and Eskimo carved ivory). Sbornik MAE 15.

Arutiunov, S. A., and D. A. Sergeev

1975 Problemy etnicheskoi istorii Beringomor'ia: Ekvenskii mogil'nik (Problems ofethnohistory of the Bering Sea: The Ekven burial site). Moscow:Nauka.

Bogoraz, V. G.

1901 Ocherk material'nago byta Olennykh Chukchei. . . . (Essay on the materialeveryday life of the Reindeer Chukchi). St. Petersburg.

86 ELENA A. MIKHAILOVA

Gurvich, I. S.

1968 Etnograficheskaia deiatel'nost' M. G. Levina na Okhotskom poberezh'e v

i930-ic)^2gg (Ethnographic activity of M. G. Levin on the OkhotskCoast in 1930 to 1932). Trudy Instituta etnografii 94.

Kinzhaiov, R. V.

1980 K istorii amerikanskogo otdela MAE (History of the American section ofthe MAE). Sbornik MAE 35.

Liapunova, R. G.

1980 Kollektsii Severo-Vostochnoi geograficheskoi ekspeditsii Billingsa-Sarycheva/ ij8^—i'/cf4/ V sobranii MAE (The collections of the Northwest Geo-graphic Expedition of Billings and Sarychev, 1785-1794, in the MAEcollections). Sbornik MAE 35.

Staniukovich, T. V.

1978 Etnograficheskaia nauka i muzei (Ethnography and museums). Leningrad.

Taksami, Ch. M., and L. V. Khomich

1980 Iz istorii izucheniia etnografii narodov Sibiri (History of the ethnographyof the peoples of Siberia). Sbornik MAE 35.

3.

The Paleolithic of Kamchatka andChukotka and the Problem ofthe Peopling of America

NIKOLAI N. DIKOV

THE ARCHEOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN Far Northeastern Asia have longheld great fascination for the scientific community. The history of man's mas-tering of this large geographical region (Kamchatka and Chukotka), locatedin an extremely rigorous high-latitude environment, is both interesting andinstructive. This history testifies to the remarkable feat of the native peopleswho created hyperborean cultures as early as the Late Pleistocene glaciationand successfully adapted to the severe climate of the far north—and who en-tered into North America at the end of the Ice Age, when the Beringian landbridge joined Asia and America. It is here, in Northeastern Siberia, that allthe cultural and ethnic connections between the Old and New Worlds, fromIce Age times until the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus, oc-curred (see figure 5-1). For these reasons, there can be no doubt that the landsof Kamchatka and Chukotka contain antiquities that in due course will revealmore vividly and in more detail the history of this advanced detachment ofearly mankind as it made its way from Asia to America.

This history is already becoming clearer as a result of archeological andphysical anthropological investigations (West 1981; Shutler 1983; Dikov1979, 1985) on both side of the Bering Strait, which has been a physical bar-

87

Glaciers ot SartanskGlaciation Maximum

Beringia 23-15. 000 years agoBeringia 14-13,000 years ago

* Late Paleolithic and Early post-Paleolithicsites containing stemmed arrowpoints:

1 Ushki I.V.Iayer VII.

2 Ul'khum

3 Trail Creek

5 Lind Coulee

6 Five Mile Rapids

7 Wild Cat Canyon

8 Shaur

9 Birch Creek Caves

10 Fort Rock/Cougar Mountain Caves

11 Marmes/Windust Caves

• Late Paleolithic sites containingwedge-shaped cores:

2 Ulkhum

12 Ushki l-V. layers VI.V

13 Inas'kwaam II

14 Kurpuka I

15 Chaatamye

16 Dyuktai

17 Ikhine

18 Berelyokh

19 Ustinovka-Tadushi

20 Shirataki

21 Akamak

22 HealyLake

23 Namu

28 Talyain I

29 KymynanonvyvaamVII. VIII. X. XIV

31 Siberdik

32 Mayorych

▲ Other sites:

4 Puturak

24 Anangula

25 Ground Hog Bay

26 Hidden Falls

27 Ok) Crow

30 Galagher Flint

FIGURE 5-1. Ancient Beringia (according to Hopkins) and early man sites inNortheastern Asia and Alaska. (Artwork by Julie Perlmutter)

rier between the two continents for about 10,000 years. These investigationshave been conducted for several decades and include the work of such notedAmerican and Soviet scholars as A. Hrdlicka, C. Chard, W. Laughlin, L. Gid-dings, D. Anderson, H. West, A. Okladnikov, G. F. Debets, V. P. Alekseev, S.A. Arutiunov, and many others. In Magadan, for the past 25 years, the North-east Asian Archeological Expedition of the Northeastern Interdisciplinary Re-search Institute of the USSR Academy of Sciences, headed by myself, has alsoundertaken such investigations. The results of our study of the peopling ofAmerica during the Paleolithic are the subject of this report.

As early as 1961, I was fortunate to discover some Stone Age sites in thecenter of the Kamchatka Peninsula, on a terrace 8 to 12 meters above theshores of Lake Ushki. These sites proved to be multilayered with well-defined

stratigraphic zones (Dikov and Titov 1984). Three layers (V, VI, VII) arefound 1.6—2.3 meters below thick, in situ volcanic ash layers and date to theLate Paleolithic. These sites (Ushki I—V) are still under investigation and willbe for some time in the future, as they are among the most important Late Pa-leolithic sites in the world. Ushki I is of particular interest for it containsdwellings in its lowermost Paleolithic layers. During the many years thiswork has been taking place, the outlines of two Upper Paleolithic cultures—Early Ushki and Late Ushki—have become more distinct and convincing.These Ushki peoples hunted bison, reindeer (see figure 5-2a), and probablymammoth, as well as large salmon, which are abundant during spawning pe-riods even at the present time.

Early Ushki culture is represented in layer VII at the Ushki I (figure 5-3)and V sites. Radiocarbon dates of material from this layer range from 14,300+ 200 to 13,600 + 250 years ago. An important find at Ushki I is a burial pitfilled with red ochre and surrounded by large (about 100 square meters)dwellings, each of which contains hearths. This culture is characterized byrather small, stemmed, bifacial flint projectile points. They are most similarto the Late Paleolithic Paleo-Indian stemmed point tradition of WesternNorth America (Bryan 1980). Analogous points of similar date have beenfound by us in the intervening territory at the Late Paleolithic site ofUl'hkum on the Chukchi Peninsula, and by Danish archeologist H. Larsen atthe Trail Creek Caves in Alaska (Larsen 1968). In view of these analogies, theeasterly direction of cultural influence, and, perhaps, even migrations toAmerica via Beringia, it appears that the Ushki points are the most ancient.However, it must be kept in mind that we are probably not dealing with thevery earliest dispersal of people and with their culture from Asia to America.

The Late Ushki culture corresponds to layer VI at all the Ushki sites,I—V. Three radiocarbon dates were obtained from these sites and they rangefrom 10,860 + 400 B.P to 10,360 + 350 B.P. This culture differs markedlyfrom the Early Ushki culture. It has more dwellings (Ushki I has 25dwellings and is only partly excavated), and they are generally smaller (about20 square meters or less) and appear to be single-family dwellings. In addi-tion, they have quite a different construction: they are sunk 0.3-0.5 metersinto the ground, have a tunnel entrance, and a mushroom-like shape. Theyalso have stone-bordered central hearths slightly offset toward the entrance.Projectile points are thoroughly treated with continuous bifacial retouch andare not stemmed, but leaf-shaped. Peculiar wedge-shaped cores for the pro-

90 NIKOLAI N. DIKOV

duction of microblades, entirely absent in Early Ushki culture, occur fre-quently in Late Ushki. In view of the character of the stone industry and thepresence of stone lip labret ornaments, Late Ushki culture can be consideredProto-Eskimo-Aleut, and related to the so-called Beringian tradition of thelatest Paleolithic of Alaska, represented by the Denali culture. One of thedwellings, belonging perhaps to a shaman, contained the grave of a domesti-cated husky-like dog that may pre-date the dog burial from the upper JordanRiver in Palestine (Davis and Valla 1978). The Late Ushki dog was buried ina sleeping position, with its paws under its jaw, and had a scraper and a knifenear its back. Thus, the dog was given the same treatment as a human burial,with all honors of the time.

Also unique among the remains of this culture are a few works of art:sandstone plates (one patterned with pits, another with the graphic design ofhut-like dwellings, very likely of the Ushki Paleolithic settlement itselO andengraved on the dirt floor of one of the dwellings and close to one of thelabrets, is an image of a fish.

Sites that I have recently found in the far east of the Chukchi Peninsu-la—at Kurupka I, Ul'khum, Chaatamye, and Kymynanonvyvaam VII, VIII,and XIV—all contain wedge-shaped cores and bifacial leaf-shaped stonepoints or knives similar to the Late Ushki finds of Kamchatka. These sites arecloser to America than any others yet found and are geographically intermedi-ate between the Denali sites in Alaska and the Diuktai culture in Yakutia.Thus the Chukotkan Late Ushki sites provide evidence of another migrationof northeastern Asiatic Paleolithic cultures to America via Beringia.

The largest site, Ushki I, is still being excavated. A proton magnetome-ter is being used to conduct a geophysical reconnaissance of the cultural lay-ers. Paleomagnetic techniques are also being used to correct the radiocarbon

dates of Paleolithic layers, which are thought to be underestimated becausethe layers are saturated with groundwater. Preliminary results suggest thatlayer VI may be 1,500-2,000 years older, dating back to about 12,300 + 300B.P. According to paleomagnetologist I. G. Dobretsova, this date would applyto the uppermost part of the cultural layer. The lowermost layer VIII wouldbe correspondingly older. This research has not yet been completed, however.

We conduct excavations on Ushki Lake every autumn, and in the sum-mer we resume our archeological reconnaissance work, begun in 1979, in theeastern part of the Chukchi Peninsula, close to North America. Besides theabove-mentioned Paleolithic sites containing wedge-shaped cores (Kurupka I,Urkhum, Chaatamye and Kymynanonvyvaam VII, VII, and XIV), we haveuncovered some sites of quite a different nature and, perhaps, of more ancientappearance. In 1984 we found the sites of Kusiuveem IV and VI, which con-tain handaxe-like tools in the surface layer on the 25- to 30-meter terrace ofthe Kusiuveem River, and the sites of Kymynanonvyvaam IX, XII, and XIII,which are also on river terraces and have handaxe-like tools similar to thosefound at the Calico site in South Carolina (Budinger 1985). Finally, in 1985we discovered a stone workshop in the Puturak Pass, where we found numer-ous crudely worked lamellar flakes, scrapers, burins, and biface blanks (veryfew of the latter), all made of grey chert. Technologically, these tools aresomewhat similar to the ancient stone tool complex of Central Alaska (Dixon1975). However, the presence of more sophisticated unilateral prismatic corestogether with large crudely worked conical cores suggests that this newly dis-covered stone industry in the southeastern Chukchi Peninsula (close to CapeChaplino) is similar to the Early Holocene Proto-Aleut industry on AnangulaIsland in the eastern Aleutian Islands (Laughlin 1980). Eventually, we hope toobtain more precise dates for this interesting site.

As for the question of the peopling of America from Asia, so far thearcheological data needed to substantiate this migration have not been asstrong as the physical anthropological data. Biologically, it has been provedthat American Indians are descendants of the early nonspecialized AsiaticMongoloids or, as is now suggested by V. P. Alekseev, of Mongoloids mixedwith the earliest Central Asian Europoids (Alekseev 1985). But the archeolog-ical evidence is still weak, and definitive dates are lacking. Nevertheless, someprogress has been made toward a solution to this problem in the past two orthree decades. Paradoxically, the American fluted points that are thought tomark the beginning of prehistory (but no earlier than 12,000 years ago) in

94 NIKOLAI N. DIKOV

America have not been found in Northeastern Asia or elsewhere in the OldWorld. New light has been shed on this question by the recent discovery ofmore ancient archeological findings in Siberia and in the Far East, as well asin America. These findings suggest the presence of a "pre-projectile point"stage in America, in which there were no points (at least fluted ones) at all,and provide stronger archeological evidence of the Asiatic roots of the earliestAmerican Paleolithic cultures.

Today, the search for the earliest archeological sources continues both inAmerica and in Northeastern Asia. This work is extending the chronologicalframework of the problem far back into the depths of time, as indicated bythe new North American findings, as well as the most ancient archeologicaldiscoveries in Eastern Chukotka reported on here.

REFERENCES

Aiekseev, V. P.

1985 (Some morphological particularities of the American Natives, impor-tant for the reconstruction of the process of the peopling of America.In Historical destinies of the American Indian. The problems of indianistics){in Russian}. Moscow: Nauka.

Bryan, A. L.

1980 The Stemmed Point Tradition: An Early Technological Tradition in WesternNorth America. Anthropological Papers in Memory of Earl H. Swanson.Edited by L. B. Harten et al. Special publication. Pocatello: Idaho StateMuseum of Natural History.

Budinger, E E.

1985 Evidence for Middle and Late Pleistocene Man in the Central Mojave Desert ofSouthern California. Los Altos: Great Basin Foundation.

Davis, S. J., and E R. Valla

1978 Evidence for Domestication of the Dog 12,000 Years Ago in the Natu-fian, Israel. Nature 276:56-88.

Dikov, N. N.1979

Drevnie kul'tury Severo-Vostochnoi Azii: Aziia na styke s Amerikoi v drev-

The Paleolithic of Kamchatka and Chukotka 95

nosti (Ancient cultures of Northeastern Asia: Asia joining America inancient times). Moscow.1985 The Paleolithic of Northeastern Asia and Its Relations with the Pale-olithic of America. Inter-Nord 17. Paris.

Dikov, N. N., and E. E. Titov

1984 Problems of the Stratification and Periodisation of the Ushki sites. Arc-tic Anthropology 21(2).

Dixon, E. I.

1975 The Galagher Flint Station: An Early Man Site on the North Slope ofArctic Canada and Its Role in Relation to the Bering Land Bridge.Arctic Anthropology 12(1).

Laricheva, I. P.

1976 Paleoindeiskie kul'tury Severnoi Ameriki (The paleo-Indian cultures ofAmerica). Novosibirsk.

Larsen, H.

1968 Trail Creek. Acta Arctica 15. Copenhagen.Laughlin, W. S.

1980 Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. New York.

Shutier, Richard (ed.)

1983 Early Man in the New World. London.

West, F. H.1981

The Archaeology of Beringia. Williamstown: Columbia University Press.

6New Dental Anthropological§ Observations Relevant to the HumanPopulation System of the GreaterBeringian Realm

CHRISTY G. TURNER II

THE "crossroads OF CONTINENTS" exhibition presumes that themany similarities between the aboriginal North Pacific hunting and fishingcultures are due to historic connections, cultural continuity, sharing and bor-rowing, and other conditions and processes operating in a linked system ofgeographically bounded, linguistically diverse human groups. The purpose ofthis chapter is to see if there is physical anthropological evidence to supportor reject this presumption. I will refer to the "Crossroads" area as the GreaterBeringian Realm instead of the North Pacific because the latter term is notinclusive enough and does not help identify the ancient or contemporary geo-genetic center of the "Crossroads" population. The Greater Beringian Realmwill be defined genetically rather than geographically. As will be shown, it isan acute accent—marked, A-shaped distribution of linked populations fromthe Amur River north to Bering Strait that encompasses all of Alaska, includ-ing the Aleutian archipelago, down the North Pacific coast, and across Canadato Greenland. The earliest inhabitants of the Greater Beringian Realm passedthrough to become North and South American Indians.

From February i to June 30, 1987, Jacqueline A. Turner and I collecteddental anthropological data on 1,1400 crania belonging to several skeletal

97

98

CHRISTY G. TURNER II

populations curated in five institutions in the former USSR. These institu-tions and principal aids to our investigation include the Institute of Ethnog-raphy, Moscow (A. A. Zubov); Museum of Anthropology, Moscow State Uni-versity (T. Svetlana); Institute of Ethnography, Leningrad (A. Kozintsev);Institute of History, Tallinn, Estonia (L. Heapest); and Institute of History,Philosophy, and Philology, Novosibirsk (T. Chiksheva). The two objectives ofour data-collecting tour were to continue the dental search for the origin of allNative Americans, and to begin searching for the geographic and temporalbranchpoint of Europoid and Mongoloid geographic races. Both of these ob-jectives are germane to the history and composition of the Beringian popula-tion system.

Our procedures included a detailed anatomical workup of 200 crown androot variables on all permanent teeth. Examples of these variables include theoccurrence and expression of incisor shoveling, molar cusp number, Carabelli'scusp, and root numbers of various teeth. The study of several of these traits inNative Americans and Asians was pioneered by A. Hrdlicka and A. A.Dahlberg. Additional Russian-American study is in progress by A. Haeussler,A. A. Zubov, and others. The analyses presented here are based on the key 29of these largely independent polygenic traits, nearly all without significantage or sex dimorphism. Trait frequencies are based on numbers of individuals,not numbers of teeth. The multivariate mean measure of divergence (MMD)statistic is used to quantify the degree of similarity between groups. The clus-tering analysis employs Ward's algorithm. Details of these procedures are giv-en elsewhere (Turner 1985).

From west to east, the new 1987 dental samples used in this analysis area nineteenth-century series of western Russians; a pooled series of Mesolithicand Neolithic Ukrainians; Metal Age Kazakhs from a large cemetery near theIranian border; Bronze Age crania from the west Siberian Sopka site; and aNeolithic series from an area near Lake Baikal. Although these series originatefar from Beringia, they are needed to evaluate the internal genetic variationof, and possible external influence on, the people occupying the GreaterBeringian Realm. Information on the other eight series was already in my ex-isting data bank and has been described elsewhere (Turner 1985). Sample sizefor individual dental traits ranged from 22 to 123 for Russians; 22 to 158 forUkrainians; 43 to 180 for Kazakhs; 88 to 212 for Sopka; and 12 to 49 forBaikal 2.

DISCUSSION

Table 6-1 provides the ranked intergroup mean measures of divergence. Thefew statistically nonsignificant MMDs are indicated with an asterisk. Thenonsignificant values involve only the USSR Upper Paleolithic series, andthen only sometimes. This series contains less than 10 individuals. A signifi-

TABLE 6-1. Ranked Intergroup Mean Measures of Divergence

USSR UPPER PALEOLITHIC

SOPKA

Europe

0.000^

USSR Upper Paleolithic

0.024^

Meso. and Neo. Ukraine

0.000^

Kazakhs

0.057

Russians

0.000^

Baikal 2

0.069

Kazakhs

0.020^

China-Mongolia

0.100

Sopka

0.024^

NE Siberia + Amur

0.133

Baikal 2

0.234^

Europe

0.163

China-Mongolia

0.267

Meso. and Neo. Ukraine

0.173

NE Sibera + Amur

0.355

Greater NW Coast

0.194

Aleut

0.433

Eskimo

0.203

Eskimo

0.491

N + S America

0.210

N + S America

0.504

Russians

0.219

Greater NW Coast

0.506

Aleut

0.235

BAIKAL 2

RUSSIANS

China-Mongolia

0.033

USSR Upper Paleolithic

0.000^

Sopka

0.069

Europe

0.027

Kazakhs

0.077

Meso. + Neo. Ukraine

0.068

NE Siberia + Amur

0.099

Kazakhs

0.115

Greater NW Coast

0.144

Sopka

0.219

Aleut

0.165

Baikal 2

0.330

Eskimo

0.168

China-Mongolia

0.377

N + S America

0.192

NE Siberia + Amur

0.456

USSR Upper Paleolithic

0.234

Aleut

0.553

Meso. + Neo. Ukraine

0.276

Eskimo

0.590

Europe

0.283

Greater NW Coast

0.613

Russians

0.330

N + S America

0.615

lOO CHRISTY G. TURNER II

TABLE 6-1. Ranked Intergroup Mean Measures of Divergence (cont.)

KAZAKHS

MESO. + NEO. UKRIANE

USSR Upper Paleolithic

0.020^

USSR Upper Paleolithic

0.000^

Sopka

0.057

Europe

0.047

Baikal 2

0.077

Russians

0.068

Europe

0.083

Kazakhs

0.142

Russians

0.115

Sopka

0.173

China-Mongolia

0.131

Baikal 2

0.276

Meso. + Neo. Ukraine

0.142

China-Mongolia

0.368

NE Siberia + Amur

0.157

NE Siberia + Amur

0.459

Eskimo

0.241

Eskimo

0.513

Aleut

0.258

Greater NW Coast

0.569

Greater NW Coast

0.277

Aleut

0.593

N + S America

0.326

N + S America

0.599

Note: Meso. and Neo. = Mesolithic and Neolithic.

a. Denotes nonsignificant mean measure of divergence.

cant MMD is one for which the probability of occurring by chance alone isless than 2 in lOO. Stated simply, with the exception of the smaller MMDs forthe USSR Upper Paleolithic sample, we can be confident that the values givenin table 6-i reflect actual average divergence or biological distance. A smallMMD indicates greater intergroup similarity than does a large MMD. Be-cause the dentition are inherited in a polygenic fashion, these MMD valuesare likely good signatures of overall genetic differences between each MMDpair.

Immediately apparent in table 6-i are the marked divergences (largeMMD values) between the various European and Asiatic-American series. It isunlikely that the European gene pool contributed to the initial or later forma-tion of the peoples of the Greater Beringian Realm until historic times, whenthere occurred massive cultural, genetic, linguistic, epidemiological, and eco-logical disturbances throughout the population system. Less apparent butequally important are the intermediate MMDs between the Kazakhs, Sopka,and the remaining series. The Kazakhs are very similar to the USSR UpperPaleolithic, Sopka, Baikal, and European samples. Sopka is most like theUSSR Upper Paleolithic, Kazakh, Baikal, and China-Mongolia series. These

r-

I

I

I

I

___ USSR Upper Paleolithic

Russians

Europe

Ukraine Meso. + Neo.

Sopka

Kazakh

Baikal 2

China-Mongolia

Eskimo

Aleut

NE Siber-Amur

___ NW Coast

N + S America

FIGURE 6-1. Dendrogram based on mean measures of divergence clustered with

Ward's method. (Computer reference: American Indian Origins #3 4-4-88)

values suggest that both the Kazakhs and Sopka people were hybrid popula-tions, with the former having less Asiatic admixture, and the latter, more.Neither Sopka nor the Kazakhs are like the people of the Greater BeringianRealm—Eskimo, Aleut, Northeast Siberia—Amur, or Greater NorthwestCoast—which demonstrates that none of these groups has identifiable Euro-pean genes. The east Siberian Baikal 2 series, geographically closest to theGreater Beringian Realm, joins up with China-Mongolia, suggesting a signif-icant discontinuity in the northeast Asian Sinodont gene pool.

The intergroup MMDs for Northeast Siberia—Amur, Aleut, Eskimo,Greater Northwest Coast, and to a lesser extent North and South America, areall much more like one another than like the values between each of thesegroups and the remaining series. This suggests the existence, or past exis-tence, of a distinct genetic network or population system centered in north-east Siberia and northwest North America, namely, the Greater BeringianRealm. While all the series from the Greater Beringian Realm are Sinodonts,they form a discernible network, according to the MMD values.

This distinct network and other Eurasian-American relationships are eas-ier to visualize in the dendrogram of figure 6-i. Inspecting from top to bot-tom, we find that the European samples branch from those of Asiatics at thevery base of the tree. Further down, a second branch includes Sopka, Kazakhs,Baikal, and China-Mongolia. Still further down, a third branch contains Eski-

mo, Aleut, and Northeast Siberia—Amur. Tlie last branch, a minor one, linksthe Greater Northwest Coast and the North and South America series.

Clustering analysis can be used to test existing hypotheses or serve as thebasis for new ones. The existing hypotheses offer two competing explanationsfor the origin of all Native Americans: the ancestors of Native American orig-inated in (a) Europe (see MuUer-Beck 1982; Fagen 1987; Haynes 1987), or (b)Asia (see, among others, Hrdlicka 1925; Stewart i960, 1973; Laughlin 1963;Turner 1983). The European-origin hypothesis is based on interpretations ofarcheological materials from Europe and the Americas; the Asian-origin hy-pothesis rests on physical anthropological information from Asia, the Americ-as, and Europe. A methodological flaw in the archeological viewpoint is itsfailure to recognize that similarity is relative and that at least three groupsmust be compared in order to measure degrees of similarity or relationship.As is most evident, the dendrogram supports the Asian-origin hypothesis, notthe European model. That is, the dentition of the peoples of the GreaterBeringian Realm and all other Native Americans are far more similar to thoseof other Asians than those of many Europeans.

Furthermore, the dendrogram suggests that the people of the GreaterBeringian Realm were a substantially distinct genetic cohort or populationsystem, probably best viewed taxonomically as a local race. Not only was thispopulation system isolated by geographic distance, but also by sufficient timeto allow its distinctiveness to evolve out of the average genetic background ofnortheastern Asia. If we set the dental evolutionary clock for the divergence ofall major world populations at 100,000 years ago, beginning with a singleanatomically modern human population in Africa, allow time for expansioninto Europe where these modern folk (Cro-Magnon) appear about 40,000years ago, and in Australasia (Australian Aboriginals) about the same time,then the first branchpoint in the cladogram of figure 6-1 may have occurredabout 50,000 years ago, perhaps in India or Southeast Asia. If this is so, thenthe antiquity of the population in the Greater Beringian Realm would be onthe order of 10,000 years, a minimal estimate based on the ratio of branchlengths in the dendrogram. This, of course, assumes a similar rate of dentalmicroevolution in all populations (Turner 1986). With respect to rate, it isnoteworthy that the dentitions from the greater Beringian Realm are quitesimilar, given the stark environmental differences ranging from polar desertthrough various expressions of tundra and boreal forest, to rain forests that

these populations inhabited. If there is one common environmental element,it is the heavy economic dependency on fish.

What sort of independent evidence is there for the existence of a humanpopulation system in the Greater Beringian realm? As just mentioned, selec-tion by common environmental factors cannot be called on to explain the den-tal similarities from the Amur to Greenland. But, culturally and synchroni-cally, such a system seems to have existed. Culture elements such as raventales, various art styles, the use of wood-shavings for religious symbols, slatarmor, bear ceremonial, and other subjective features widely if discontinuous-ly shared from the Amur region north to and across Bering Strait, out into theAleutians, across Canada to the eastern Eskimos, and all down the NorthwestCoast, are numerous (Boas 1948). These are well displayed in the "Crossroads"exhibition. Similarity of culture elements in the North Pacific has long beenrecognized, beginning with Veniaminov's (1984) splendid comparisons. Sub-sequently, the Jesup North Pacific expedition assembled a vast amount of doc-umentation supportive of some form of North Pacific culture area or interac-tion sphere.

Linguistically, a community of sorts can be circumscribed. Within thesmallest sphere. North American—situated Aleut-Eskimo languages seem tojoin across the Bering Strait with Siberian Chuckchi in some features (Green-berg 1987). Chukchi, in turn, has a close genetic connection with Koryak,spoken in northern Kamchatka (Boas 1948). Expanding out to the secondperimeter, Koryak may be related to other so-called Paleo-Asiatic languages.On the North American side, the nearest (geographically speaking) linguisticcommunity to that of Aleut-Eskimo is the Na-Dene group that forms a sepa-rate phylum or family, unlinkable to Aleut-Eskimo, Macro-Indian, or anySiberian language or cluster of languages. Obviously, this suggests that a lotof language evolution has occurred since the early ancestral language(s) wasspoken in late Pleistocene north China or Mongolia. The unrelated Paleo-Asi-atic languages may each represent a remnant family with only a single surviv-ing language. Until such time when linguists discover how to classify the re-lationships between language families, the hypothesis of a greater Beringianpopulation system is more dependent on other lines of evidence. However,Boas (1948:354) considered that the Paleo-Asiatic languages and those ofwestern America suggested the existence of a very old "district."

The diachronic archeological evidence for an ancient population system

in the Greater Beringian Realm is especially supportive. So far, northeasternSiberia appears to have had only one major late Pleistocene culture, the so-called Diuktai culture. Its distribution extends form the Lena to the Amur-Mongolia region, with a strong probability of having a north China-Mongoliaorigin. Diuktai has an American counterpart, called Paleo-Arctic or Denali,dating back about 10,000 years in Alaska (Dumond 1980). Paleo-Arctic peo-ple could well have been ancestral to most modern Na-Dene speakers (Turner1985). A separate but related archeologically recognizable sphere occurs inthe Hokkaido-Amur region, dated to about 15,000 years ago in Hokkaido.This center has the same kinds of artifacts as the earliest known Aleutian oc-cupation—unifacial blades, cores, and burins—dated 8,000 years old, fromAnangula Island (Laughlin 1963).

Additional details can be read from the cladogram. These are important,but not essential to the thesis of this discussion, which is that there is statisti-cally sound dental anthropological support for the concept of an ancient anddistinct population in northeast Siberia, which spread quickly to northernNorth America before or shortly after the end of the last Ice Age. The culturalsimilarities seen in Northwest Coast Indians, Aleut, Eskimo, all northeastSiberians, and even Amurians are seemingly the result of a common bioculturalorigin, as well as environmental selection for numerous cultural similarities.

In conclusion, multivariate and clustering statistics of Eurasian andAmerican dental variation suggest that the native peoples of northeast Asiaand northwest North America are members of a distinct and ancient popula-tion system, one whose origin was certainly not in Europe, but most likely innorthern China and Mongolia. This population system and areal distributiondefines a human biogeographic area I call the Greater Beringian Realm. Thisgeogenetic entity lends support to the concept of a North Pacific culture areaor interaction sphere.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Soviet dental data mentioned here were collected with financial supportand other help from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the USSRAcademy of Sciences. In addition to individuals identified in the text, specialthanks for other help go to Sergei Arutiunov, Alexander Pestriakov, NataliaMamonova, Natalia Khaldeeva, Anatoly Derevianko, Viacheslav Molodin,

New Dental Observations 105

Ruslan Vasilievsky, Alexander Konopatsky, and Olga Pavlova. Comparativedata were earlier obtained with aid from the National Geographic Society,National Science Foundation, IREX, and the USSR Academy of Sciences.Funds for computer analyses were made available from the Arizona State Uni-versity Research Incentive program. Linda S. Watson carried out the data pro-cessing. The Museum of Northern Arizona provided summer facilities inwhich this chapter was written.

REFERENCESBoas, Franz

1948 Race, Language and Culture. New York: Macmillan.Dumond, Don E.

1980 The Archaeology of Alaska and the Peopling of America. Science209:984—91.

Fagen, Brian M.

1987 The Great Journey: The Peopling of Ancient America. London: Thames andHudson.

Greenberg, Joseph H.

1987 Language in the Americas. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press.

Haynes, C. V., Jr.

1987 Clovis Origin Update. Kiva 52(2)83—93.

Hrdlicka, Ales

1925 The Origin and Antiquity of the American Indian. In Smithsonian Re-port for 192^, pp. 348-94. Publication no. 2778. Washington, D.C.

Laughlin, William S.

1963 Eskimos and Aleuts: Their Origins and Evolution. Science 142:633-45.

MuUer-Beck, Hansjurgen

1982 Late Pleistocene Man in Northern Alaska and the Mammoth-SteppeBiome. In Paleoecology of Beringia. D. M. Hopkins and others, eds., pp.329-52. New York: Academic Press.

Io6 CHRISTY G. TURNER II

Stewart, T. D.

i960 A Physical Anthropologist s View of the Peopling of the New World.

Southwestern Journal of A nthropology 163:25 9—7 3.1973 People of America. New York: Scribner.

Turner, Christy G. II

1983 Sinodonty and Sundadonty: A Dental Anthropological View of Mon-goloid Microevolution, Origin, and Dispersal into the Pacific Basin,Siberia, and the Americas. In Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene CulturalConnections of Asia and America. R. S. Vasilievsky, ed., pp. ']2—~jG.Novosibirsk: USSR Academy of Sciences, Siberian Branch. [Russian}

1985 The Dental Search for Native American Origins. In Out of Asia: Peo-pling the Americas and the Pacific. R. Kirk and E. Szathmary, eds., pp.31—78. Journal of Pacific History Inc. Canberra, Australia.

1986 Dentochronological Separation Estimates for Pacific Rim Populations.Science 232:1140—42.

Veniaminov, I.

1984 Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District. Edited by R. Pierce.Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press. Translated by Lydia T. Black andR. H. Geoghegan from Zapiski ob ostrovakh Unalashkinskago otdela, St.Petersburg, 1840.

Symbol and Object: ComplexityNorth Pacific Cultures

7

The Bleeding Coat: The Art of North# Pacific Ritual Clothing

VALERIE CHAUSSONNET ANDBERNADETTE DRISCOLL

ONLY RARELY IS CLOTHING PERCEIVED as art in Western culturesand conceptual categories. Beautiful garments, such as those displayed in theexhibition "Crossroads of Continents," are usually deemed fine pieces ofcraftsmanship. In the North Pacific, however, the production of clothing istaken as seriously as the creation of sacred art.^ This statement applies notonly to the ritual category of Koryak funeral coats (figure 7-1), for example,but to clothing in general throughout the North Pacific region. That is to say,the making of everyday dress, as well as ceremonial garments, rests on artisticand religious foundations comparable to those that motivate the work of na-tive North Pacific carvers and mask makers. In this chapter we focus mainly(although not exclusively) on ritual and ceremonial clothing, not because onlythey carry the symbols and meanings we are interested in, but because theirsymbolism is more overt, as a consequence of their function.

Human beings feel vulnerable as individuals and as discrete socialgroups. Clothing, therefore, not only provides physical protection but alsobinds together the social unit and, on a metaphysical level, protects againstdangerous spirits. Thus, North Pacific clothing expresses social, cosmological,and ideological concerns just as other forms of indigenous art do.

109

I lO

VALERIE CHAUSSONNET AND BERNADETTE DRISCOLL

FIGURE 7-1. Koryak malefuneral coat, AMNH 770-3600.

(Photograph by Valerie Chaussonnet andBernadette Driscoll, courtesy Department ofLibrary Services, American Museum ofNatural History)

In this case, the artists are women. Throughout the North Pacific region,clothing designers and seamstresses are primarily women.^ Since they arewomen, and since clothing is made from animal skins over which animal spir-its retain a right of control, seamstresses are subject to stringent rules andtaboos in practicing their art. Eskimo women, for example, had to refrainfrom sewing at the start of the caribou hunting season (Spencer 1959:355); topierce the caribou hide with a needle would offend the spirit of the caribouwaiting to be captured. Similarly, the wife of an umialiq (whaling captain)could not sew during her husband's hunting expeditions for fear of jeopardiz-ing the crew's success (Spencer 1959:344). Taboos against sewing at the startof, or during, a change in hunting seasons are especially well-documentedacross the Arctic.

This complex relationship with the animal world pervades all aspects oflife in the North Pacific. In the mythology of the North Pacific region, hu-

mans and animals are able to transform themselves from one form to the oth-er. A common feature of Koryak mythology, for example, is the intermarriagebetween humans and animal-named spirits (Jochelson 1908:115ff.). Amongthe Eskimos of the Bering Sea, the Creator/Transformer, Raven, lifts his beakto reveal himself as human (Nelson 1899:453). The mythology of the Atha-paskans is also marked by a time in which "all the animals looked, talked, andbehaved as men . . . those beings who are now animals seem to have pulled ontheir masks or skins permanently to assume the external appearances theyhave today" (McClellan 1975:71). Thus, throughout the North Pacific an in-timate bond existed between humans and animals, and clothing made fromthe skins of animals—whether everyday, ceremonial, or ritual in function—provided the principal means of transformation.

ANIMAL FUR AS CLOTHING: NORTHEASTERNSIBERIANS AND NORTH ALASKAN ESKIMO

Dressing in animal skins established a primary, fundamental relationship be-tween humans and animals. Among the Koryak and Chukchi of northeasternSiberia, both women and children dressed in one-piece combination suits.^The desire to imitate the animal was especially evident in the design of chil-dren's clothing (figure 7-2). Made from the soft fijr of a reindeer fawn, achild's combination suit, with its enclosed sleeves and attached boots, createda physical and metaphoric identification with the animal. The hood often re-tained antler buds or animal ears. Women's combination suits {khonba or kerk-er), although hoodless, were tailored in a similar manner; a metaphoric refer-ence to the animal was also suggested by the design of the lower back, whichimitates the lower back of the caribou.

Design motifs on Eskimo fur clothing also emphasized the close rela-tionship between humans and animals. Reindeer fur coats worn by men andwomen had triangular-shaped gussets at the throat said to refer to the walrus,an animal respected for its size and formidable tusks. Chuna Mclntyre, aYupik Eskimo from southwestern Alaska, contends, however, that the gussetsreflect a theme in Yupik mythology and symbolize streams of caribou fatdripping from the mouth of the Ancestral Father (personal communication,July 1988; see also chapter 19). Such alternative interpretations suggest thatclothing design probably contains polysemic symbols and equivalent mean-ings.

112 VALERIE CHAUSSONNET AND BERNADETTE DRISCOLL

JOINT MARKS, OCHRE, AND ALDER DYEING:ATHAPASKAN CLOTHING

The design motifs in Athapaskan clothing are particularly difficult to inter-pret. Red ochre is used throughout the Athapaskan region to mark the cloth-ing of men, women, and children."^ The potency of ochre is suggested by theactions involved in its excavation and use. Among the Ingalik, for example,ochre was collected exclusively by men—if a woman accompanied a man onthe expedition, "the ochre would sink down into the earth so that one couldnot obtain it" (Osgood 1940:384). When collecting ochre from a natural de-posit, the Kutchin left an offering of sinew or something of value at the site(Osgood 1936:93). Ochre itself served as a sign of wealth; like trade beads anddentalia, it had intrinsic commercial value.

Heavily drawn or smudged lines of ochre underlie the superimposed dec-oration of porcupine quillwork or beads on much of the Athapaskan clothingin museum collections.^ The presence of such lines along the seams and edgesof the garment (neck, wrists, and hem) suggests the "bounding" of both theclothing and the individual for spiritual protection (J. Thompson, personalcommunication, July 1988). Some Athapaskan garments show a thin verticalline drawn down the center of the lower front (and often back) of the tunic.On a garment illustrated in the Crossroads of Continents catalogue (Fitzhughand Crowell 1988:225, fig. 298 [MAE 620-4oa}), this center line terminatesin a trident motif suggesting a bird's claw, perhaps a clan or personal signa-ture, or referring to a helping spirit (see, e.g., Thompson 1987:152, fig. 137).On leggings, a vertical line of ochre sometimes joined horizontal bands encir-cling the knee and ankle. Mittens and gloves, too, were often marked with athick ochre band around the wrist or with the bone structure of the hand (seeThompson 1987:152, fig. 136). This use of ochre as a joint or skeletal mark-ing seems to parallel the magico-religious practice among Athapaskan groupsof binding the knees, ankles, and other joints with babiche to "counteract illomens" (McKennan 1959:165, 167). Such a protective function may also beindicated by the ochre line drawn across the upper back of many Athapaskangarments; hide tassels, feathers, and bead fringes often dangle from this line(Figure 7-3). In other cultures of the North Pacific area, amulets are attachedto the back of clothing as if to protect the wearer from behind.

With the introduction of foreign trade materials, clothing decorationthroughout the North Pacific region changed drastically. Because of the rich

FIGURE 7-2. Chukchi Childrenin "khonba" or "kerker," Omolon,

1980. (Photograph by Mikhail Abriutin)

FIGURE 7-3. Athapaskan gar-ment with ochre marks (back)

NMNH 49135. (Photograph by ValerieChaussonnet and Bernadette Driscoll)

114

VALERIE CHAUSSONNET AND BERNADETTE DRISCOLL

bead trade carried on in the Alaskan interior during the late nineteenth centu-ry, for example, beadwork eventually displaced the exquisite quillwork deco-ration for which Athapaskan craftswomen were renowned. Dentalium shellsobtained from Tlingit traders and colored glass beads purchased from Russ-ian, American, and Hudson Bay Company traders assumed an economic valueapparently not assigned to traditional quillwork.^ Beads were even circulatedas currency among Athapaskans (Hardisty 1866:311). The heavily beaded tu-nics worn by Athapaskan men actually served as family treasure. Women wereobliged to use their own beads to trade for skins with which to make the fam-ily clothing, while the beads decorating their husbands' tunics were preservedas family wealth (Hardisty 1872:14).

Many important questions regarding the history and symbolic content ofAthapaskan clothing remain to be researched, although there is clearly a con-nection between blood and ochre. On a physiological level, blood is an essen-tial substance uniting human beings and animals; thus, as a metaphor forblood, ochre joins together the human and animal realm. However, blood re-mains a profoundly ambivalent symbol incorporating references to both lifeand death. Because of its ambiguous (or perhaps intermediate) nature, men-struation, which represents neither birth nor death, is regarded as inherentlypowerful and dangerous. A key to the spiritual significance of ochre and itsimportance in the decoration of Athapaskan clothing may lie in women'sclothing, particularly in articles associated with menstruation.^

CELESTIAL BODIES: KORYAK DANCE COATS

Chukchi and Koryak seamstresses used alder bark, which lends a rich reddishbrown tone to scraped reindeer hide, to soften the skins and make them mois-ture resistant (Bogoras 1904—9:219; Jochelson 1908:629). It was used espe-cially on the Koryak dance coat (figure 7-4). This coat had a highly conven-tional design, falling to about knee length with a flared skirt. The full sleeves,pulled in tight at the wrists, were edged with a band of grey fur. The largehood was trimmed with wolverine or black dog fur, and the chest bib was of-ten decorated with white caribou fiir arranged in geometric patterns. The hemwas trimmed with an elaborately embroidered lower band {opuvan). Tradeitems, such as beads and metal objects that could produce sounds, increasedthe value of the coat (and hence the prestige of the wearer) but may also havebeen worn as protective amulets.^ Dressed in these richly decorated dance

FIGURE 7-4. Koryak dancing

coat. AMNH 70-3310. (Photograph byValerie Chaussonnet and Bernadette DriscoU,courtesy Department of Library Services,American Museum of Natural History)

coats, Koryak women greeted the whale as a welcomed visitor. Courting itsspirit, they celebrated the hunters' catch by dancing along the shore (Jochel-son 1908:69—70; Zhornitskaia 1983:92—93). This association of the dancecoat with the greeting of the captured whale underscores the symbolic associ-ation between the color red and the shedding of blood.

On a close examination of one of the Koryak dance coats (MAE 3896-1,figure 7-5) in the "Crossroads" exhibition, however, we found curious repairshidden under the chest bib of the coat that were accentuated (rather thancamouflaged) with white reindeer hair embroidery.^ We also discovered re-pairs edged with tiny colored seedbeads on other Koryak dance coats in thecollection of the American Museum of Natural History. The other "Cross-roads" dance coat (AMNH 70-3892), which was purchased from a Koryakshaman, provides some clues to this curious form of clothing decoration.

This coat (figure 7-6) has a richly patterned but seemingly random de-sign created by bleached hide discs of varying diameter sewn onto the surfaceof the coat. A false belt embroidered with silk thread in earthy tones of green

Il6 VALERIE CHAUSSONNET AND BERNADETTE DRISCOLL

FIGURE 7-5. Detail of Koryak dancing coat (MAE 3896-1), with repairs under thebib, front of coat. (Photograph by Valerie Chaussonnet and Bernadette DriscoU)

and ochre is sewn about the waist. Long tassels of alder-dyed seal pup fur usedby the shaman to scatter the kele, or evil spirits, hang from the shoulders, thecenter front, and across the back of the garment.

In their ethnographies, Jochelson and Bogoras point out the importanceof constellations and celestial bodies to both the Koryak and Chukchi. TheMilky Way, for example, is commonly referred to as the Clay River by theKoryak and the Pebbly River by the Chukchi.Celestial bodies are particu-larly important to shamans in northeastern Siberia. For the Yakut shaman,stars are the pathway to the upper worlds and are frequently depicted onshamans' clothing. In the Chukchi cosmology, the several worlds of the uni-verse are joined by holes situated under the Polar Star, and "shamans and spir-its going from one world to another slip through these holes" (Bogoras1904—9:331). Thus, we decided to explore the decorative pattern on this coatas stars and constellations. At the suggestion of Tom Callen of the Smith-sonian National Air and Space Museum, we assumed that the false belt withits earth-colored embroidery depicted the Clay River, thus affording a basicorientation to the pattern and the Koryak sky.^^

The sketch in figure 7-7 illustrates the front of the shaman's coat with

FIGURE 7-6. Koryak dancingcoat, collected by Jochelson as ashaman's coat, AMNH 70-3892.

(Photograph by National Museum of NaturalHistory Staff, Smithsonian Institution)

tentative identifications of constellations in the Koryak summer and wintersky. On the right shoulder appears Orion, known in northeastern Siberia asthe Hunter with the Crooked Back (Bogoras 1904—9:307—14). The pattern ofnumbers 2,3, and 4, which shows one bright and two dimmer stars, and theirclose proximity to the Clay River suggest Aquila (Eagle). The large disc(number 5) below the Clay River would be Vega, the brightest star in thesummer sky. The vertical band (number 7) at the lower edge of the parkacould thus represent the winter Milky Way, which stands perpendicular totwo horizons and crosses overhead, a brilliant band across the dark winter sky.On the right lies a loose cluster of stars (number 9) identified as the Pleiadesbut known in northeastern Siberia as six young women awaiting the return oftheir husbands (Bogoras 1904—9:308). On the back of the garment (figure 7-7), we see the continuation of the Clay River, perhaps a winter depiction, withPolaris directly below it, and to the right, a group of three stars that Bogorasidentified in a drawing he collected as the Elks, known to us as Gemini, theTwins (1904—9:310, fig. 217). Significantly, these constellations—if that isindeed what they are—are oriented toward the wearer rather than the viewerand may thus provide the shaman with a star map for his celestial travels.

CLOTHING SYMBOLISM IN SHAMANISTIC DRESSAMONG THE YAKUT AND EVEN

Shamanistic clothing forms a distinctive realm of ritual clothing designamong the ethnic groups of northeastern Siberia. By virtue of its naturalistic

Front side of the White Star Parka

1.

Orion, the Hunter

6.

Summer Milky Way

2.

Tarazed (Aquila, the Eagle)

7.

Winter Milky Way

3.

Altair (Aquila, the Eagle)

8.

Sirius (Cainis Major, the Big Dog)

4.

Alshain (Aquila, the Eagle)

9.

Pleiades star cluster (Taurus, the Bull)

5.

Vega (Lyra, the Harp)

10.

Cassiopedia, the Queen

Back Side of theWhite Star Parka

11. Polaris (Ursa Minor)

12. Gemini, the Twins

13. Winter Milky Way

FIGURE 7-7. Maps of the stars on coat in figure 7-6, after Tom Callen's identifica-tion and drawing. (Albert Einstein Planetarium, Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institution; mapsredrawn by Julie Perlmutter)

FIGURE 7-8. Back of Yakutshaman's coat with two metal disks,representing the shaman's two

"suns." AMNH 70-8336. (Photographby Valerie Chaussonnet and BernadetteDriscoU, courtesy Department of Library Ser-vices, American Museum of Natural History)

and symbolic references to helping spirits, the costume assists the shaman inhis or her travels to the spirit world. A Yakut shaman's coat (figure 7-8) fromthe American Museum of Natural History illustrates the importance of celes-tial bodies in shamanistic ritual. The two metal discs on the back representthe sun and the moon (Jochelson 1926:180), which Siberian shamans took tobe primary sources of good and evil; the open disc may also allude to the ice-hole through which a shaman travels to the Lower World (Jochelson1926:177-78, 183).

The Even or Yukaghir shaman's costume featured in the "Crossroads" ex-hibition (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:241, fig. 326) is composed of severaldiscrete parts: coat, apron, boots and leggings, hat, and gloves, each carryingprotective symbols in the representations of animal and anthropomorphichelping spirits. The shaman's coat (AMNH 70-5620a) follows the open coatdesign worn by Even men and women. The open front divides the garmentinto right and left sides: on the left, anthropomorphic figures cut from alderbark-stained or ochre-stained hide represent the forms of deceased ancestors,helping spirits to the shaman (Jochelson 1926:191); on the right side, a verti-

I20

VALERIE CHAUSSONNET AND BERNADETTE DRISCOLL

FIGURE 7-9. Back of Yukaghirshaman's coat. AMNH 5620a.

(Photograph by Valerie Chaussonnet andBernadette Driscoll, courtesy Department ofLibrary Services, American Museum ofNatural History)

cal column of crosses appears to imitate the crosses on the sacred vestments ofRussian Orthodox missionaries (Jochelson 1926: 191), or may represent birdsor bird spirits. The back of the coat (figure 7-9) features a rich abundance oftassels made of alternating light and dark fur in the form of anthropomorphicand zoomorphic images. The broad band of richly embroidered skin stretch-ing across the upper back protects the shaman in a manner recalling the ochreline and fringes marking the backs of Athapaskan tunics. An abstract zoomor-phic figure with a vertebrae motif sewn over the center back of the garmentcovers the shaman's own vertebrae. The Even shaman's hat features metalantlers or short protrusions replicating antler buds; long fringes cover theeyes, emphasizing the shaman's need for concentration and separation fromthe mundane world (Prokofyeva 1963; Fienup-Riordan 1988). The pro-nounced right-left dichotomy in the decoration of the coat is carried throughon the shaman's leggings and gloves. The leggings are marked at the kneewith hide discs—one showing a cross, the other an anthropomorphic figure.In addition, the left glove is transformed into a bear's paw with tufts of hairimitating the claws of this powerful helping spirit.

ORNAMENT AS A PROTECTIVE STRUCTURE:EVEN AND TLINGIT CLOTHING

The apron is a basic component of the everyday dress of Even men andwomen. Although each apron is unique in its appearance and decoration, itsbasic design follows a conventional pattern. The metal objects that decoratewomen's aprons provide protection against gastric afflictions and problems as-sociated with fertility and childbirth (Jochelson 1926:174; 402—3). Thus, thedecoration of the Even apron provides a clear example of the closely integratedfunctions of protection and ornamentation.

The apron is also a basic clothing item among other cultures of theNorth Pacific. Often painted with images of the shaman's helping spiritsiyek), the apron served as the primary garment of Tlingit shamans in curingrituals (Emmons 1907). An unpainted shaman's apron from the Smithsoniancollection (figure 7-10) is lightly smudged with ochre. Pendants carved fromanimal horn, bone, and ivory are attached to the soft hide fringes. The apronis cut with a pronounced curve in the lower front that recalls the design of

FIGURE 7-10. Plain Tlingit shaman's apron, smudged with ochre. NMNH 11384.(Photograph by Valerie Chaussonnet and Bernadette Driscoll)

122

VALERIE CHAUSSONNET AND BERNADETTE DRISCOLL

Tlingit slat armor. This similarity in design suggests that the shaman's garb,like the Tlingit warrior costume, serves a protective function.

Shamans' clothing among the Tlingit carried both formal and pictorialreferences to helping spirits. For example, one shaman's hide mantle (figure 7-11) represents a whale in its cut as well as its painted decoration. Draped overthe shoulders like a poncho, the front and back are separate yet joined units.The decoration of the cape suggests the double-entendre of Northwest Coastimagery; that is to say, the painted eyes transform the fin into a face.

Imagery depicting powerful animal spirits—such as the whale, shark,dogfish, or bear—appear on shamans' clothing, as well as warrior costume.Painted imagery is reiterated by natural or carved pendants, such as the teethattached to the hide warrior's tunic in the Smithsonian collection (figure 7-

123

FIGURE 7-1 la (left) and b (above). Tlingit poncho with bone disk ornaments.

NMNH 73847. (Photograph by Valerie Chaussonnet and Bernadette Driscoll)

12). The influence of warrior costume on Tlingit ceremonial garb is particu-larly evident in the woven Chilkat tunic, a treasured possession of the Tlingitaristocracy. The cut, style, and decoration of the tunic parallels that of thewarrior's armor. The tunic's woven motifs recall the painted decoration of thearmor. Through the process of weaving, however, the decoration forms thevery structure of the garment, created by the threads and hands of the weaver.Chilkat tunics and blankets were highly valued garments, worn and displayedat potlatches, dances, and important ceremonial events (Samuel 1982; Em-mons 1907). They were used especially at chiefs' funerals to clothe and coverthe body of the deceased, and thus to wrap the corpse in the ancestral lineage

of the clan. The prestigious Chilkat blanket, displayed on the exterior wall ofa chief's gravehouse, was allowed to decay, a memorial sacrificed to wind andrain, reminding one of the ephemeral nature of life itself.

PROTECTED INTO THE OTHER WORLD: KORYAKFUNERAL GARMENTS

Clothing played a pivotal role in the funerary rituals of the Koryak, whosemost sumptuous garments were those sacrificed at the time of death (seefigure 7-1). Funeral vestments constituted a sacred category of Koryak cloth-ing. Sewn in secret, they remained unfinished until the moment of death;in fact, the discovery of a woman preparing a funeral garment was believed

125

to forewarn a death in the community (Jochelson 1908:108—9).

The design of the Koryak funeral coat carries implicit and explicit refer-ences to the animal realm. The hood, for example, is often marked withantlers and animal ears; and the back of the coat is designed with a short tri-angular tail not otherwise found on Koryak clothing. Made from the furs ofwhite reindeer fawn, the funeral coat is trimmed with grey dog fur. Thischoice of material is symbolic and conveys practical and mystical associations:not only does the dog serve as a companion to man, but it acts as a channel ofcommunication with the spirit world. Dogs are sacrificed to the spirits, andthe dog itself is the guardian of the underground world, the world of the dead(Jochelson 1908:110).

The rich decoration of the Koryak funeral coat does not aim merely atimpressing the viewer with its beauty and virtuosity. Rather, its design re-flects an inherent structure or visual code.^^ First and foremost, the pro-nounced use of scarlet yarn and alder-bark-dyed or ochre-dyed fur inserted inthe seams lends a bleeding appearance to the garment. In the coat included inthe "Crossroads" exhibition (AMNH 70-2888, see Fitzhugh and Crowell1988:251, fig. 341), the placement of red yarn suggests an anatomical dissec-tion of the body. As Jochelson notes, the Koryak believed that death wascaused by the intrusion of kele or evil spirits. Thus, upon a person's death, atrained individual was called upon to dissect the corpse in order to ascertainthe precise cause of death and to identify and extract the kele (1908:113). Sucha dissection was carried out for the benefit of the deceased's namesake, to pro-tect the newborn infant from suffering the same affliction as the deceased. Thevertical bar of colored silk embroidery thread lying over the midsection of thebody symbolically marks the point of incision and the exit of spirit forces.The tail of the garment resembles that found on shamanistic costume de-signed as a metaphoric reference to the bird; its appearance on a funeral gar-ment may symbolize the flight of the soul to the afterlife. Finally, the use ofyoung reindeer fur in the construction of the funeral coat seems to allude toKoryak concerns with death and regeneration: the regeneration of the soul ofthe deceased in the body of a newborn infant; and the regeneration of reindeerherds through the beneficence of the deceased as ancestral spirit. The designof Koryak funeral clothing thus reiterates essential cosmological concerns, inparticular the theme of regeneration and the precarious balance between lifeand death.

126 VALERIE CHAUSSONNET AND BERNADETTE DRISCOLL

CONCLUSION

As the foregoing discussion suggests, clothing serves to empower the individ-ual and the social group. The color red is the essential link between North Pa-cific clothing traditions. Perhaps as a reference to blood, a symbol of both lifeand death, red appears on Tlingit warrior and shamanistic clothing, as well asAthapaskan, Eskimo, Chukchi, Koryak, and Even clothing. Most explicitly, itmarks the state of the body on Koryak funeral garments. Through the selec-tion of material and the manipulation of decorative features. North Pacificclothing serves as link and communication with the cosmos, and, in shaman-istic clothing, with the worlds beyond. Throughout the North Pacific region,clothing marks the celebration of life and renewal, as seen with the Chilkatblankets, the Koryak funeral coats, and the dancing coats worn by Koryakwomen to welcome the arrival of the whale. It is an integrative force thatidentifies and binds together members of a specific community and expressesshared natural and metaphysical concerns.

NOTES

1. We use the term "sacred" in the sense of Mircea Eliade to mean "equivalent to apower" and "saturated with being." As Eliade states, "The completely profane world, thewholly desacralized cosmos, is a recent discovery in the history of the human spirit."

2. Male shamans usually dictated the design of their costumes according to theinstructions of their helping spirits.

3. One-piece combination suits were also worn by Inuit children across the Arcticand served as undergarments among certain Athapaskan groups.

4. In addition to its decorative and spiritual significance, red ochre mixed withgrease was also applied to Athapaskan clothing in coastal areas as a means of softeningand waterproofing the material (Thompson 1987:150, fig. 132; see also pp. 151—52).

5. The paint was a mixture of ochre, blood, and water. Only the blood of youngmen was used, for the blood of older men was thought to make the paste "stiff' (Os-good 1940:385).

6. McKennan (1959:127-28) suggests that dentalium only became important asa trade item in the Upper Tanana region after the arrival of Russian and English shipsalong the southern Alaska coast, which stimulated trade between the Chilkat on thecoast and tribes in the interior.

7. In direct contrast to their eagerness in collecting ochre, Athapaskan men

avoided contact with alder bark, also used as a clothing dye. Shortly after cutting,alder exudes a red substance that was associated with menstrual blood.

8. A fragment of a metal burner from a trade lamp is attached to the back of thedancing coat illustrated in figure 7-4. The front is ornamented with an iron necklaceand medal sewn on the stomach, apparently traded from the Even or the Yakut, anddisplayed as an Even female apron ornament. Bogoras (1904—9:256—58) describesChukchi personal adornment and beads as amulets (see also Jochelson 1908:45, 603).

9. Insects ([warbles] flies) burrow beneath the skin of the animal to lay their eggs,often leaving holes in the flensed hide.

10. Sold to Jochelson as a shaman's coat, the ethnographer writes, "but {it} lookslike an ordinary dancing-jacket used in the whale festival, except that it has somesmall tassels which have apparently been borrowed from Tungus [Evenk] shamans"(1908:48).

11. In a Chukchi drawing collected by Bogoras (1904—9:310), the Clay River(i.e.. Milky Way) appears as a set of wavy, parallel lines crossing the sky.

12. We are deeply grateful to Tom Callen of the National Air and Space MuseumPlanetarium who introduced us to the northern sky of the Koryak and provided astro-nomical expertise.

13. The association of diameter with brightness is a common graphic conventionin preparing star charts (T. Callen, personal communication, July 1988).

14. As de Laguna (1972:688) notes, hide and slat armor was sometimes found inthe graves of Tlingit shamans.

15. A similar tail, however, is found on Siberian shamanistic clothing (see, for ex-ample, Prokofyeva 1963).

16. We are deeply grateful to the staff of the American Museum of Natural His-tory, in particular. Dr. Laurel Kendall and Paul Beelitz, for their assistance during ourresearch on the museum's beautiful collection of Koryak funeral and dance garments(July 1988).

REFERENCES

Bogoras, Waldemar

1904-09 The Chukchee. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition 7. Memoirs of theAmerican Museum of Natural History. Leiden/New York. Reprinted.New York: AMS Press, 1975.

Carpenter, Edmund

1973 Some Notes on the Separate Realities of Eskimo and Indian Art. In The

128

VALERIE CHAUSSONNET AND BERNADETTE DRISCOLL

Far North: 2,000 Years of American Eskimo and Indian Art. Washington,D.C.: National Gallery of Art.

Chaussonnet, Valerie

1988 Needles and Animals: Women's Magic. In Crossroads of Continents:

Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. W. Fitzhugh and A. Crowell, eds., pp.209-26. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Frederica

Under Mount Saint Elias: The History and Culture of the Yakutat Tlingit.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Potlatch Ceremonialism on the Northwest Coast. In Crossroads of Conti-nents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. W. Fitzhugh and A. Crowell, eds.,pp. 271-80. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

de Laguna,1972

1988

Driscoll, Bernadette

1987 Pretending to be Caribou: The Inuit Parka as an Artistic Tradition. InThe Spirit Sings: Artistic Traditions of Canada's First Peoples. Toronto:McClelland and Stewart.

Duff, Wilson

1981 The Killer Whale Copper: A Chief's Memorial to His Son. In TheWorld Is as Sharp as a Knife: An Anthology in Honour of Wilson Duff.D. Abbott, ed. Victoria, B.C.: British Columbia Provincial Museum.

Emmons, George T.

1907 The Chilkat Blanket. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History3(4):329-50 (with notes by Franz Boas, pp. 351-400).

Fienup-Riordan, Ann

1988 Eye of the Dance: Spiritual Life of the Bering Sea Eskimo. In Crossroadsof Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. W. Fitzhugh and A. Crowell,eds., pp. 256-70. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Fitzhugh, William W, and Aron Crowell (eds.)

1988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Fitzhugh, William W, and Susan Kaplan

1982 Inua: Spirit World of the Bering Sea Eskimo. Washington, D.C.: Smith-sonian Institution Press.

Hardisty, William L.

1872 The Loucheux Indians. In Notes on the Tinneh or Chipewyan Indians of

British and Russian America, pp. 311-20. Annual Report of the Smith-sonian Institution for the Year 1866. Washington, D.C.

Hatt, Gudmund

1969 Arctic Skin Clothing in Eurasia and America: An Ethnographic Study.

Arctic Anthropology 5(2):3—132. Originally published in Danish, 1914.

Jochelson, Waldemar

1908 The Koryak. The Jesup North Expedition 6. Memoirs of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History. Leiden/New York. Reprinted. New York:AMS Press, 1975.

1926 The Yukaghir and the Yukaghirized Tungus. The Jesup North Expedition9. Memoirs of the American Museum of Natural History. Leiden/NewYork. Reprinted. New York: AMS Press, 1975.

Jonaitis, Aldona

1986 Art of the Northern Tlingit. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

Kaplan, Susan A., and Kristin J. Barness

1986 Raven's Journey: The World of Alaska's Native People. Philadelphia: Uni-versity Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

MacDonald, George

1981 Cosmic Equations in Northwest Coast Indian Art. In The World Is asSharp as a Knife. D. Abbott, ed. Victoria, B.C.: British ColumbiaProvincial Museum.

1984 Painted Houses and Woven Blankets: Symbols of Wealth in TsimshianArt and Myth. In The Tsimshian and Their Neighbors of the North PacificCoast. J. Miller and C. M. Eastman, eds. Seattle: University of Wash-ington Press.

McClellan, Catharine

1975 My Old People Say: An Ethnographic Study of Southern Yukon Territory.

Publications in Ethnology 6(1 and 2). Ottawa: National Museum ofMan.

McKennan, Robert K.

1959 The Upper Tanana Indians. Yale University Publications in Anthro-pology 55. New Haven: Yale University Press.

I30

VALERIE CHAUSSONNET AND BERNADETTE DRISCOLL

Murdoch, John

1892 Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition. Ninth Annual Reportof the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1887-1888.Reprinted. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 1988.

Nelson, Edward W.

1899 The Eskimo about Bering Strait. i8th Annual Report of the Bureau ofAmerican Ethnology for the Years 1896-1897. Washington, D.C.Reprinted. Washington, D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1984.

Osgood, Cornelius

1936 Contributions to the Ethnography of the Kutchin. Yale University Publica-tions in Anthropology 14. New Haven: Yale University Press.

1937 Ethnography of the Tanaina. Yale University Publications in Anthro-pology 16. New Haven: Yale University Press.

1940 Ingalik Material Culture. Yale University Publications in Anthropology22. New Haven: Yale University Press.

1958 Ingalik Social Culture. Yale University Publications in Anthropology53. New Haven: Yale University Press.

1959 Ingalik Mental Culture. Yale University Publications in Anthropology56. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Prokofyeva, E. D.

1963 Costume of the Enets Shaman. In Studies in Siberian Shamanism. H. N.Michael, ed. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Samuel, Cheryl

1982 The Chilkat Dancing Blanket. Seattle: Pacific Search Press.Spencer, Robert F.

1959 North Alaskan Eskimo: A Study in Ecology and Society. Bureau of

American Ethnology Bulletin 171. Washington, D.C. Reprinted. NewYork: Dover, 1969.

Thompson, J udy

1987 No Little Variety of Ornament: Northern Athapaskan Artistic Tradi-tions. In The Spirit Sings: Artistic Traditions of Canada's First Peoples.Toronto: McClelland and Stewart.

The Art of North Pacific Clothing

VanStone, James W.

1981a Athapaskan Clothing and Related Objects in the Collections of Field Museum

of Natural History. Fieldiana Anthropology n.s. 4.1981b Southern Tutchone Clothing and Tlingit Trade. Arctic Anthropologyi9(i):5i-6i.

Zhornitskaia, M. la.

1983 Narodnoe khoreograficheskoe iskusstvo korennogo naseleniia Severo-VostokaSibiri (Choreographic art of the native population of the SiberianNortheast) Moscow: Nauka.

LYDIA T. BLACK

OBJECTS SPEAK. I HAVE NOT COINED this phrase, and certainly theidea embodied in it is probably as old as humankind. It is no accident, as Vic-tor Turner has pointed out, that this phrase was selected as the title for aSmithsonian Institution exhibition "Celebrations." But, as Turner rightly re-marked:

Objects certainly "speak," that is, they directly communicate a messagethrough visible and tangible qualities such as form, color, texture, size andso forth; but the "message" is greatly enhanced and expanded when the ob-jects are recognized as being culturally specific symbols to be decoded andset in the proper celebratory context. (Turner 1982:15—16)

Not too long ago, I believed that the reconstruction of "the proper celebratorycontext," and, concomitantly, a full understanding of the iconography of theAleut art, to be unattainable: "We cannot read the Aleut representations—sculpture and carving, painted designs and combinations of beings and ob-jects, geometric patterns of basketry and gut-on-gut applique schemas—assymbols" (Black 1982:1).

At this point, I should clarify the sense in which I use the words "sym-

133

134

LYDIA T. BLACK

bol," "icon," "iconography," and "metaphor." My usage is affected by my un-derstanding of the analyses of symboHc systems by such philosophers as ErnstCassirer (1923-29, 1944) and Susanne K. Langer (1942, 1953), and themethodology I employ in my analysis is based on the numerous contributionsof my fellow anthropologist, the late Victor Turner (1965, 1967, 1969, 1974,1982, 1986). When I use the word "symbol," I am mindful of Langer's(1942:35) statements that behind symbols "lie the boldest, purest, coolest ab-stractions mankind has ever made" and that symbols represent not things butconcepts, and that symbolic communication in any form "may be called sym-bolic transformation experience."

Langer also speaks of "life-symbols: the roots of sacrament," stating thatwe create images of things and processes conceived, and that we "attend tothem only in their capacity of meaning things, being images of things—sym-bols whereby those things are conceived, remembered, considered, but not en-countered" (1942:116-17, emphasis in original). This relates to what Turnercalled the "invisible" content of the symbol, "the set of mental images, con-cepts, and ideas denoted and connoted by the significant" (1982:17). Symbols,and especially metaphors, appeal simultaneously to the mind, the cognitive,logical aspect of our perceptions and conceptions and to the "poetic" aspect,to use Langer's phrase, or the emotional "gestalt" mode, to use Turner'sphrase. "Metaphor" is taken to mean a complex symbol that, for the user,transforms reality (see Ricoeur 1977). And not only transforms, but trans-ports. By this I mean that metaphors affect human perceptions in such a waythat the reality is perceived as part of the dynamic universal cosmic order con-noting what Langer also termed "sacra." I follow Turner in conceptualizingsymbols as multivocal or polysemic, and Langer and Turner in stressing thedynamics of representational symbolism. Langer wrote:

Presentational symbolism has its own characteristic development. It growsfrom the momentary, single, static image presenting a single concept, togreater and greater units of successive images having references to each oth-er; changing scenes, even visions of things in motion, by which we conceivethe passage of events. That is to say, the first thing we do with images is toenvisage a story; just as the first thing we do with words is to tell some-thing, to make a statement. (1942:118)

Speaking of complex ("dominant" in Turner's usage) symbols—that is,symbols "that embody basic ideas of life and death, of man and the world"—

Langer states that such symbols "are naturally sacred" and affect both the in-tellect and emotions of the users: "The contemplation of sacra invites a certainintellectual excitement—intellectual because it centers in a mental activity—the excitement of realizing life and strength, manhood, contest, and death.The whole cycle of human emotions is touched by such a contemplation(1942:123, emphasis added). This position is clearly echoed by Turner, whosework was influenced by the relatively recent findings on the structure andfunction of the human brain:

Symbols are probably products, markers, and registers of behavior motivat-ed by both cerebral hemispheres in conjunction with the autonomic nervoussystem, all triggered and fired into action by selective cultural stimuli,themselves a creation of centuries of cultural and ecological experience. Assuch they bear traces of their complex neurophysiological sources both intheir "appearance" (how they impinge upon the senses) and in their seman-tics (the notions or conceptions the group using them holds about them,whether stereotyped or legitimately speculative). (Turner 1982:22)

The complex symbols, the metaphors, become, in Langer's words, objects ofindescribable value.

These general statements are directly applicable to the objects of inde-scribable value among the Aleuts of Alaska, the magnificent Aleut helmets,many of which are included in the "Crossroads of Continents" exhibition.

But to apprehend the fact that the Aleut helmet is a symbol, even ametaphor, is not enough. One wishes to know and understand the meaning,the inner content, of the symbol; one strives to roll back time and "feel" theeffect that donning the hat may have had on the man who wore it. The ques-tion then is, how to go about discerning such meaning. It is here that themethodology suggested by Turner in his many contributions to the anthro-pology of symbolic forms helps us find a way. Like Langer, he knew that sym-bols operate within a symbolic field and the meaning that affected the userscould be discerned by the investigator only if the entire field were examined.In my case, the symbolic field forced itself upon my attention first. In study-ing evidence for Aleut whaling prior to, or at the period of, historic contact, Ibecame aware that the classic Aleut bentwood helmet, described by Ivanov inseveral publications (1930, 1954, 1963), may have been associated with whalehunting. Second, I found in the ethnographic literature hints that whalingwas not equated with hunting sea mammals in general, but was apparently

136

LYDIA T. BLACK

considered much more akin to war; killing a whale seemed to be a transforma-tional equivalent (in the Levi-Straussian sense) of killing a human, an enemy.Once I arrived at this inference, I felt compelled to reexamine the iconogra-phy of the Aleut bentwood helmet. I use the term "iconography" in the senseit is used in semiotics, as the imagery selected to convey the meaning or iden-tity of its figures, setting, objects often fixed by convention; and I use theterm "icon" to mean the sign that signifies by virtue of sharing a propertywith what it represents (this definition follows that of C. W. Morris 1938,1946), but I am also mindful of the fact that this Greek term connotes a dy-namic. It incorporates the meaning "to occur," or "to come about," and thereferent of this word is, in essence, a "becoming" (see Oxford English Dic-tionary).

Turner suggested that a symbolic field and its iconography may be un-derstood by employing a threefold approach: by eliciting exegesis from layand specialist participants in a culture (exegetical meaning); by observinghow the symbol is used by the culture bearers (operational meaning, whichfocuses on what the people do and not on what they say about the symbol'suse); and, finally, by determining the symbol's positional meaning, which isderived "from its {the symbol's] relationship to other symbols in a configura-tion, a Gestalt, having properties that cannot be derived from its parts or con-sidered simply as their sum" (Turner 1982:17—21; see also 1967:33, 1967:48-58, and 1969:13-43). Note that Turner, like Langer, recognized the es-sential dynamic referent of complex symbolic forms. His position is made ex-plicit in one formulation or another in all of his major theoretical publicationsand is specifically applied in his discussion of the operational meaning. Hewrote: "We have to view them [symbols] in action, in movement, in becom-ing, as essentially involved in process" (1982:20).

How could I apply this method of analysis to my material, the Aleutbentwood helmets, traditionally called Aleut hunting hats in the literature?Native exegesis, by specialists or laymen, was unobtainable. The making ofhats was a lost art (though currently there are attempts to revive it), and theassociated lore has long since been forgotten. However, the mythology of apeople is considered a good source of exegesis. It is also known that mythscan, and do provide clues to the iconography of representational art. Althoughthe available Aleut or Alutiiq (Kodiak Archipelago and Chugach) folkloredoes not contain any direct references to the bentwood helmets, it does indi-cate that a whaler had to undergo complex secret rituals in order to be sym-

bolically transformed into a killer whale. Furthermore, the designs on severalwooden hunting visors collected from an area between Norton Sound and theEastern Aleutian Islands suggest that killer whale imagery constituted part ofthe decorative graphics (Black 1982, 1983, 1991). This finding was more spe-cific than Ivanov's (1930:485, 486, 487) suggestion that the helmets were animage of a generalized beast. The killer whale is, of course, a transformation ofthe wolf, and both are linked to the "thunderbird" figure, which is most oftensignified by the image of an eagle, or other soaring of deep-diving, oftentoothed, birds (Black, 1991).

The use of wooden headgear in Alaska, I found, was limited to the areaof the Bering Sea littoral, from the vicinity of Bering Strait in the north toBristol Bay in the south, and it also appeared in the Kodiak Archipelago,Prince William Sound, and in the eastern and possibly central Aleutian Is-lands (although in prehistory the area was probably more extensive). This dis-tribution pattern roughly coincided with the distribution of Yup'ik and Alu-tiiq-speaking Eskimoan groups of the Chukchi Peninsula and Alaska and theEastern Unangan (Aleuts). Moreover, these groups engaged in whaling of onetype or another in historic times, or there was evidence for possible whalingactivity in their area in prehistory; the people also may have moved into theirhistoric habitat from regions where whaling was practiced at one time. Ed-mund Carpenter informed me that he had in his possession an Okvik malefigurine wearing a visor and two miniature early Punuk figurines of menwearing "Aleut"-type helmets with a closed crown and exaggerated front, oneof which was previously published (Fitzhugh 1984:35). On the basis of myexamination of Eastern Aleut ivory and bone carving, I had already in 1982postulated an affinity between the prehistoric art of the Eastern Aleutian Is-lands and Okvik and Early Punuk traditions of St. Lawrence Island andChukchi Peninsula (Black 1982:3, 5—15); earlier, Ivanov argued in many pub-lications that a close relationship and continuity existed between Old BeringSea art and the art of historic Eskimo-Aleut groups (see specifically 1953:228-36).

Upon examining old ethnographic data, I found Bogoras's (1909:261)statements that in the native exegesis of the visor use he elicited from theSiberian Yup'ik in the beginning of the twentieth century, the wooden visorwas considered a mask and only the owner/steersman of the whaleboat and theharpooner were permitted to use it. I made the working assumption thatthere was, indeed, a strong association between whaling and the use at sea of

138 LYDIA T. BLACK

wooden headgear. Confirming exegetical evidence was found in SiberianYup'ik folklore, ably analyzed by M. A. Chlenov (1981:228—42), and in theNunivak folklore reported by Curtis (1930). Note, too, that prehistoric im-ages of men wearing the "classic" hats and visors have recently been recoveredon Kodiak by Richard H. Jordan (1988:287, fig. 21, and 189, fig. 26i; seealso, Black, 1991). At the time of European contact, Kodiak was, withoutquestion, the center of a whaling culture.

However, most of the Aleut helmets in museum collections are decorat-ed with ivory carvings of birds, while the hats and visors from the NortonSound area are decorated with so-called realistic carvings of birds' beaks, or,rather, heads with accented beaks. After examining archeologically recoveredprehistoric carvings from Kodiak Island and early ethnographic reports byRussian observers, I concluded that the basic image referent had to be the ea-gle. Chlenov's (1981) careful analysis of the Siberian Yup'ik folklore also ledhim to suggest an association between images of the whale and the eagle, thewhale being the prey or the adversary of the eagle. Alaskan Yup'ik folklore as-sociates the eagle image with the mythical creature, which I call the thunder-bird, in keeping with anthropological convention. My analysis of the folkloredata on the thunderbird convinces me that the predominant meanings associ-ated with this image dealt with power, specifically with the power to kill.Moreover, the power behind the image was conceptualized as the capacity totranscend domain boundaries: the boundary between the human, everydayworld and the world of the transcendental, the world of the spirits; the worldof the land and of the sea, of the sky and the submarine depth and the bound-ary of gender. Because the killer whale image is considered to be a transforma-tion of the wolf, I concluded that it was a more specific expression than thethunderbird image, signifying the power to kill at sea, just as the wolf signi-fies the power to kill on land. The killer whale, however, was also the specificsymbol of the capacity or ability to kill whales. Thunderbird imagery, on theother hand, suggested an ability to kill all sorts of creatures, including whalesand humans. This ability is graphically illustrated on an Aleut hat in the"Crossroads of Continents" exhibition (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988: fig. 411;MAE 2868-40) and also appears in Yup'ik art (e.g., see Fitzhugh and Kaplan1982:184-85).

Interestingly, in Chugach folklore preserved to this day, the appearanceof killer whales near a village is thought to presage the death of an importantman, usually a famous and successfijl hunter. The folklore and representation-

al data suggest that whaling was not considered an ordinary animal hunt butwas conceived as a symbolic equivalent of a war act. Thus, it came as no sur-prise that a hat in the Berlin Museum fiir Vdlkerkunde (Berlin Museum forEthnology), collected by an unknown German sea captain early in the nine-teenth century, probably in the Kodiak archipelago, was listed as a "war hat."In the Unangan (Aleut) language, whales are singled out linguistically as thealan, a separate category, distinct from all other creatures of land or sea. Un-fortunately, the etymology of this term is unknown. If there was a whalingweapon among the Unangan, such a weapon was the war spear (see Veni-aminov 1984 [1842]; Black 1987; Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:161, fig. 196).

Thus, my first conclusion focused on the symbols of predation andkilling, the power to inflect death. But, as all analysts of symbolic systems areaware, the same symbol that signifies death may also signify life. Specific sym-bols of birth and of the unity of male and female principles as the source oflife are often considered symbols of death. An examination of prehistoric hu-man figurines from port MoUer on the Alaska Peninsula and prehistoric ivorycarving from Kodiak (figure 8-1) suggests that this is the case in birdhead im-agery. According to Nunivak folklore, the beak, the instrument that kills, alsostands for male procreative power; it is a phallic symbol. The link betweendeath and creation and procreation symbolized in the mortal fight betweenthe eagles and the whales was also noted by Chlenov (1981:235—36), who ar-gued that the mythological treatment of the relationships between thewhales, eagles, and humans (men and women and transvestites) ultimatelyrefers to the Siberian Yup'ik understanding of the structure of the universeand the ongoing universal creative process. I, too, concluded that the symbol-ism of the birds' heads, in addition to various specific meanings, incorporatesthis most general cosmic referent.

The birdhead sculptures decorating hats from Norton Sound and in theform of side plaques on "Aleut" hats, in addition to the beak, incorporate theimage of the "eye."^ That the eye motif was an obligatory component of thepainted decoration of the Aleut wooden headgear was pointed out as far backas 1790 (Merck 1937:1171; 1980:78). The eye may be represented realistical-ly or abstractly, as a dot, circle-and-dot, or concentric circles. It is a complexsymbol, incorporating the notion of vision and the created, and constantlyself-creating universe. I discuss the image of vision first and then link it to theidea of a dynamic, re-creative universe.

As mentioned earlier, the Siberian Yup'ik thought of the visor as a mask.

140 LYDIA T. BLACK

Ivanov (1930) also postulated that the hats were in reality masks. A maskserves simultaneously to disguise the everyday identity of the wearer and totransform his persona into something that he is not without the mask.^ AsInuit folklore indicates, the mask—or its equivalent, the visor or the gog-gles—simultaneously conceals the wearer's eyes and extends or alters thewearer's "vision," by which I mean not the actual vision of the hunter, but thetranscending vision that permits him to "see" beyond the normal limits of hu-man sight and the human domain. The wearer's mask enables him to "see" thewhales in the depths of the sea, and to "see" the outcome of the contest. Oost-en (1982) relates this "clear vision" to mobility and fertility.

Ann Fienup-Riordan (1987, 1988) has shown that for the AlaskanYup'ik this concept of "vision" is linked to mobility, and the "eye" that per-mits mere humans to partake of the transcending "vision" is related to the to-tal created and continuously re-created, self-generating, universe. She has alsoclearly demonstrated that the notion of procreation, of the unity of male and

FIGURE 8-2. Okvik figure. University of Alaska-Fairbanks

Museum #SE 72 821. (Photograph by Lydia Black)

female, form part of the "symbolic field." The circle-and-dot, concentric circleand spurred circle-and-dot, and spurred concentric circle designs have thiscomplex multilevel referent, or meaning. It is therefore not surprising thatIvanov interpreted the circle-and-dot and concentric circles motifs as an eye(1930:494—95, 497) and the world or the universe (1954), or that he empha-sized the cosmic dimension in a later interpretation of these symbols, readingthem as abstract representations of heavenly bodies, especially as that of thelife-giving "female" sun (1963:217—23).

These considerations suggest that the complicated "spurred spirals" pre-sent in sculpted forms in the volutes (the side plaques) decorating the Aleuthats, as well as the painted decorations on the hat's body, represent in stylizedform birds' heads, incorporating the symbols for the "eye" or the "universe"and the "beak" or phallus, the symbol of procreative capacity and power. Somegeometric compositions featuring the circle-and-dot design may refer to fe-male fertility, as in the case with female Okvik figurines (figure 8-2). The

142 LYDIA T. BLACK

same applies to so-called petaloid painted hat designs that positionally occurtogether with spurred spirals.^

The interconnectedness of all the elements that ultimately refer to thetotal understanding of the universe as perceived by the ancient population ofthe Bering Sea and their numerous descendants in early historic times is ex-pressed in the composition of the painted designs and the sculpted decora-tions.^ The striking features of the hats in the "Crossroads" exhibition are firstthe figure and then the ground. The basic principles of the composition arethen apparent: polyiconicity and interconnectedness. These two aestheticprinciples are also clearly evident in the incised ivories of the Old Bering Sea,Okvik, and early Punuk traditions.

Thus the complex decorative motifs of the Aleut hats appear to be of an-cient origin and to express the cardinal principles of the Aleut ancestral beliefsystem. The decorative elements of the hat combine in a single statement a setof associations—from one of cosmic dimensions through an ever-more nar-rowing frame of reference to a personal and concrete one—of a bond betweena kin group or an individual man and their/his own personal protector repre-sented perhaps by realistic figurines of specific birds or animals.

Like all "dominant symbols," to use Turner's expression, the decorativemotifs of these hats were grounded in the sensory world, on one hand, and inthe abstract conceptual realm, on the other. This Janus-like grounding ofcomplex symbols, of metaphors, is characteristic, perhaps universal, as Turnerhas observed. Thus, the Aleut hunting may have been a dominant, complex,iconic symbol, reality-transforming metaphor that transported the weareroutside structure, enabling him to transcend his human limitations, to experi-ence the limitless capacities inherent in the world of the spirit and of the spir-its (Turner 1969). Analysis of the iconography of the Aleut hunting hats alsoprovides evidence that, despite linguistic differences, intergroup politicalboundaries, and differences in the physical makeup of local populations, alongthe Bering Sea littoral (from Chukotka to the Alaska Peninsula, extending tothe Pacific, encompassing Prince William Sound, Kodiak Archipelago and theEastern Aleutians) was the site of a common cultural sphere grounded in a be-lief system that originated in Asia and that was, in our area, at least 2,000years old. Such analysis—by examining archeological, linguistic, folkloristic,and ethnographic data, and by paying strict attention to methodology—cangreatly improve our understanding of ancient iconography.

143

NOTES

1. I am indebted to Dr. Jarich Oosten, Rijksuniversitet Leiden, Netherlands, whoin a letter (1987) to me remarked that in my preliminary analysis I emphasized sym-bolism of predation without giving equal attention to the symbols of life and "vision"(discussed below).

2. The simultaneous multifunctionality of the mask as a device that conceals andpreserves the human identity of the wearer and also transforms the personal into a be-ing able to cross domain boundary may be better understood through Elsie Mather'sexegesis of the Yup'ik festival Qaariitaq, a preparatory activity to the Bladder Festival,in the course of which elaborate multiple disguises come into play: "Covering the face,closing the eyes and body, and shutting the eyes were all effective means of maintain-ing the boundary between the worlds of the living and the dead. The boundary waspermeatable in both directions" (Morrow 1982: 122). Thus, the lack of vision symbol-izes a boundary. This exegesis must be read in conjunction with the work of AnnFienup-Riordan (discussed below) on the mask as "the eye of the dance." The pointhere is that the "eye" (which stands for vision) permits the crossing of boundaries,while the mask protects the human essence of the wearer from harm.

3. Old Bering Sea decorative motifs on ivory where "petaloid" shapes combinedwith circle-and-dot motif form a beaklike figure and "positionally" may be interpretedas phallic and fertility symbols appear in Fitzhugh and Crowell (1988:122, figs. 137,138). See also design elements shown in the same work on p. 123, fig. 140.

4. Ivanov was most emphatic in stressing the interconnectedness of Aleut andAlutiiq historic art and the art of prehistoric Old Bering Sea culture. See Ivanov(1963:178, 184-85, 216-17, 229-38, and fig. 152).

REFERENCES

Black, Lydia T.1982

Aleut Art: Unangam aguqaadngin. . . . Anchorage, Alaska: Aleutian/Privilof Islands Association.

Eskimo Motifs in Aleut Art and Folklore. Etudes I InuitI Studies 7(i):3-23.Whaling in the Aleutians. EtudesllnuitlStudies ii(2):7-JQ.Glory Remembered—Wooden Headgear of Alaska Sea Hunters. Juneau,Alaska: Alaska State Museums.

19831987

1991

Bogoras, Waldemar

1909

The Chukchee. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition 7. Memoirs of theAmerican Museum of National History. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

144

LYDIA T. BLACK

Cassirer, Ernst

1923-29 Philosophy of Symbolic Forms. Berlin: Bruno Cassirer.

1944 An Essay on Man. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

Chlenov, Mikhail A.

1981 Kit V folklore i mifologii aziatskikh eskimosov (The whale in the folk-lore and mythology of the Asiatic Eskimo). In Traditsionnye kul'tury Sev-ernoi Sibiri i Severnoi Ameriki (Traditional cultures of Northern Siberiaand Northern North America). Moscow: Nauka.

Curtis, Edward S.

1930 The Alaskan Eskimos. The North American Indian . . . , vol. 20. F. W.

Hodge, ed. Reprinted. New York: Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1970.

Fienup-Riordan, Ann

1987 The Mask: The Eye of the Dance. Arctic Anthropology 24(2):40-55.

1988 Eye of the Dance: Spiritual Life of the Bering Ice Eskimo. In Crossroadsof Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. William Fitzhugh and AronCrowell, eds., pp. 256—70. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian InstitutionPress.

Fitzhugh, William W.

1984 Images from the Past. Expedition 26(2):24—39.

Fitzhugh, William W, and Aron Crowell (eds.)

1988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Fitzhugh, William W, and Susan A. Kaplan

1982 Inua Spirit World of the Bering Sea Eskimo. Washington, D.C.: Smith-sonian Institution Press.

Ivanov, Sergei, V.

1930 Aleut Hunting Headgear and Its Ornamentation. In Proceedings of theTwenty-Third International Congress of Americanists, pp. 477—504. NewYork.

1954 Materialy po izobraziteVnomu iskusstvu narodov Sibiri XlX—nachala XX v(Material on the depictive art of the peoples of Siberia, nineteenth andearly twentieth centuries). Trudy Instituta Etnografii, n.s., vol. 22.Moscow/Leningrad: AN SSSR.

Deciphering Aleut/Koniag Iconography 145

1963 Ornament narodov Sibiri kak istoricheskii istochnik (Ornamentation of thepeoples of Siberia as a historical source). Trudy Instituta Etnografii 81.Moscow/Leningrad: AN SSSR.

Jordan, Richard H., and Richard A. Knecht

1988 Archaeological Research on Western Kodiak Island, Alaska: The De-velopment of Koniag Culture. In The Late Prehistoric Development ofAlaska's Native People. Robert D. Shaw et al., eds. Alaska Anthropolog-ical Association Monograph Series 4. Anchorage: Aurora Press.

Langer, Susanne K.

1942 Philosophy in a New Key. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard College. Reprint-ed. New York: Mentor Books, 1948.1953 Feeling and Form. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Merck, Carl Heinrich

1937 Carl Heinrich Merck's Ethnographische Beobachtungen ueber dieVoelker des Beringmeeres 1789—91. A. Jacobi, ed. Easier Archiv20(3-4): 113-32.

1980 Siberia and Northwest America ij88—ij^2. . . . Translated from the Ger-man manuscript by Fritz Jaensch. Edited and with an introduction byR. A. Pierce. Kingston, Ont.: Limestone Press.

Morris, Charles W.

1938 Foundations of the Theory of Signs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.1946 Signs, Language and Behavior. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Morrow, Phyllis

1984 It is Time for Drumming: A Summary of Recent Research on Yup'ikCeremonialism. Etudes I InuitI Studies. Supplementary Issue 8:113—40.

Oosten, Jarich

1982 The Symbolism of the Body in Inuit Culture. In Visible Religion. Year-book. Leiden, Netherlands.

1

Ricoeur, Paul

1977 The Rule of Metaphor: Multidisciplinary Studies of the Creation of Meaningin Language. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Originally pub-lished in French, 1975, as L<2 metaphore Vive.

146 LYDIA T. BLACK

Turner, Victor W.

1965 Ritual Symbolism, Morality and Social Structure among the Ndembu.

In African Systems of Thought. M. Fortes and G. Dieterlen, eds. Interna-tional African Institute. Reprinted. Oxford University Press, 1966.

1967 The Forest of Symbols: Aspects of Ndembu Ritual. Ithaca, N.Y.: CornellUniversity Press.

1969 The Ritual Process: Structure and Anti-Structure. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.

1974 Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society. Ithaca,N.Y.: Cornell University Press.

1982 Celebration: Studies in Festivity and Ritual. Victor Turner, ed. Washing-ton, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

1986 The Anthropology of Performance. New York: PAJ Publication.

Veniaminov, Ivan E.

1984 [1840} Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District. Richard Pierce, ed. Trans-lated by Lydia T. Black and R. H. Geoghegan from Russian 1840 orig-inal. Kingston, Ont.: Limestone Press.

91 Qasqiluteng: Feasting and§ Ceremonialism among the TraditionalKoniag of Kodiak Island, Alaska

RICHARD H. JORDAN

THIS CHAPTER COMBINES ETHNOHISTORICAL observations from theearly European contact period with archeological data from recent excavationsin order to illuminate the pre-contact sociopolitical organization and ceremo-nial activities of the Koniag, the Native people of Kodiak Island. The "art ob-jects" recovered from these excavations are placed in a reconstructed culturalhistorical context. These objects clearly do not have a utilitarian function andare therefore interpreted to have been used within the context of feasting, cer-emonial, and ritual activities. The native term for these activities is Qasqi-luteng, which means "they are holding a feast.These feasts played a majorrole in Koniag life before Russian occupation of the island drastically alteredtraditional native culture. That occupation began in 1784, when GrigoriiShelikhov (1981) established the first permanent European colony in Alaskaalong the western shore of Three Saints Bay on Kodiak Island.

Since all of the artifacts discussed in this chapter date to the centuriesjust preceding Russian contact, relevant ethnographic and historic accountshave been used to interpret the archeological record.^ Primary attention wasgiven to selected late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century observationsfrom Kodiak. The single available ethnographic report by Birket-Smith

147

148

RICHARD H. JORDAN

(1953) on the closely related Chugach of Prince William Sound was also ex-amined, in addition to traditional ethnographic accounts of Alaska native cul-tures that describe certain features found throughout the North Pacific andBering Sea regions. Such features are not adequately treated in early sourcesfrom Kodiak, but are assumed to have been present. These various sourcesform the basis for the "direct historical approach" (Steward 1942) I use to in-terpret the cultural context of the prehistoric objects excavated on westernKodiak Island, specifically from the KAR-i site in Karluk Lagoon.

ETHNOHISTORIC RECONSTRUCTION OF KONIAGSOCIOPOLITICAL ORGANIZATION

The Koniag, and closely related groups, occupied a vast territory from PrinceWilliam Sound, the outer Kenai Peninsula, the Kodiak Archipelago, to atleast the eastern coast of the Alaska Peninsula. Kodiak, however, was clearlythe most populous region (figure 9-1). The size of the population at the timeof Russian contact is somewhat uncertain, although a figure of 8,000—10,000is an acceptable estimate. If accurate, this would mean that the Kodiak Archi-pelago was once one of the most densely settled regions in Arctic and Subarc-tic North America, including the Northwest Coast.

People lived in sod-house villages that varied greatly in size and werestrategically located to exploit cod and shellfish throughout the winter andsalmon during the summer (Lisianski 1968 [i8i4}:i73, 195; Bolotov inBlack 1977:85; Davydov 1977:155, 175, 232). Sea mammal hunting alsoplayed a vital role in the subsistence economy of many villages (Merck1980:105). Some of the larger villages may have been occupied throughoutthe year. Archeological data indicate that Koniag villages were arranged in along, linear pattern nearly identical in both layout and the organization of ac-tivities to that of Northwest Coast villages (Knecht and Jordan 1985). Subsis-tence pursuits took place near the shore; social, political, ceremonial, andeveryday life took place in the central strip of structures, while the dead tend-ed to be buried behind the village.

Historical records indicate that the Koniag had ranked or stratified soci-eties. According to these early accounts, the Koniag sociopolitical organiza-tion was identical to that of the eastern Aleuts and the Tlingit. That is, itconsisted of chiefs (and an associated chiefly elite), commoners, and slaves

FIGURE 9-1. Prehistoric Koniag Villages on Northwestern Kodiak Island, Alaska.

(kalga [Davydov 1977:190]). Even though Shelikhov appointed (oions to im-plement his policies, the Koniag already had their own traditional chiefs, whowere called Anayugak (Gideon in Black 1977:91). Traditional chiefs held au-thority over a single village or a cluster of villages, named after a local geo-graphic area (Davydov 1976:190). Each of these villages or village clustersmaintained their own political independence and sovereignty, as well as theirown military forces.

In addition to these horizontal social and political divisions, the Koniagprobably had some form of lineage organization. Unfortunately, the exact na-ture of their social organization is not discussed in sufficient detail in earlyhistorical accounts to draw definitive conclusions. Despite the paucity of hardevidence, the widespread distribution of lineage organization across the North

Pacific and the Bering Sea region (de Laguna 1979; Townsend 1979; Hughes1984a, 1984b; Lantis 1984a, 1984b) suggests that it was probably present onKodiak.

Household composition can be reconstructed in part on the basis of earlyobservations. Kinsmen lived in multiple-roomed houses, each containing ex-tended families or several nuclear families (Merck 1980:100). Both polygynyand polyandry were practiced and the number of spouses depended on bothwealth and rank (Lisianski 1968 [i8i4}:i98; Bolotov in Black 1977:85;Davydov 1977:166; Merck 1980:108). Individuals occupying these multiple-roomed households were probably ranked. Each household had a headman anddescending orders of rank based on age, sex, and internal social relations, ascan be inferred from early sources (Lisianski 1968 [i8i4}:i82). Note thathousehold ranking was also present in both eastern Aleut and Tlingit soci-eties.

If this sociopolitical reconstruction is correct, village chiefs also func-tioned as household and lineage heads. The chiefly office was inherited, al-though the exact lines of succession are not clearly described in early sources.If more than one heir was eligible or the heir apparent was found wanting, el-ders designated a successor, always a close relative of the chief (Gideon inBlack 1977:91). The chief was the "owner" of the qasqi, or ceremonial house,and was a man of material wealth who owned many slaves. He was well-known both as a warrior and good family man, one of sound character whodistributed good advice and was accorded respect and obedience by villagemembers. He apparently presided over public meetings of the council of el-ders and sat in the most important place during feasts and ceremonies. Hecould also be the leader of war parties, formed political alliances with othervillages leaders, and had a great deal of influence over social and economic af-fairs within the village. Although power relations were not absolute, hewielded considerable authority within the community (Bolotov in Black1977:84-85; Davydov 1977: 173, 190; Gideon in Black 1977:91; Merck1980:109).

Other important people within Koniag villages included shamans {ka-hahulik [Merck 1980:107}), influential individuals—most likely elders—whoformed the decision-making council within the villages (Bolotov in Black1977:84), healers and midwives (the latter women), and whale hunters. Maletransvestites {akhnuchtki [Davydov 1977:166}), deliberately raised as membersof the opposite sex by their parents, also played important roles in ceremonial

life and were valued members of society. Certain young women could also beraised as males and were allowed to attend specific ceremonial occasions other-wise denied to females.

At the other end of the social scale were slaves. They had no social status,power, or wealth. They were obtained from other societies as war captives, orthrough barter and negotiation. Aleuts, Peninsula Eskimos, Tanaina,Chugach, and possibly Tlingit were present in Koniag villages, since thesewere the groups with which the Koniag routinely conducted long-distancewarfare. Other Koniag were also present as slaves in the villages of their ene-mies. Slaves were occasionally mistreated, but for the main part they led livesof drudgery. Although they may have occasionally married other Koniag, asslaves, they did not control their own destinies. They could be given as gifts,bought and sold, and left to heirs. Slaves could also be killed and buried whenchiefs or their relatives died (Lisianski 1968 [i8i4}:20o; Bolotov in Black1977:85, 86; Davydov 1977:162, 163, 188, 190; Gideon in Black 1977:92;Billings in Merck 1980:206; Merck 1980: 108, 109).

ETHNOHISTORIC RECONSTRUCTION OF KONIAGCEREMONIAL LIFE

The feasting and ceremonial rounds of the Koniag can be classified into twotypes, depending on when and why they were given. Occasional feasts andceremonies could be held by a newlywed male if he was from a wealthy family(Gideon in Black 1977:95), when a successor was chosen by the chief (Gideonin Black 1977:91), in preparation for conducting war (Gideon in Black1977:92), to appease evil spirits (Bolotov in Black 1977:86; Davydov1977:180), to honor the dead, and, among the Chugach (Birket-Smith1953:110), and so quite likely the Koniag, for important "first events," for ex-ample, when a boy conducted his first successful hunt or when a new kayak orumiak was completed.

The second type, the regularly scheduled feasts and ceremonies, were ini-tiated every fall, either in November (Billings in Merck 1980:206) or morelikely December (Lisianski 1968 [i8i4}:209; Davydov 1977:183), and lasteduntil all the food in the village was consumed, sometime in January (Davydov1977:173; Gideon in Black 1977:93). Billings (in Merck 1980:206) notesthat they lasted all winter. A December and January feasting and ceremonial

152 RICHARD H. JORDAN

round can probably be considered typical. The songs, dances, oratory, andfood and gift exchanges that formed the core of these activities were conduct-ed to bring the village luck in hunting (Davydov 1977:107), to honor heroicancestors who performed great deeds in war or the hunt (Davydov 1977:108,156, 180), and to divine future events (Lisianski 1968 [i8i4}:2o8; Davydov1977:170; Gideon in Black 1977:99; Merck 1980:107).

Obviously such lengthy and formal ceremonies required much elaboratepreparation. In the early fall, gifts were manufactured, and food was preparedand stored. Ceremonial costumes and regalia were made, and the qasqi wascleaned and renovated. The entire village assisted the chief in these efforts. Apreparatory feast was then held, accompanied by dancing and gift giving fromwhich women were excluded (Gideon in Black 1977:93; Davydov 1977:183—84). The host, a high-ranking individual or chief, then called togetherthe villagers, who were seated by rank, while he took the place of honor nearthe entrance. Special ceremonial dishes were placed in the center of the qasqi,and songs were sung in praise of the host's kinsmen who had spent such along time preparing and accumulating food and gifts. The host announcedthe guests who would be attending and checked on the details of what giftswere to be distributed. He appointed messengers to deliver the invitations tomembers of other villages, meanwhile consulting with the shamans who beattending to the details of the upcoming ceremonies. Finally, he distributedgifts to the elders, who were to provide the oratory, and ceremonial dishes toeveryone according to rank (Gideon in Black 1977:93).

When the guests from the other villages arrived, the formal proceedingsbegan. The guests would be treated with great respect. For example, upon ar-rival they would be dragged ashore in their boats, hoisted aloft, and carried intheir boats to the qasqi. Food was immediately exchanged and formal (and nodoubt ranked) seating assignments would be made. The entire village, includ-ing women and children, attended. Dancing ensued, first by men and later bywomen. The dancers were accompanied by the beating of drums and shakingof rattles. Flowery oratory would be delivered and pageants of the hunts andancestral heroic deeds would be enacted. Shamans foretold future events. Peo-ple were elaborately painted, bird feathers and down were stuck in their hairwith grease and red ochre, and masks and costumes donned when appropriate.Food and gifts were distributed, of course. These ceremonies often lasted allnight and various performances repeated day after day. When they were over,the guests would leave weighed down by additional gifts of food, any food of-

153

fered but not consumed in the feasts, and by many gifts. If these ceremoniesand feasts were lavish and properly conducted, the host and his relativeswould gain enormous prestige. Other villages would subsequently be requiredto host feasts and gift-giving ceremonies, even if it took two to three years toreciprocate. Otherwise, the guests would lose status and prestige.^

This annual Koniag feasting and ceremonial round seems to be identicalin structure, and probably in function, to the Northwest Coast Indian pot-latch. While details and emphases may have differed somewhat, there is littledoubt that the Koniag potlatch was a central integrating feature of social lifeon the island, both through time and space. It also provided a mechanism forenhancing prestige, reinforced the status of the chiefly elite, and impartedcultural or symbolic meaning and identity to the participants. Moreover, theKoniag potlatch must have played a strong role in the partial integration ofthe island's powerful villages or village clusters. This was probably accom-plished through the culturally constituted requirement that individual vil-lages were to hold reciprocal events after a period of years. The alliances,obligations, and other relationships engendered by the potlatch served to di-lute the potential hostilities that probably existed among highly competitive,politically sovereign, and militarily powerful villages.

ARCH EOLOGIC AL CONSIDERATIONS

In this section we move from a synchronic reconstruction of Koniag sociopo-litical organization and ceremonial life at the time of European contact to anexamination of the prehistoric record revealed through archeological investi-gations. The Kodiak Archeological Project has included both excavation andsurvey work every year from 1983 to 1988 and has been geographically fo-cused on the Karluk River and Lake system and on the Uyak Bay region. Thisresearch has built on the solid cultural historic framework established byDonald Clark (1966, 1970, 1974a, 1974b, 1979), whose research and publi-cations must be taken into account in any interpretation of Kodiak's pre-history.

Objects that relate to the feasting and ceremonial rounds summarizedabove have been recovered from a single site, KAR-i at New Karluk. Thissite is located on the southwestern shore of Karluk Lagoon adjacent to themodern outlet of the Karluk River, one of the most productive salmon rivers

154

RICHARD H. JORDAN

TABLE 9-1. Radiocarbon and Recalibrated Dates from the KAR-i Site inKarluk Lagoon, Kodiak Island, Alaska

Provenience

Depth BelowSurface (cm)

RadiocarbonDate B.P.

RadiocarbonDate A.D.

RecalibratedDate A.D.

Hniispfloor 1 A

74

545 + 70

1405 + 70

1405"^

Housefloor 6

176

290 + 60

1660 + 60

1639

Housefloor 8

261

480 + 80

1470 + 80

1431

Housefloor 9

300

630 + 50

1320 + 50

1384^

1371

1304

Housefloor 10

393

740 + 80

1210 + 80

1270

Basal Midden

418

780 + 60

1170 + 60

1259

a. This date is considered too old and in conflict with the five stratigraphically ordered datesfrom the lower layers. The percolation of heating oil, used during the twentieth century at thesite, into the uppermost prehistoric layers is the suspected source of contamination. It was spo-radically visible during excavation.

b. There are three intersects in the recalibration curve for this radiocarbon date. Any of themmay be correct.

in the world (Bean 1890) (figure 9-2). The site is water-saturated and containsmaterials in a fine state of preservation (Jordan and Knecht 1988). The cul-tural deposit measures about 125 meters long, 15 to 20 meters wide, andabout 4.2 meters deep. It is composed of an overlapping series of collapsedsod houses and midden dumps. To date, about 240 square meters have beenexcavated, 72 to the full 4-meter depth, the others to between 2 and 3 meters.As many as i o superimposed housefloors have been completely or partly exca-vated. About 12,000 artifacts have been recovered. The lowest 3.7 meters ofthe site span the period from A.D. 1250 to Russian contact. Evidence for post-contact native history is confined to the upper 0.5 meter. Information on ra-diocarbon dates, all of which have been run on wood or bark samples, and ontheir recalibration to calendric time (Stuiver and Reimer 1986) is presented intable 9-1.

Objects associated with feasting, ritual, and ceremonial activities werefound in quantity in housefloor 8 and above. The earliest evidence for the fill-

155

FIGURE 9-2. Panoramic view of Karluk Lagoon. The KAR-i site is located alongthe shores on the lagoon just below the right end of the airstrip. (Courtesy NationalGeographic Society)

ly developed Koniag potlatch is thus estimated to date to the first half of thefifteenth century a.d. These feasting and ceremonial objects appear ratherabruptly and are associated w^ith the earliest evidence for multiple-room Ko-niag houses, and, inferentially, lineage organization. Many of these objects areprobably related to the feasting and ceremonial activities outlined above; oth-ers still defy precise interpretation.

Utensils, probably related to feasting, occur rarely, but are very carefiillymade. Examples include two spoons made of wood and antler (figure 9-3a).The antler spoon is decorated with what is probably a bear paw and perhaps a"spirit" hole somewhat akin to Bering Sea Eskimo Tunghat hands (Fitzhughand Kaplan 1982:203, fig. 251). The wooden spoon has a zoomorphic headwith a thickened tongue. Bentwood bowls, used to serve food, are constructedin a fashion similar to Bering Sea forms (Fitzhugh and Kaplan 1982:120—21,figs. 125, 127) (figure 9-3b). Food dishes or grease bowls are very similar toNorthwest Coast Indian forms (Kaplan and Barsness 1986:180, fig. 191) (fig-ure 9-3C).

The instruments used to accompany dances include hooped rattles iden-tical to ethnographic specimens. Rim fragments have also been recovered.

FIGURE 9-3. (a) above: Wooden

and antler spoons. (Courtesy RichardVeazey, University of Alaska Fairbanks)(b) left: Bentwood bowl. (Courtesy

Richard A. Cooke III) (c) below: Grease

bowl. (Courtesy Richard Veazey, University ofAlaska Fairbanks)

157

Miniature masks are relatively common and were probably lashed to the tipsof drum handles (figure 9-4a). Similar ethnographic specimens are present inthe collections of the National Museum of Finland (Varjola 1988, title page)and are illustrated in Lisianski's 1812 collection of maps and plates. A num-ber of the faces on these miniature masks are identical to the full-sized speci-mens collected in the 1880s by Alphonse Pinart (Lot-Falck 1957). This simi-larity indicates strong cultural continuity from the early fifteenth to thenineteenth century A.D.

Several handles and other carvings in the round were most likely used inceremonial activities. They usually depict birds, often puffins. Birds play animportant role in the Koniag mythologies published by Lantis (1938) andGolder (1903, 1909; see also chapter 8). In addition, local oral traditions em-phasize their role as protector spirits for hunters. Carvings of sea mammals arevery rare—only two seals have been recovered (figure 9-4b). A unique speci-men, recovered from the site a number of years ago by a local Karluk resident,Ronnie Lind, further emphasizes the important role of birds. It is a handle-like object depicting the transformation of a human figure into a bird (figure9-5a).

FIGURE 9-4a. Miniature masks. (Photograph by National Museum of Natural History staff,Smithsonian Institution)

158 RICHARD H. JORDAN

FIGURE 9-4b. Carvings of birds and a seal. (Courtesy Richard Veazey, University of AlaskaFairbanks)

Miniature human heads, many wearing representations of bentwoodhunting visors and hats, have been found in some number (see Fitzhugh andCrowell 1988:105) (figure 9-5b). The bases of these figures were inserted intothe cockpits of miniature kayaks. They could have functioned either as toys orobjects imbued with sympathetic magic to be used in ceremonies related tohunting success. One with a seal decoy helmet (figure 9-5b, lower right) is aperfect rendition of full-sized ethnographic specimens (Fitzhugh and Crowell1988:164, fig. 200).

Anthropomorphic figures have highly individualized faces, often display-ing medial or lateral labrets. These labrets create prognathic distortions suchthat the human face resembles a bird (figure 9-6). Their torsos are featurelessand faint traces of paint, representing a V-shaped collar, are still visible on atleast one specimen. The precise meaning and function of these figures is notknown.

Human faces are found in a number of styles and emotional states. One

FIGURE 9-5a. Human/bird transformation figure. (Drawn by Julie Perlmutter, SmithsonianInstitution)

seems to be a happy individual carved onto the surface of a gambling disc,while a second represents an individual with a rather fierce expression. A thirdexample has two faces stacked atop one another (figure 9-7a). Again, the pre-cise meaning and function of these pieces are unknown.

Three complete hand-sized masks have been recovered. One has a tragicexpression and what appears to be a raven's beak and a distorted human faceon the top (figure 9-7b). Another has a pointed head and a sad expression (fig-ure 9-7C). Their expressions, in particular, suggest that both may have func-

l6o RICHARD H. JORDAN

FIGURE 9-5b. Miniature human heads with bentwood hats and one with a seal de-coy helmet. (Courtesy Richard Veazey, University of Alaska Fairbanks)

tioned in the context of the mortuary rituals referred to repeatedly in histori-cal sources. A third has bulging eyes and a distorted face that projects forwardand is vaguely similar to East Greenland masks from Angmassalik, althoughno direct historical connection is implied (figure 9-8a).

Koniag masks collected by Europeans were lavishly painted and hadthree-quarter encircling hoops to which bangles and feathers were attached

i6i

FIGURE Cf-jb and 9-7C. (b) left: Hand-sized mask. (Courtesy Richard Veazey, University ofAlaska Fairbanks) (c) right: Human Mask. (Courtesy Richard Veazey, University of Alaska Fairbanks).

163

FIGURE 9-8b. Bird mask.

(Courtesy National Geographic Society)

(Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:50 [fig. 50}, 88 [fig. 96}, 270 [fig. 368}). Morethan 100 of these mask bangles have been recovered at KAR-i. Their fiarmsdepict paddles or fisathers, crescents, shields, humans, and squares (figure 9-9a). They are often painted with red and black geometric designs.

Two complete full-sized masks have been excavated. One represents ahuman face, which has a downturned mouth reminiscent of Bering Sea repre-sentations of seals and women (Fitzhugh and Kaplan 1982) (figure 9-8a). Theother is in the form of a short-beaked bird, perhaps an owl (figure 9-8b). Bothof these specimens may once have been painted, but centuries of staining byhumic acids in the soil have removed any visible evidence. Their encirclinghoops and associated bangles and feathers have become detached as well.

Other anthropomorphic figures are miniature statues, depicting virilemen or pregnant women (figure 9-9b). One particularly dramatic specimenhas been informally termed the Karluk Madonna (figure 9-ioa, b). This fig-

FIGURE 9-9b. Virile man and pregnant women. (Courtesy Richard Veazey, University ofAlaska Fairbanks)

165

ure, recovered from a midden, has a carefully carved expressionless face; insethuman hair; a rotund, ample body with anatomically correct features; andhands splayed across the back, perhaps to support her additional weight orperhaps to relieve back discomfort in the process of giving birth. Whateverthe precise interpretation, Koniag people apparently devoted attention in cer-emony and ritual to female fertility and male virility in the hope, no doubt, ofproducing many offspring.

This assemblage has two particularly striking features. Primary attentionis obviously paid to the portrayal of humans and secondarily to birds. Birdswere probably considered helping spirits, who oversaw the well-being ofhunters. Renditions of predator or prey spirit animals, so common in thehunting magic of Yup'ik and Inupiaq people farther north, do not seem to bean overriding concern for the Koniag. Rather, most attention seems to be paidto social continuity and social relations, since there is such a strong emphasis

on the human form. In addition, there is a surprising variety of human emo-tions depicted on a number of specimens.

Second, although individual pieces resemble specimens from otherNorth Pacific and Bering Sea cultures, the overwhelming impression is thatthey comprise part of an artistic, ceremonial, and mythological tradition thatcan basically be classified as North Pacific Yup'ik. These archeological speci-mens thus add to the extant ethnographic inventory from the North Pacificnow dispersed in museums across the globe. Once these specimens becomebetter documented and presented in a unified format, they will lead, nodoubt, to a new appreciation of this distinctive Alaska native tradition.

SUMMARY

The available data indicate that new forms of feasting and ceremonial activi-ties emerged among the Koniag sometime just after A.D. 1400. These activi-ties shared many structural and functional features with the potlatchingrounds of the Northwest Coast Indians. The archeological record also suggeststhat the emergence of these ceremonial activities was coeval with other socialand economic changes. For example, multiple roomed houses and, inferential-ly, lineage organization, also appeared at this time. The great variation in thesize of individual structures also indicates that some housed larger, and pre-sumably more influential, families, while others were inhabited by those oflower rank. In addition, extremely large villages emerged after A.D. 1400. Forexample, two prehistoric villages, KAR-22/46 and KAR-65, each extend formore than 1.5 kilometers and contain 171 and 63 structures, respectively.There is a direct relationship between the location of these large and powerfulpopulation centers and such highly productive resource areas as the KarlukRiver. Resident village members no doubt exercised control over these re-sources. The appearance of such large variations in both household and settle-ment size suggests the concomitant emergence of social ranking, both withinand among villages. That is, the largest villages appear to have not only con-trolled major resources, but must have been able to dominate smaller villagesthrough the use or threat of military force. Similarly, the largest families orrelated familial clusters within villages must have wielded considerable influ-ence over other residents and probably controlled critical resources.

Labrets are one item of material culture, in particular, that suggest the

167

FIGURE 9-II. Lab rets. (Photograph National Museum of Natural History staff, SmithsonianInstitution)

presence of ranking after A.D. 1400. These cheek and lip plugs were used todisplay social information throughout Alaska, although their precise meaninghas not been recorded for Kodiak or other regions. In the absence of writtendocumentation, the patterning of labret styles and their raw materials providean important line of evidence from archeological sites. Koniags generally fa-vored wood labrets, either large oval lateral forms or much thinner medialforms. Their mode of display is clearly recorded on the excavated anthropo-morphic figures and occasionally on ethnographic masks housed in museums.More than 200 of these rather standardized Koniag labrets have been excavat-ed at KAR-1. A much smaller number of labrets are made of such exotic ma-terials as marble, limestone, slate, jet, antler, ivory, and fossil ivory. They areinvariably smaller than the wooden specimens and are each rendered inunique styles (figure 9-11). These individually styled labrets, made from non-local raw materials, may well be derived from the war captives and slaves de-scribed in historic accounts. If this interpretation is correct, it provides yet an-other line of evidence to suggest that prehistoric Koniag society was indeedranked.

l68 RICHARD H. JORDAN

Evidence for the emergence of lineages, ranking, and intensive feastingand ceremonial rounds all appear at approximately the same time on Kodiak.On one hand, Koniag potlatches must have played a central role in at least thepartial integration of potentially hostile and certainly competitive villages,each of which was capable of launching military campaigns. On the other,they must also have been a means for reinforcing status among the chieflyelite through the accrual of prestige. The emergence of these intensive feast-ing and ceremonial rounds must have had other consequences as well. Becauseof the large investment of labor in the harvesting and storage of food, as wellas in the production of gifts and ceremonial paraphernalia, slavery and thecapturing of hostages through long-distance warfare was certainly one solu-tion to these new demands. At the individual village level, there must alsohave been a change from subsistence to surplus economies. Thus, the pot-latching system emerged as one component of other fundamental and far-reaching social and economic changes that transformed Koniag culture justafter A.D. 1400.

NOTES

1. The Alutiiq term Qasqiluteng and its English translation have been kindly sup-plied by Jeff Leer of the Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fair-banks. This term is derived from the root word qasqi, which is glossed as the placewhere ceremonial activities take place. On Kodiak, at least, this was not necessarily acompletely separate structure, insofar as both archeological and ethnohistoric data sug-gest that feasting and ceremonial activities took place within structures that also func-tioned as domiciles. Nevertheless, separate feasting and ceremonial structures certainlyexisted as well. There are no historical or archeological data to suggest that the Koniagqasqi ever served as a men's house, as it did in Central Yup'ik Eskimo societies.

2. The best general description of traditional Koniag culture has been publishedby Clark (1984), but his discussion of sociopolitical organization and ceremonial life isvery brief.

3. At least some of these ceremonial activities were witnessed and described byEuropean observers. The most extensive description is provided by Davydov (1977:107—11), who attended three different events on December 8, 18, and 30 in 1802.

A brief description is also provided by Gideon (in Black 1977:93, 94). He notes, how-ever, in his manuscript written sometime between 1804 and 1807, that he saw onlythree ceremonial houses on Kodiak Island (Gideon in Black 1977:91). Shelikhov

(1981:55), Merck (1980:100, loi). Billings (in Merck 1980:206, 207), Lisianski(1968 [i8i4]:209, 210), and Sauer (in Hrdlicka 1944:63, 74) also provide commentson ceremonial activities. Mallery (1886:196, fig. ma) illustrates a line drawing of aKoniag "shaman's lodge" that was produced and interpreted by a Mr. Naumoff, aKodiak native, in 1882.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study has benefited greatly from an opportunity to visit a number of museums inorder to study and partly document Koniag ethnographic specimens. In particular, Iam grateful to the following individuals and institutions: David Hurst Thomas of theAmerican Museum of Natural History, William W. Fitzhugh of the Smithsonian Insti-tution, Barbara Busch of the Lowie Museum of Anthropology, Jonathan C. H. King ofthe British Museum, and Pirjo Varjola of the National Museum of Finland. Supportfor some of the radiocarbon determinations was kindly provided by William W.Fitzhugh, Smithsonian Institution, and John P. Cook, U.S. Bureau of Land Manage-ment, Arctic District. Permits to conduct fieldwork were granted by Koniag, Inc.,Karluk Village Council, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService. Financial support was provided by the National Endowment for the Humani-ties, the National Science Foundation, the Kodiak Area Native Association, the AlaskaState Office of History and Archaeology, the Department of Anthropology at BrynMawr College, and the Smithsonian Institution. A large number of organizations,businesses, and individuals from Kodiak provided many forms of essential assistance.The tireless efforts of many dedicated crew members is deeply appreciated. This chap-ter has also benefited from discussions or review by a number of individuals; they in-clude Lydia T. Black, Donald W. Clark, Debra Corbett, Aron Crowell, Nancy YawDavis, Christopher Donta, William W. Fitzhugh, Richard A. Knecht, M. E. ColleenLazenby, Jeff Leer, and Amy F. Steffian. All of this support is gratefully acknowledged.

This chapter is dedicated to the memory of our first friend and patient mentorfrom Karluk, Lawrence Panamaroff He has enriched our lives immeasurably.

REFERENCESBean, Tarlton H.

1890 Report on the Salmon and Salmon Rivers of Alaska. Washington, D.C.:Government Printing Office.

I70

RICHARD H. JORDAN

Birket-Smith, Kaj

1953 Chugach Eskimo. Nationalmuseets Skrifter, Etnografisk Raekke 6.

Copenhagen.

Black, Lydia T.

1977 The Konyag (The Inhabitants of the Island of Kodiak) by losaf

[Bolotov] (1794-1799) and by Gideon (i 804-1807). Arctic Anthro-pology i4(2):79-io8.

Clark, Donald W.

1966 Perspectives in the Prehistory of Kodiak Island, Alaska. AmericanA ntiquity 31 (3): 3 5 8-71.

1970 The Late Kachemak Tradition at Three Saints and Crag Point, KodiakIsland, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 6(2):73-i 11.

1974a Koniag Prehistory. Tubinger Monographien zur Urgeschichte, Band i.Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer.

1974b Contributions to the Later Prehistory of Kodiak Island, Alaska. Archaeolog-ical Survey of Canada Paper 20. National Museum of Man, MercurySeries. Ottawa.

1979 Ocean Bay: An Early North Pacifu Maritime Culture. Archaeological

Survey of Canada Paper 86. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series.Ottawa.

1984 Pacific Eskimo: Historical Ethnography. In Handbook of North AmericanIndians. William C. Sturtevant, ed., 5:185—97. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution.

Davydov, Gavriil I.

1977 Two Voyages to Russian America, 1802-180-/. Translated by Colin Bearneand edited by Richard A. Pierce. Materials for the Study of AlaskaHistory 10. Kingston, Ont.: Limestone Press.

de Laguna, Frederica

1979 Aboriginal Tlingit Sociopolitical Organization. In The Development ofPolitical Organization in Native North America. Elizabeth Tooker, ed.,pp. 71—85. Proceedings of the American Ethnological Society. Wash-ington, D.C.

Golder, Frank A.

1903 Tales from Y^jodidk.. Journal of American Folk-Lore 16(60): 16-31.1909 Eskimo and Aleut Stories from Alaska. Jo^r«<«/ of American Folk-Lore22(83): 10-24.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Aron Crowell (eds.)

1988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Fitzhugh, William W, and Susan A. Kaplan

1982 Inua: Spirit World of the Bering Sea Eskimo. Washington, D.C.: Smith-sonian Institution Press.

Hrdlicka, Ales

1944 The Anthropology ofKodiak Island. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute ofAnatomy and Biology.

Hughes, Charles C.

1984a Siberian Eskimo. In Handbook of North American Indians. William C.

Sturtevant, ed., 5:247—61. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.1984b Saint Lawrence Island Eskimo. In Handbook of North American Indians.

William C. Sturtevant, ed., 5:262-77. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian

Institution.

Jordan, Richard H., and Richard A. Knecht

1988 Archaeological Research on Western Kodiak Island, Alaska: The De-velopment of Koniag Culture. In The Late Prehistoric Development ofAlaska's Native People. Robert D. Shaw, Roger K. Harritt, and Don E.Dumond, eds. Alaska Anthropological Monograph Series 4. Aurora.

Kaplan, Susan A., and Kristin J. Barsness

1986 Raven's Journey: The World of Alaska's Native People. Philadelphia: Uni-versity Museum, University of Pennsylvania.

Knecht, Richard A., and Richard H. Jordan

1985 Nunakakhnak: A Historic Period Koniag Village in Karluk, KodiakIsland, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 22(2): 17-35.

Lantis, Margaret

1938 The Mythology of Kodiak Island, Alaska. of American Folk-Lore

5i(20o):i23-72.

1984a Aleut. In Handbook of North American Indians. William C. Sturtevant,ed., 5:161-84. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

1984b Nunivak Eskimo. In Handbook of North American Indians. William C.

Sturtevant, ed., 5:209—23. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institu-tion.

172 RICHARD H. JORDAN

Lisianski, Urey F.

1812 Collection of Maps and Plates Belonging to the Voyage of lurii Lisianski,

Fleet Captain of the First Rank . . . in the Ship Neva. (Translated title inValerian Lada-Mocarski, 1969, Bibliography of Books on Alaska before1868. New Haven: Yale University Press.) St. Petersburg: Naval Print-ing Office.

1968 (1814) Voyage around the World in the Years 1803, 1804, 180^, and 1806.Amsterdam: N. Israel.

Lot-Falck, Eveline

1957 Les Masques Eskimo et Aleoutes de la collection P'man. Journal de laSociete des Americanistes, n.s., 46:5-43. Paris.

Mallery, Garrick

1886 Pictographs of the North American Indians: A Preliminary Paper. FourthAnnual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of theSmithsonian Institution 1882-83. Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office.

Merck, Carl H.

1980 Siberia and Northwestern America 1^88—1^92. Translated by Fritz

Jaensch and edited with an introduction by Richard A. Pierce. Materi-als for the Study of Alaska History 17. Kingston, Ont.: LimestonePress.

Shelikhov, Grigorii I.

1981 A Voyage to America, 1^8^-1^86. Translated by Marina Ramsay andedited with an introduction by Richard A. Pierce. Materials for theStudy of Alaska History 19. Kingston, Ont.: Limestone Press.

Steward, Julian H.

1942 The Direct Historical Approach to Archaeology. American Antiquity7(4):337-43. Menasha.

Stuiver, Minze, and P. J. Reimer

1986 A Computer Program for Radiocarbon Age Calibration. Radiocarbon28(2B): 1022-30.

Townsend, Joan B.

1979 Pre-contact Political Organization and Slavery in Aleut Societies. The

Ceremonialism among the Traditional Koniag 173

Development of Political Organization in Native North America. InProceedings of the American Ethnological Society. Elizabeth Tooker, ed.,pp. 120-32. Washington, D.C.

Varjola, Pirjo

1988 Alaska: Russian America. National Museum of Finland Report.Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities.

1

10

Eskimo Masks from Kodiak Island§ in the Collections of the Peter theGreat Museum of Anthropology andEthnography, St. Petersburg

ROZA G. LIAPUNOVA

THE NATIVE PEOPLE OF KODIAK ISLAND and of that part of the Alas-ka Peninsula on Shelikhov Strait from Cape Kupreanof to the Cook Inlet areknown as Koniag Eskimo. The Koniag are the largest of the three groups ofPacific Eskimo, the two other groups being the Chugach Eskimo of PrinceWilliam Sound and the Eskimo of the southern Kenai Peninsula. In pre-con-tact times the Koniag numbered some seven to eight thousand people(Khlebnikov 1979:24; Clark 1984:203).

Until recently (see Jordan, Black, and Crowell, this volume), studies de-voted to the traditional culture of the Kodiak Islanders and of the Koniag as awhole gave little attention to its spiritual aspects. As a result, important in-formation is yet to be gleaned from the ethnographic materials, includingmuseum specimens, collected during the Russian America period (mid-eigh-teenth to early nineteenth century). Among the latter there is a unique collec-tion of festival masks and other objects at the Museum of Anthropology andEthnography (MAE). Almost all these artifacts were acquired for the museumin the 1840s by I. G. Voznesenskii when he was collecting natural historyspecimens for the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences (Gil'zen 1916; Stepano-va 1944; Lipshits 1950; Liapunova 1967; Alekseev 1977).

175

The collection contains accessories of a Kodiak festival known as the"six-act mystery," as well as a few masks, drums, and rattles not related to themystery play but used in other Kodiak festivities. This present collection hasnot been described in full before, although some brief references to it andphotographs of several masks have appeared in the literature. As a matter offact, all the Kodiak masks have been illustrated, but without detailed descrip-tions.^ The main goal of the present discussion is to describe the masks, andin addition to characterize some other ceremonial accessories from the Muse-um of Anthropology and Ethnography. The first step, however, will be to de-termine from the literature which kinds of masks were utilized during whichperformances by the Kodiak Islanders, and then identify them in the MAEcollections.

One of the most valuable sources of information about the Kodiak festiv-ities is the documentation by I. G. Voznesenskii of the use of accoutrementsduring the six-act mystery. He also provided a list of their names and localterms, and his diaries contain a description of the opening part of one of theKodiak festivals. Unfortunately, the description ends abruptly at the "thirddance." Both documents are cited below. In addition, some Russian sourcesreport observations about Kodiak ceremonial festivities made in the earlyyears of contact between the Kodiak Islanders and the Russian newcomers.More detailed information about them can be found in G. I. Davydov's recordof his 1802 voyage to America (Davydov 1810-1812: pts. i & 2). Further in-formation is offered by the reports of Hieromonk Gedeon (1805—7), C.H. Merck, a participant of the Northeastern Geographical Expedition of I. I.Billings and G. A. Sarychev (1785-1795) (Anonymous 1900; Black 1977;Merck 1980; Titova 1978).

Older sources refer to the ceremonial and festival performances of theKoniag as igrishche or igrushki (play, games), but indicate they were devoted tovarious themes: hunting rituals, the memory of the dead (ancestors), theirplanned or accomplished military campaigns, or changes of chiefs. They werestaged on various life cycle occasions (funerals, coming-of-age ceremonies,marriages, etc.) and were followed by potlatches that helped establish inter-group exchanges and trade relations.

Festival ceremonies of the Koniag have, on the whole, much in commonwith those of Alaska Peninsula Eskimo groups: they reflect religious ideas,mythology, and historical legends and at the same time display artistic cre-ativity. The ceremonies were organized and conducted by kasiats, that is, by

wise men, shamans who were custodians of the traditions and were composersof songs, performances, and dances. The festivals usually began in Novemberand December and continued until people ran short of food and could nolonger entertain guests. At the core of many performances were magical ritesand rituals meant to secure hunting success—hence the need to influence thespirits.

The animistic religion of the Eskimo and Aleut is well known; but atthe same time people believed that some central power permeated all nature.For some, this power was incarnated in a powerful but rather indefinite EarthSpirit. In the case of the Kodiak Islanders, it was probably the Spirit of theSky. The power of this spirit was manifested in various natural phenomenaand calamities and was believed to be very dangerous for people who did notknow how to handle it properly. In their everyday life, however, all Eskimogroups paid most attention to their master spirits, the primary ones being the"sea mistress," who controlled the sea mammals, and the spirits of animals,birds, and the like. In addition, they recognized various categories of spirits.The principal means to influence a spirit was to reincarnate oneself into itthrough a ritual dance using its own form, that is, by dancing in a mask orany other symbolic outfit made by a shaman according to his vision of the fan-tastic image of the particular spirit. Members of the secret men's society tookpart in the performances in the images of powerful and frightful ancestors.

Davydov (1810—i8i2:pt. 2:96—97) described the Kodiak festivals as fol-lows:

The superstition of the Koniag was the primary reason for the performanceof their igrishches, which begin usually in December. They open with somemysterious celebrations which cannot be attended by women and children.They take a wisp of straw and everybody smokes it with shishkuk [field in-cense?] after which the wisp is set on fire and the hunters then ask the spir-its for a successful hunting season. This ceremony finished, the men comeout of the kazhim and the inhabitants of a settlement, young and old, set fireto their splinters and run with loud cries in the field and around their hous-es. After this the performances begin, to which everybody is admitted, andthese continue as long as the Koniag have enough food to treat theirguests. . . . The kazhim in which the festivities are usually held belongs toall the settlement. When the festival shows finish, the kazhim is brokendown and the people break down the masks into pieces, cut the hoods[masks] and destroy everything that served to decorate the performers, and

throw everything away into the woods. Sometimes upon the completion of ashow they arranged in their kazhim, the best dress is cut into pieces and pre-sented piece-by-piece to the guests to thank them for the honor they showedby their visit.

Davydov (i8io—i8i2:pt. 2:90) continued:

I could never find out whether the Koniag have the notion of God; it isknown only that they are extremely afraid of devils but do not make anysacrifices to them. During their festival performances, they depict how thedevils are tempting people or harm them. After the completion of such per-formances, the women are afraid even to look at those who had enacted theevil spirits.

Davydov provided a detailed description of the festival performance he at-tended in Pavlovsk Harbour on the evening of December 8, 1802 (1810—i8i2:pt. 1:202-5):

Two people with drums were sitting at a big lighted lamp in the centre of achamber. . . . The drums were not equal and the bigger one was held by theperformer who represented the chief. On both sides of the lamp stood twomaids in kamleikas, [waterproof gutskin parka} and most foppishly decorat-ed, i.e., they had a long bone piercing their nasal cartilage, beads in theirlower lips and ears, and their heads were strewn with eagle down. Next tothem stood two men with rattles in one hand and canoe paddles in the other[as seen from the following text, they represented hunters' analogues tothose kept at the MAE 57i-Ia,b and MAE 571-2b]. The rattles consisted ofround rings onto which were hung a great many bills of birds called simplytoporks, known in natural history as sea parrots. . . . The paddles were deco-rated with depictions of fish and sea or amphibious animals. These two menwere painted with red pencil and their heads and backs were covered witheagle down. Instead of caps they were wearing a kind of spiked helmet madeof bent twigs, one of which ran to the men's mouths like a horse's bit [in thedescription of the following festival a similar headdress is called a mask, i.e.,it is a "hunter's mask" analogous to MAE 57i-ia,b and 57i-2a,b}. The facesof those Americans were almost completely covered with various feathersand evergreen oak fern. The ones with drums wore feathered hats. Suspend-ed to the ceiling above the place of the performance were several arrows setcrosswise and fastened to these there were first a baidarka, then stuffed skinsrepresenting different animals, and at last some hunting tools and stuffed

seals which are used by the Americans for hunting seals. A man sitting on abench at the side was rocking all of this with the help of a specially fastenedstring in time with the voice. That man was also one of the actors, as he alsowas clad in a kamleika. . . . The one representing the chief together with theother sitting at the lamp were striking their drums with sticks; the hunterswith small paddles {i.e., the paddles were not real but special ceremonialones} played their rattles in time [with the music} as directed by the chief.If the drum beat grew more frequent everybody would suddenly cry, forsome of the viewers joined in the singing. The maids all the time held theirkamleikas with both hands and rocked slightly from side to side. The chiefincessantly screamed out something like: "Here is the shore, let's pull in toit! Animals will come to the one who has not killed anything yet . . . ," etc.When he was saying: "Here are the animals!" everybody started shouting indifferent voices trying to imitate the voices of various animals, blew theirspecially made whistles, and in a word, a great hubbub arose. When the per-formance occasionally stopped for a few minutes the hunters rocked andplayed their rattles in time with each other. . . . There was also a stone withreddish spots there that represented the coffin of one of their prominent mento whose memory the next show after that described was dedicated; but Icould not wait for that one.

On December 30, 1802, Davydov saw a similar performance in a settlementon Lesnoi (Forest) Island at Pavlovsk Harbour. In describing it he specifiedsome detail and provided an explanation of the origin of the performance(i8io-i8i2:pt. 1:208-10):

Here too, two men were sitting at a lamp with drums, and two more werestanding with small paddles and rattles on both sides, with red bands paint-ed all over their bodies and with sticks in their mouths. The mask [again,"hunters' masks" analogous to MAE 57i-ia,b and 57i-2a,b} was made ofbent twigs so that all of the man's face was seen through them, the face be-ing painted white and red. Hanging above the lamp from crossbeams fas-tened crosswise in a quadrangle were arrows, canoes, decoys and some otherinstruments, and all of these were rocked by one man as before. But here atthe four corners of the crossbeams four more people, one of each corner, saton suspended boards; like the former two they wore masks and their bodieswere painted with different stripes. These were also rocked. ... As describedby a toien the reason behind the arrangement for this [performance} was asfollows: for five years an islander, who had been formerly reputed as a goodhunter, could not kill a single beast. Utterly frustrated, he became a recluse

and lived in the mountains. One night, on the top of a hill, he had a dream,and having come down after that to this settlement he arranged this perfor-mance exactly as he saw it in his dream. Since then his hunting was invari-ably successful; therefore even today the islanders enact this performance inhopes for having a successful hunt.

A show similar to these two was recorded by Voznesenskii in his diary in1842 (see below). In these shows we see a typical example of the hunters' per-formances, which depict successful hunting occasions to be repeated in reallife.

The show that followed after a brief interval employed masks that, inDavydov's description, closely resemble some of those collected by Voznesen-skii (see below MAE 571-8, the woodcock mask; MAE 571-9, the mask of alover; MAE 571-10, a feathered ring from the "six-act mystery"; and also themask MAE 571-11} (Davydov i8io-i8i2:pt. 1:21 i-i2).

The two began beating their drums in time with the song which was sungby the viewers; and then a man appeared in body paint, wearing a mask towhich a semicircular arrangement of small painted wood pieces with eaglefeathers, added for decoration, were attached. The man appeared with hisback to the audience and for a long time perched on his knees with his faceaway from the viewers. He played his rattles quietly and harmoniously andgradually turned around, bit by bit. Then suddenly he sprang up, his rattlegrew louder and he shuddered, and thereafter was never still, incessantlychanging his position. Having danced for about an hour he went out, and inhis place two men appeared wearing masks similar to the previous one, witha woman between them with a semicircular array around her head. Thesealso appeared first with their backs to the audience, remained for some timeon their knees before they too turned to the spectators and began movingtheir bodies in various ways, coordinating their movements very skillfullywith the sound of the rattles. These were replaced by a man in a mask witha semicircular array around it who held rattles in his hands. He came in likethe others, back facing the audience, and danced better than they; and thatwas the end of the performance. I could not find out the reason for that per-formance, and did not for the life of me expect such harmony in the move-ments and dances of savages.

On December 18, 1802, Davydov attended one more performance at PavlovskHarbour that was devoted to evil spirits (1810—i8i2:pt. 1:205—8):

i8i

First, five men came in one after another, all in different masks, some ofwhich were edged with fern [the latter were probably also "hunters'masks"}. They were blowing pipes suspended by strings running throughthe holes of their nose cartilage, and they wriggled each in their own way.One of them was painted with a red marker; another with charcoal; two oth-ers wore parkas; and the fifth was clad in a kamleika, with rattles in hishands. The naked ones and the one in the kamleika had on them somethingmade of bird skins hanging down to their knees. Sitting at the lamp weretwo Americans clad in common clothes with no decoration. I could notguess the meaning of that performance. The interpreter said they were dev-ils who deceived people; however, he himself was not in the know, for thetraditions of these performances and, especially, of those related to the ideaabout spirits are known to or claimed to be known only by . . . kasiats, i.e.,only by the wise men who invent them, interpret the origins of the inhabi-tants of Kodiak and neighbouring islands, speak about devils,etc. . . . When the devils finished their wriggling and left, the men begandriving out the women and children. . . . When they were all gone a manrepresenting an evil spirit appeared, clad in a kamleika with an extra maskand rattles in his hands. He shouted and ran from one place to another intime with a song sung by all the viewers, and he alone played the drums.Everything was finished then. . . . About the reason why the women weresent out I've learned from the Russians the following: when a performanceabout spirits ends the women take them for real devils and look for a placeto hide because the spirits run everywhere and pinch everybody they meet.In former times they even pricked people with small knives which theywrapped specially with grass, leaving only the tip exposed so as not to makedeep wounds.

Similar performances featuring "devils," enacted by members of the secretmen's societies, also took place among the Aleut, whose women and childrenremained uninitiated in the secrets of such performances and believed thattheir settlements were visited by evil spirits. This ritual probably had thesame meaning as the performance concerned with successful hunts. It reflectsthe ancient notion that security and well-being would follow after a settle-ment had been visited by spirits, or after "contact" with the ancestors; butwomen and uninitiated children were kept away from such contacts, as alsonoted in the ritual practice of other peoples at the same stage of ideologicaldevelopment.

One more description of the Kodiak festival performance is found in the

notes of Hieromonk Gedeon, who stayed on Kodiak Island from 18051807 (Anonymous 1900:208—10):

Their igrushkas usually occur in late autumn and early winter, when peoplehave stored up enough food, and are held for different circumstances and oc-casions: to make or improve an acquaintance or friendship, the latter beingvalued highly; on occasions of marriage; for expressing gratitude; as a matterof habit; or to show others that one was rich and had provisions and otherthings. The performances are arranged in a kazhim but if such is not avail-able they can be held in an Aleutian [in those years the Kodiak natives wereoften called Kodiak Aleut} anteroom or in the larger room where everyonesleeps. They all come together, men, women, girls, and young. Within thekazhim, men sit on the benches and women under the benches on the floor,each under her husband. The old men strike their drums and begin songs tohonor their forefathers and fathers, reminding that they had baidaras, andthat they had sea otters, etc. Everybody follows them in the singing, whilemen in smart caps and patterned hoods made specially for such occasionsdance singly, now jumping, now squatting, and now bending to every side,and sway in time to the rattles they hold in their hands; with their move-ments they depict how they hunt different beasts and animals; how, for ex-ample, a whaler spears a whale with his arrow and how he evades it, or howa sea otter is pursued, etc. After that, having taken off their hoods, they puton various strange masks and dance in them again with the rattles singly orin pairs. Women and girls always dance alone, without men; they standgrandly together in a straight line close to each other and then squat slight-ly and almost imperceptibly straighten up again in the same manner, orwould start bending to the right and to the left. When beginning theirdance they first stretch forward their left arms with fingers bent and keepthem so while the singing continues without words; when those who areplaying drums and singing songs in honor of their dead mention the nameand death of their relative, they suddenly, all together, turn their palms overto the earth. In other dances merry old people try different tricks to makepeople laugh, because, according to their custom, the father of the husbandwhose daughter or wife smiles even a little bit during the dance is obligedto pay a fine in the favor of the old and the poor. . . . Such entertainmentcontinued all through the night, almost until dawn. Upon the completionthe host presents parkas, amber, and suklias [dentalium shells], or gives oth-er riches to the invited guests as well as the owner of the kazhim, the talkerand whomever else he chooses.

Here, again, we see a hunting festival performance and a funeral.

We also find some details about the Kodiak festivals in C. H. Merck'sdescriptions (Titova 1978:70—71):

Their men's dances are a wild frenzy—Pilchkalaktutt—as also among theKenai. For the dances the Kodiak Islanders smear their faces with whitepaint on top of their eyes and black paint below, or else, with white fromthe forehead down to the nose and below with red; some wore masks {hajut)similar to those of the Aleuts. Their small hats they decorate with four cir-cular rows of wetted white fluff and one bit of fluff placed on the top. Some-times they also use bits of fluff to decorate their loose flowing hair. Somewear a swaying feather on each site standing obliquely backwards. Theydance mostly naked with loin clothes only. Their fur parkas are either wornthrown over one shoulder or fastened around the hips; some people preferwearing their parkas rolled up and roll their sleeves up above the elbows.One jumped mostly straight up, turning at the same time; he kept one ofhis hands on his waist or stretched it out a bit holding his fur parka, and inthe other hand he held a knife which he waved first to one side and then tothe other, and also over his shoulder. Others held rattles made of auk beaks{kaelchnait), one in each hand or bunches of feathers instead. When dancingthey usually bend forward and thrust their breast out, legs apart, often withbent knees. They approach each other while jumping forward and aside andturning their heads up and down, with their arms stretched forward a little.The hands with rattles work rapidly—one forward, the other backward, or,suddenly, both away to the sides, and the same with the feathers which theyhold as if taking aim at something. The others playing drums and singingto the glory of their relatives. A drum is called by them, Ttschaujak, and itsstick, Mumuk.

These dances are followed by the dances of women, ujuungut. When themen were dancing the women just sang slowly and the men moved theirdrums in time with them, their singing reminiscent of cries of rejoicing.Now, the women stood in a single line and first joined their hands, or eachhad her arm thrust under the arm of her neighbour, turning palms outwardwhile the upper arms remained pressed to the body, after that they jumpedwith arms pressed to their sides one after another as they stood, and thenbent straight down, after which they bowed forward, each putting her handon her waist.

Here, again, we seem to see rituals devoted to funerals and successfulhunting. As the descriptions of the early witnesses of these ceremonies indi-

cate, such performances repeated approximately the same plots. The scenariosdid not coincide exactly, of course; there was a certain variability, but thesame kinds of acts in a similar sequence were repeated from one festival to an-other: hunting shows, funeral repasts, and various ritual ceremonies of themen's secret society connected with the cult of ancestors.

In 1842 I. G. Voznesenskii recorded some performances on Kodiak Is-land similar to the ones described above. The following lines are from his di-ary (unfortunately, the record stops suddenly at the "third dance") (Archives,a; Liapunova 1967:29):

Music: (during the Aleut Kodiak festivities) whistling is now piercingand now weak and dying; drums are played loudly, lightly, etc. Singing isdone in a drawling manner mostly with the words "ee-ia-a," and they shout"ee-ar-ee" (as shrill as oxen when their throats are cut). Before every dancethey burn and smoke field incense (valerian). The one who rocks the arrows,sits on a shelf made specially for him just over the door, he is painted withred graphite [j/V] and wears a new kamleika with various gear such as smallbags and mica patches on his breast. Drum players and whistlers are on theopposite side. Those who play the drums are also the first singers. Therewere two of them; in the beginning they were sitting on a piece of seal-skinon the ground in front of the oil lamp, and at the end of the performance onthe bench surrounding the inside of the harahara [dwelling}.

I St dance. In the centre of the harahara an oil lamp is burning; on itssides there are two laftaks [sea lion skins}, with two dancers on them; eachdancer has rattles in his right hand and a stick in the left around which theyare turning in circles both in opposite directions. The dancers are complete-ly naked. Their heads are decorated with feathers, and masks [underlined byVoznesenskii}, looking like knightly visors, are ornamented with sea kalesoaked in fat. On their arms they wear something like wings consisting of abunch of white feathers [as we see, the dancers have "hunter's masks" andsome accessories from the first act of the "six-act mystery"}. First they walkin two directions to the accompaniment of the solo tune and drum beat;then they come face-to-face and make incessant arm movements, waving therattles to the right and left. One [dancer} bends to the ground while theother straightens up and throws his head back. These very comical bows arerepeated several times. And, at last, they whirl and begin running aroundthe oil lamp, each trying not to be slower on his feet than the other, i.e., heis the good lad who does not feel dizzy or tired. The viewers applaud himwith shouts, and that's the end. Within the circle lies a stone the dancers

185

stumble over sometimes while running in a circle. The dance continues forthree quarters of an hour [note that a similar stone was mentioned in Davy-dov's description of a show}.

2nd dance. They begin singing in an even drone. The drum strokes arelight and rare. The stage is empty. Suddenly whistlers with rattles jumpdown from the swings in which they had been sitting under the roof in thefour corners of the barabara. They are as naked as the former and have thesame head decorations [i.e., "hunters' masks"}. Having spent a few minutessitting still, they suddenly rise to their feet, play their rattles in time withthe voices and the drum, and then, having marked time, they go into a cir-cle, frequently bending and straightening as if bowing to each other, andtaking a quick step back. Now four people are dancing (first they walk andthen start running until tired), clad like the former ones. This dance is ac-companied by the women singing in a rather nice droning tone and lowvoices. At last the circle grows larger and the slow measured walk turns intobrisk running, everybody begins pushing each other trying to knock an op-ponent down so as to win an upper hand and gain the loud approval of theaudience. Depending on how soon the dancers tire, this dance continues forhalf an hour or more.

3rd dance. A lone dancer crawls out from under the leather coveredcorner at the left side of the entrance to the barabara. The back of his bodyis covered with a bird parka and the front with a kamleika. On his head hewears a cap of huge height and a mask. Music. Low and even singing. . . .

The "first dance" (in which they "rock the arrows" and the dancers wear"hunters' masks") is particularly like the first "show" Davydov saw on Decem-ber 8, 1802, in Pavlovsk Harbour, which was devoted to successful hunting.The description of the dance also mentions a stone, which Davydov says "rep-resents the coffin of a prominent person of theirs in whose honour the perfor-mance that followed was arranged." Thus, one of the subsequent "acts" wasprobably devoted to the memory of ancestors. The "second dance," judging bythe same "hunter's masks" of its dancers, was probably a hunter's performance,too.

Consider now the artifacts of the "six-act mystery" play as they are listedby 1. G. Voznesenskii. The list reads as follows (Archives, b):

i) ist act. Masks portraying a hunter (2),^ called atmal'chik. Note: twomore of these have been sent, and are now in the Aglemut baidarka (listedseparately).

l86 ROZA G. LIAPUNOVA

2) beaks of familar birds which are put on the mouths of the six nakedboys who open the first act (6), chukhet.

3) 2nd act. Mask representing a sick person (i), kangil'gtt.

4) 3rd act. Mask (the one which is the highest with a small face) repre-senting a jovial fellow (i), kingum-shva.

5) 4th act. Mask depicting a noseless man playing an invalid (i), sh-aguialyk.

6) 5th act. Mask representing a woodcock (i), nakonali.

7) 6th act and the last. Mask depicting a graceful lover (i), bakhagi-lykhvivak.

8) Applied to this mask at the back of the head is a radial array of eaglefeathers (i).

9) Six bandages of feathers fixed to the left arm of every character inthe I St act (6), kamuatet.

10) Aleutian rattles for all the shows (2), kal'khnayamyt.

All the items mentioned in this list are registered at the MAE as collectionno. 571, together with other artifacts collected by I. G. Voznesenskii, al-though it may accidentally include some items from other collections. Theitems of interest are described below and compared with Voznesenskii's list.

Registered under MAE 57i-ia,b and 57i-2a,b are four original kinds ofmasks {atmalchtk) for the first act of the "mystery" play (in Voznesenskii's listall are included under no. i and are called hunters' masks; only two masks arepresent, but there is a note that two more of this kind have been sent).

Very similar masks were described by Davydov: "a kind of spiked helmetmade of bent twigs, one of which ran into the mouth . . . like a horse bit. Thefaces . . . were almost completely covered with various feathers and evergreenoak fern" and "The masks were made of bent twigs so that almost all of theman's face was seen through them." Compare Voznesenskii's description:"Their heads are decorated with feathers, and masks looking like a knight'svisor are ornamented with sea kale soaked in fat." Our masks now do not haveany fern leaves or pieces of sea kale remaining on them. However, these haveprobably been replaced with some light red-painted intestine strips that areloosely suspended on the twigs in front of the face.

These masks have an unusual appearance, which is possibly why somehave assumed they are headdresses. In the exhibition "The Aboriginal Popula-tion of North America" at the MAE in St. Petersburg, one of these masks (no.571-lb; see figure lo-i) was once mounted as a ceremonial headdress on amannequin depicting a dancing Eskimo, but to do so the preparators had to

FIGURE lo-i. Mask, MAE 571-lb.

break the mouthpiece, described by Davydov as something "like a horse bit,"although it may have been broken earlier. Today the mask has been remount-ed properly. This mask was erroneously identified as a headdress both by B. A.Lipshits (1955) and A. D. Avdeev (1957).

All four of these masks are almost identical, so I shall describe one ofthem (no. 571-ib) while pointing out the specific details of the others. The

i88

ROZA G. LIAPUNOVA

framework of the mask is an oval ring (ranging from 23 to 30 centimeters indiameter) made of a straw plait wrapped in black cloth. This frames the face.Running transversely in the lower part of this oval ring is a wooden toothgripthe dancer used to hold the mask in place. In all the masks, these sticks arewider and flatter in the center and have teeth marks on them. Fixed to theoval ring are other straw plaits that are wrapped in reddish intestine stripsand stand out in semicircles in front of the face. To make the semicircles, theyfirst prepared one big oval ring (from an intestine-wrapped plait of straw);then they connected the ends of the long axis (thus forming the front part ofthe mask), and the ends of the shorter axis were fixed to the oval ring thatframed the face. The plaits found in front of the face were decorated withsmall shovel-shaped pieces of wood (some 3x2 centimeters) and red-paintedintestine ribbons (some 2 centimeters wide and 35 centimeters long). The up-per part of the face-framing ring has a wooden rim with sockets. Six baleenrods (10—12 centimeters long) with wooden circles (about 8 centimeters in di-ameter) were inserted into these sockets radially. The circles are painted redwith two parallel white bands going almost through the center in front, andtwo similar black bands in back. (Masks MAE 571-a and 571-2a [figure 10-2}and 57i-2b have the same circular arrangement, but these have a small squarecut in the center with two parallel white stripes issuing from its corners.) In-serted into the rim are five long baleen rods (from 70 to 90 centimeters long)with bunches of feathers fixed along their length and at the ends. Mask 571-2a has three baleen rods with feathers, while masks 571-2b and 571-ia haveonly one baleen rod, without feathers. The symbolism of these masks is diffi-cult to interpret although we may guess they were dedicated to the sun, thesea elements, and to hunting camouflage.

No. 57i-3a-f (Vozn. no. 2). Six attachments covering the mouth of eachparticipant (chykhet). These beak-like attachments are approximately triangu-lar-shaped pieces of leather (maximum length, 16 centimeters; width, 6 cen-timeters) with some white stripes painted against a black background. Afeather is attached to the ends of each. These are used for the first act of the"mystery" play.

No. 571-4 (Vozn. no. 3; figure 10-3). Mask of a sick man, kangil'git, forthe second act of the "mystery" play. Made of one piece of wood. The face iselongated and oval in shape, with a straight flat nose and a visor [hat] juttingover the forehead, and with a double mouth in the form of oblique downwardcuts; below the cuts there are some oval projections (labrets?). Wide brown

FIGURE 10-2. Mask,

MAE 57i-2a.

eyebrows are set above narrow obliquely cut eyes. The visor and the lower partof the face are painted dark red, with transverse green bands (2 centimeterswide) going across the mask under its eyes and over the nose. The rest of theface is painted white, the paint having flaked off in places. The mask is 35centimeters high and 17 centimeters wide.

No. 57i-5a-e (Vozn. no. 9). Six bands from the left arm of each partici-pant, called kamuatet, in the first act of the "mystery" play. They consist of astraw ring about 5 centimeters in diameter with four baleen sticks (10 cen-timeters long), feathered at the ends, inserted into it.

No. 571-6 (Vozn. no. 4; figure 10-4). Mask of a jovial or happy fellow,kingum-shva, for the third act of the "mystery" play. This mask is a tall, board-like shape with a small face depicted at the bottom. A small nose is formedfrom the continuation of the bulging forehead. Under the slits for the eyes

ROZA G. LIAPUNOVA

FIGURE 10-3. Mask, MAE 571-

FIGURE 10-4. Mask,MAE 571-6.

jI

FIGURE 10-5. Mask, MAE 571-7.

there is a black band (3 centimeters wide); the mouth is absent, and the lowerpart of the face looks as if it has been cut off and is painted red from below.The rest of the face is white. Above the face rises a black board rounded at thetop with three longitudinal white lines and three rows of white circles onthem. The entire mask is framed with two wood hoops; the hoop closest tothe mask is wrapped with black cloth, and fixed to the other are some bigwhite feathers and small black feather-shaped wood boards about 20 centime-ters long. The mask is 124 centimeters high, its face is 28 centimeters highand 12—15 centimeters wide.

No. 571-7 (Vozn. no 5; figure 10-5). Mask of a noseless invalid {shaguia-lyk) for the fourth act of the "mystery" play. It is carved from one piece ofwood in the form of an elongated oval with a slightly concave surface inwhich small slits for the eyes and mouth have been cut; no fantastic details.The upper part of the mask, except its nose, is black; the lower part and the

192

ROZA G. LIAPUNOVA

FIGURE 10-6. Mask, MAE 571-8.

nose are dark red. The mask is 35 centimeters high and 19 centimeters wide.

No. 571-8 (Vozn. no. 6; figure 10-6). Mask of an anthropomorphicwoodcock {nakonali) for the fifth act of the "mystery" play. It has an egg-shaped face with obliquely cut eye slits (their outer corners are higher), eye-brows with downward corners, and a mouth indicated by two slits cut at anangle parallel to a sharp chin. A small red groove widening to the bottomgoes from the top of the forehead to the tip of the nose. The forehead is white,the eyebrows are black and red, the eye slits are framed with red and whitebands; the cheeks and the nose are green, and the lower part of the face, whichis painted red, is separated from the rest with a white horizontal band. Bothmouth openings are smeared with fat. The mask is framed with a yellow strawplait and a wooden rim to which are fixed radial baleen sticks with small rec-

FIGURE 10-7. Mask, MAE 571-9.

tangular wooden boards (about 5x5 centimeters, with a horizontal red bandat the center), and also feathers. The mask is approximately 30 centimetershigh (without the framing feathers) and some 2 5 centimeters wide.

No. 571-9 (Vozn. no.7; figure 10-7). Mask of a lover {bakhagilykhvivak)for the sixth act of the "mystery" play. It is an oval face of chiseled wood, witha small mouth and big obliquely fixed wood pegs (labrets) approximately 6centimeters long. Its prominent forehead and cheeks are covered with whitepaint on which red circles are drawn. Red lines are also painted at the top ofthe forehead, in the shape of horns. The eyeholes are white; the eyebrows, thenose, and the horizontal band in the center of the face are black. The chinwith the pegs is red. The mask is framed by a rim sewn over with black cloth.Above it there is another wooden rim, with radially set wooden circles. Thesemeasure 5 centimeters in diameter, and their lower half is painted red. Theyare set on baleen sticks (approximately 10 centimeters long), together withsmall feathers. In addition, fastened to this mask is a radially shaped circle of

194 ROZA G. LIAPUNOVA

FIGURE IO-8. Mask, MAE 57i-iI.

feathers, catalogued as no. 571-10 (see below). Without its framing elements,the mask is 30 centimeters high and 25 centimeters wide.

MAE 571-10 (Vozn. no. 8). A radially shaped array of large white eaglefeathers. The array might have been used either as an addition to the lover'smask (571-9, described above), in which case it was fastened to the back ofthe dancer's head, or separately. It consists of a bow-shaped wooden stick with

195

drilled holes in which are inserted four black feathers, stems up, onto whichbig white feathers have been hafted.

The latter two masks and the array of eagle feathers and the next twomasks (MAE 571-11 and -12; see figure 10-8) are very much reminiscent, aswe have already noted, of the accessories of the second "show" seen by Davy-dov on December 30, 1802.

The masks MAE 571-11 and MAE 571-12 were not included by Vozne-senskii in the list of items belonging to the "six-act mystery" play and weresent by him separately. The list that accompanied these items reads: "The let-ter A is a Kodiak mask called by the aboriginals taliu-liakhkhia, 1 piece; letterB is a Kodiak mask of a different kind, local name unknown. Both masks arebeautifully painted and arranged in the Aleutian taste." A penciled "A" inVoznesenskii's handwriting appears on mask MAE 571-11, and "B" on maskMAE 571-12. The same list reads further: "with no letter mark, a huge mask(the first from top) of the Indians living on the banks of the Kwikpak{Yukon} River, i piece is from the sub Arctic countries of the North-West ofAmerica." We have reason to assign this definition to mask MAE 571-12 (forits description, see below), which was earlier considered to be a Kodiak mask(Avdeev 1957; Anonymous I959d).

MAE 571-11 (figure 10-8). Anthropomorphic mask. Its local name istalyiliakhkhia. Its face is oval in form; the forehead is painted white with redpainted circles; in the center of the forehead and at the tip of the nose there isa red line flanked with black ones. At the level of the eyes (small slits) there isa black band flanked with white and red bands. The upper part of the cheeksis painted in the same manner as the forehead and is separated from the lowerpart of the face with a green band. The lower part of the face is painted redwith white circles. Instead of the mouth (or, one might say, instead of thechin) the mask has a carved cone, the end of which is painted black and isframed with a white band. There is a slit under the chin. A feather and ahanging tassel of fringed intestine pieces are inserted under the nose (with itsnostrils cut through). The mask is framed by a wooden hoop wrapped with apiece of fur and by another hoop made of baleen, to which are fastened smallrectangular wooden plates (5x3 centimeters) with horizontally drawn doublered lines and one black line. Some low fluffy feathers are inserted in front ofthe wooden plates. The mask is 30 centimeters high and 22 centimeters wide.It is interesting to note that an almost identical depiction of this mask is seen

196

ROZA G. LIAPUNOVA

FIGURE 10-9. Mask, MAE 571-12.

on the upper part of the drum MAE 571-25. These are possibly depictions ofone and the same spirit made by one craftsman-shaman.

No. 571-12 (figure 10-9). Anthropomorphic mask with an egg-shapedface (its sharper end is up). The forehead occupies almost half of the face andis painted white with some red circles in the field. A vertical black bandflanked with red ones is drawn through the center of the forehead. The areaaround the eyes, the top part of the cheeks, and the nose are green. The smalleyeholes are encircled by one red and one white band; the arched eyebrows areblack. The lower part of the face is triangular in shape and colored red withwhite circular lines. The upper and lower parts of the face are separated by awhite band. The lower part of the face is beveled (as in mask 571-8) and ispainted black with a slit cut at each side (a double mouth). The edges of theupper part of the mask have 10 pegged wooden circles (formerly there weremore of them) painted bluish-green and edged with a red and white band.

This peculiar halo is surrounded with a bow-shaped red stick fixed to twocross pieces. The entire height of the mask is 37 centimeters, width 48 cen-timeters.

Thus, all the Kodiak masks of the MAE, except for its "hunter's mask,"are anthropomorphic depictions of spirits stylized in the typically Kodiakmanner. All the masks were fastened in front of the dancers' faces.

Mask 571-13 (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:306, fig. 437), which had beenearlier published as a Kodiak piece, is similar to the masks of the kind belong-ing to the Eskimo of the Lower Yukon. That it belongs to this particular Eski-mo group is confirmed by the document from the archives of I. G. Voznesen-skii cited above (although he called the inhabitants of this river Indians). Thismask is a large circle of irregular form (49 x 52 centimeters) with a humanface depicted in the center (32 centimeters high and 27 centimeters wide) andnatural teeth of some animal in its mouth. Its forehead and nose are blue, andits chin and the face's edging are red. The two rows of circular lines crossingthe white cheeks are also red. The mask's surface around the face is coveredwith white paint and is ornamented with red circles. Inserted along theperimeter of the mask (except for its bottom) is an alternating arrangement oflarge white and black feathers.

The accessories of the "six-act mystery" play and the Kodiak festival ingeneral also include the drums and rattles registered in this collection.

No. 571-25 (figure 10-10); 57i-26b (figure lo-ii), 57i-26a (figure 10-12); 57i-26b (figure 10-13); and 571-23 (figure 10-14). Four bladder-skindrums (45, 47, 48, and 46 centimeters in diameter, respectively) with woodenhandles, at the top of which are carved and painted anthropomorphic depic-tions of faces similar to the masks described above, and similar to the Kodiakmasks in general. Voznesenskii supplied the Kodiak name for the drum—chavyiak (Anonymous i90oe). 57i-2 5c,d are drum beaters.

No. 57i-2ia,b, -22, and -24 a,b. Five rattles consisting of one, two, orthree wooden hoops with cross-piece handles. Suspended from the hoops arenumerous puffins beaks. The outer diameters are about 20 centimeters.

As mentioned earlier, ceremonial "hooded" headgear and "sewn caps" arealso available in the MAE collections. These hoods or round caps are madefrom feathered bird skins or from the skins of sea mammals. They are of dif-ferent heights and their "tongues" stick up. Along the rims and on the"tongues" are strips of skin from the throat of sea lions, embroidered withwhite reindeer hair and dyed plant fiber applique. Later these appliques were

made with colored wool, cotton, and silk thread. These headdresses are verysimilar to the published Aleut ceremonial hats, and as indicated by the mate-rials we draw upon, they can be traced back to the ancient ceremonial duck-shaped headdresses.

The MAE collections of items from the Kodiak "festival shows," togeth-er with Voznesenskii's list of accessories for one of the performances and itsdescription in his diary, in addition to the information in the literature, helpto broaden our understanding of the winter ceremonial festivals of the Kodiakislanders. Their "six-act mystery" play and other festival shows with openingdances of hunters with painted faces and bodies, and with original masks,clearly indicate that the main purpose of these ceremonies was to secure suc-cess in the coming hunting season. The "shows" included funeral ceremoniesconnected with the cult of ancestors. Also related to the cult of ancestors were

the performances depicting "evil spirits" by the members of men's secret soci-eties. The same idea of intimidating the uninitiated existed also in Aleut ritu-al practices, as revealed by Veniaminov's (1840) description of a separate per-formance—"devils appear." Furthermore, the "shows" had the air of theatricalperformances, with their original accessories and versatile repertoire, whichincluded mythological, historical, and everyday-life themes meant not only topass on tradition but also to entertain.

Another characteristic of the "festival shows" of the Kodiak Islanders isthe institution of the potlatch and various forms of exchange (between tribes,between settlements, and between individuals), as well as the beginning oftrade; they also reflect some elements of social differentiation in Koniag soci-ety.

The materials on the Kodiak festivals discussed here are a valuable addi-tional source of information on the spiritual culture of the Kodiak Islanders.In the wider perspective of festivals of Eskimo and Aleut groups in general,they also provide further insight into religious ideas, ideology, mythology, so-cial organization, and the arts of the Eskimo people.

NOTES

1. The masks are illustrated in Lipshits (i955:fig.4), Avdeev (1957:373, table i,fig.I, and 1957:311, table 20, fig. 1-3), Anonymous (1959a: 129), Ray and Blaker(i967:pt. 2: plates 5-7, 9), and Ray (1981:112-13) follows: MAE 571-ib in Lip-shits and Avdeev; MAE 571-4 in Lipshits, Anonymous, Ray and Blaker, and Ray;MAE 561-6 in Lipshits and Ray and Blaker; MAE 571-7 in Lipshits and Ray andBlaker; MAE 571-8 in Lipshits, Ray and Blaker, Ray, and Anonymous; MAE 571-9and 10 in Lipshits, Avdeev, and Ray; MAE 571-11 in Anonymous; MAE 571-12 inAdveev and Anonymous; MAE 571-13 in Avdeev, and Anonymous.

2. The number of items is indicated in parentheses. The local terms in the list areunderlined by Voznesenskii.

REFERENCESAlekseev, A. I.

1977 Il'ia Gavrilovich Voznesenskii (Il'ia Gavrilovich Voznesenskii). Moscow.

20I

Anonymous

1900

Valaamskie missionery v Amerike (v kontse XVIII stoletiia) (The Valaam

missionaries in America [end of the eighteenth century}). St. Peters-burg. Translated by Colin Bearne as The Russian Orthodox Religious Mis-sion in America, ijcf^—iS^j. Edited by Richard A. Pierce. Kingston,Ont.: Limestone Press, 1978.

1959a Narody Ameriki (Peoples of America). Vol. i. Moscow: Academy ofSciences.

1959b LO Arkhiva AN SSSR, F.53, op.i, N.1/9, I.1-3 ob. (Leningrad Branch

Archives of the Academy of Science of the USSR, Call number F.53,

op.I, N.1/9,1.1-3 ob.).1959c LO Arkhiva AN SSSR, F.142, op.i (do I9i8g.), N.9,1.1760b.

(Leningrad Branch Archives of the Academy of Science of the USSR,

Call number F. 142, op.i (until 1918), N.9,1.1760b.).I959d LO Arkhiva AN SSSR, F.2, op. 1845, N.12,1.5. (Leningrad Branch

Archives of the Academy of Science of the USSR, Call number F.2,

op.1845, N.12, 1.5.).I959e LO Arkhiva AN SSSR, F.2, op.1845, N.12,1.18. (Leningrad Branch

Archives of the Academy of Science of the USSR, Call number F.2,

Op.1845, N.12,1.18.).

Avdeev, A. D.

1957

Maska (Opyt tipologicheskoi klassifikatsii po etnograficheskim materi-alam) (Masks {Attempt at typological classification of ethnographicmaterial}). Sbornik MAE 17:232-344.

Black, Lydia T.

1977

The Konyag (The Inhabitants of the Island of Kodiak) by losaf [Bolo-tov} (1794-1799) and by Gideon (i804-1807). Arctic Anthropologyi4(2):79-io8.

Clark, D. W.1984

Pacific Eskimo: Historical Ethnography. In Handbook of North AmericanIndians. William C. Sturtevant, ed., 5:136—49. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution Press.

Collins, H. B., et al.

1973

The Far North, 2,000 Years of American Eskimo and Indian Art. Wash-ington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art.

202 ROZA G. LIAPUNOVA

Davydov, G. I.

1810—1812 Dukhkratnoe puteshestvie v Ameriku morskikh ofitserov Khvostova i Davydo-va, pisannoe simnoslednim (Navy officers Khvostov and Davydov's reiter-ated travel to America, written by the latter). St. Petersburg: NavalPrinting Office. Translated by Colin Bearne and edited by Richard A.Pierce. Kingston, Ont.: Limestone Press.

Fitzhugh, William W., and Aron Crowell (eds.)

1988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Alaska and Siberia. Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Fitzhugh, W. W, and S. A. Kaplan

1982 Inua: Spirit World of the Bering Sea Eskimo. Washington, D.C.: Smith-sonian Institution Press.

Gil'zen, K. K.

1916 Il'ia Gavrilovich Voznesenskii. K stoletiiu so dnia ego rozhdeniia

(1816-1871) (Ilia Gavrilovich Voznesenskii. For the hundredth an-niversary of his birth [1816—1871]). Sbornik MAE 3:1-14.

Khlebnikov, K. T.

1979 Russkaia Amerika v neopublikovannykh zapiskakh K. T. Khlebnikova.

Sostavlenie i kommentarii R. G. Liapunovoi i S. G. Fedorovoi (RussianAmerica in K. T. Khlebnikov's unpublished manuscripts; compiledand edited by R. G. Liapunova and S. G. Federova). Leningrad: Nauka.

Liapunova, R. G.

1967 Ekspeditsiia I. G. Voznesenskogo i ee znachenie dlia etnografii RusskoiAmeriki (Voznesenskii's expedition and its significance for the ethnog-raphy of Russian America). Sbornik MAE 24:5-33.

1975 Ocherki po etnografii aleutov (Ethnological sketches on the Aleuts).Leningrad.

Lipshits, B. A.

1950 Etnograficheskie materialy po severo-zapadnoi Amerike v arkhive I. G.Voznesenskogo (Ethnological materials on the Northwest Coast ofAmerica in I. G. Voznesenskii's archives). Izvestiia VGO 82(4):4i5-20.

1955 O kollektsiiakh Muzeia antropologii i etnografii, sobrannykh russkimiputeshestvennikami i issledovateliami na Aliaske i v Kalifornii (TheMAE collections from Russian travelers and researchers in Alaska andCalifornia). Sbornik MAE 16:358—69.

Eskimo Masks from Kodiak Island

203

Merck, Carl Heinrich

1980 Siberia and Northwest America ijSS—ijc^i. . . . Translated from theGerman manuscript by Fritz Jaensch and edited by R. A. Pierce.Kingston, Ont.: Limestone Press.

Ray, D.J.

1981 Aleut and Eskimo Art: Tradition and Innovation in South Alaska. London:C. Hurst.

Ray, D. J., and A. A. Blaker

1967 Eskimo Masks: Art and Ceremony. Seattle: University of WashingtonPress.

Stepanova, M. B.

1944 L G. Voznesenskii i etnograficheskoe izuchenie severo-zapada Ameriki.K stoletiiu ego ekspeditsii (L S. Voznesenskii and the ethnologicalstudy of the Northwest Coast of America. For the hundredth anniver-sary of his expedition). Izvestiia VGO ~i6{'^):2~i~j—279.

Titova, Z. D. (compiler)

1978 Etnograficheskie materialy severo-vostochnoi geograficheskoi ekspeditsii (iy8^—1793) (Ethnological materials of the Northeastern Expedition [1785—1795}). Magadan.

Veniaminov, L

1840 Zapiski ob ostrovakh Unalashkinskogo otdela (Notes on the islands of theUnalashka region). St. Petersburg. Translated by Lydia T. Black and R.H. Geoghegan and edited by R. A. Pierce. Kingston, Ont.: LimestonePress, 1984.

Traditional Choreographic Art of§ Northeastern Siberia

MARIIA lA. ZHORNITSKAIA

THE TRADITIONAL SINGING AND DANCE art of the Eskimo, Chukchi,Koryak, Itelmen, and other peoples living in the vast territory of Northeast-ern Siberia represents a wealth of choreographic traditions built up over manycenturies. This chapter examines the dance stocks of these groups, the struc-ture and plastic forms of individual dances, and the distinctive features ofthese ethnic traditions. The discussion is based on personal observations onthe existing forms of traditional choreography, folklore data, written and lin-guistic sources, and archeological materials such as sculpture and petroglyphs.

The folk choreographic art of the Siberian natives is syncretic in charac-ter, combining words, plastic movements, and music. The performance of cer-tain dances, songs, and pantomimes was usually part of the ritual festivalsconnected with the economic activities and the worldview of these people,and was frequently magical in character.

Today, ritual dances are rarely observed, although many of them still sur-vive in people's memory. In earlier times these ritual dances were as wide-spread as entertainment dances, which were performed not only during ritualfestivals but also during times of leisure, when the inhabitants of campingsites gathered in their iarangas, or in their chums (tents).

205

The dances of the peoples studied were accompanied by human voicesproducing melodies, songs, and separate cries, which often imitated thesounds of reindeer, bears, ravens, and other birds. They were also accompaniedby folk instruments such as drums, whirling boards, and flutes. The dancemelodies had a rather narrow range (just a few tones) and simple rhythmicstructure—2/4, 4/4, 5/4. The dances can be classified simply as men's,women's, and mixed dances, and as solo, paired, and group dances.

A number of the traditional dances performed by the Asiatic Eskimo,Chukchi, and Koryak imitated various tasks and activities, as well as phenom-ena observed in everyday life and in the natural environment. The dances alsoimitated those animals and birds that played an important economic role inthe people's lives—the walrus, seal, reindeer, bear, gull, raven, duck, and oth-ers. The following discussion concentrates mainly on the traditional choreog-raphy of the Asiatic Eskimo (e.g., figure i i-i).

ASIATIC ESKIMO DANCE

The Whale festival was one of the more important celebrations for the AsiaticEskimo. During this festival women performed "sitting dances" within theiarangas and imitated the catching of a whale and carving up of its body. Any-one could participate. I have recorded the movements of five sitting dancesand their five respective melodies performed by the Eskimo from Naukan.These dances form one story, and all have a 2/4 musical meter. The first dancewas called "canoe launching," the second "canoe paddling," the third "sailraising," the fourth "looking for a whale," and the fifth "harpooning a whale."While dancing, the performers used expressive plastic movements of arms,hands, and trunk, and skillfully imitated these actions. In Sireniki, I recordedan original dance created for this same festival in which women dancers heldpieces of reindeer neck skin, which seemed to have some magical meaning.

The Whale festival continued for nearly a month and included manydances, all of which were connected in some way with sea mammal hunting.The festival ended in a solemn ceremony of farewell to the whale. On that daya special dance was performed by the men of the whaleboat that had har-pooned it. In the past this dance was performed masked, but no Asiatic Eski-mo masks have survived.

Information on Eskimo masks is available in the work of Waldemar Bo-

FIGURE ii-i. Dance by Eskimo Tnaukvutagin. (Photographby S. N. Ivanov)

goras (1939:70), although he himself never witnessed the use of masks at fes-tivals. S. A. Arutiunov and D. A. Sergeev found a wooden mask during theirexcavation of the 2,000-year-old Ekven burial site (Fitzhugh and Crowell1988: fig. 146, p. 126; Arutiunov and Sergeev 1975:172). Some idea of howthese Asiatic Eskimo masks were used can be gained from artifacts and datacollected among the other Eskimo groups. According to Margaret Lantis, theAlaskan Eskimos danced in beautifully made wooden masks that reacheddown to their shoulders and depicted marine animals (Lantis 1947:49; seealso Nelson 1899). The masks and labrets of the Aleuts and American Eskimoare described by W. H. Dall (1884:73-151).

The Eskimo performed ritual dances at other important festivals as well,particularly at the Kymygtak (fur high boots) festival described by I. K. Voblov(1952), and at the Festival of "Walrus Heads," which Waldemar Bogoras(1939:99) first described and which I recorded in 1973 (Zhornitskaia1983:25). Similar hunting festivals and dances were also widespread amongthe American Eskimos (see, e.g., Voznesenskii, MAE Collection Notes; Lantis1947:58; Nelson 1899; and R. Liapunova, this volume).

"Raven" dancekimo Imotak, fromiph by A. Maslov)

Sometimes the Asiatic Eskimo performed ritual dances at minor festi-vals. In 1973, when I was visiting the village of Uelen, I was told about a rit-ual dance the purpose of which was to celebrate and offer thanks for a success-ful fur animal hunt. At the same time, it was meant to stimulate giftexchange, which formerly played an important part in the life of the AsiaticEskimo (Bogoras 1939:95; Rubtsova 1954:225).

An analysis of the ritual dances of the Asiatic Eskimo shows that all wereperformed to appease the spirits of nature or the spirits of killed animals. Suchthanksgiving rituals and dances were an organic and therefore probably an ar-chaic part of festival ceremonies. The leading performers of all ritual danceswere elderly people, mostly women. In the course of time, the ritual dancesgradually lost their magical meaning; some were forgotten, and others contin-ued to be performed for their entertainment value. Some of the entertainmentdances of the Asiatic Eskimo were devoted to certain themes and had strictformal structures and a fixed order of successive movements, which were ac-companied by known or improvised "free songs." Dances for entertainmentwere frequently performed at festive occasions to which people from neigh-boring settlements were invited. Each group of guests provided its own per-

FIGURE II-3. "Flensing of thewhale" dance performed by EskimoNanuleek and Ankanaun. (Photograph

by A. Maslov)

formers to compete for the best dance or song. Among the nonritual dancesperformed exclusively by men were those called "walrus hunting," "gull takeswing," "gull's flight against the wind," "duck hunting," "raven dance" (figure11-2), "bear hunting," "collecting eggs," among others.

The initial position in men's dances is as follows: feet are set at the widthof one's shoulders, with the trunk upright. The movements are sharp and pre-cise. While dancing, men squat low and shift their body weight from one legto the other, turning their heads sharply; their trunks and arms (with handsstretched out or fisted) assume different positions. The change from one posi-tion to another is accented with cries of "opa" and "00," while the performersbeat time with their heels. The trunk is kept straight in part because Eskimomen must maintain rigid trunk and leg positions while traveling and huntingin their kayaks and whaleboats at sea.

Women's entertainment dances remain widespread to the present day,and imitate activities from everyday life such as "gathering edible grass androots," "stocking fat," or "whale butchering." Although women take virtuallyno part in flensing and cutting the whale, they imitate this act accurately intheir dances (figure 11-3). Women's dances imitating the habits of birds andanimals are very popular.

The basic stance in women's dances is feet together and body upright.The dances are performed almost on one spot. Female performers employspringing movements in the knees and smooth movements of their arms, and

they keep their hands straight and fingers closed. Restraint and modesty, inparticular, are characteristic of Eskimo women's dances. It is considered im-proper for women to show power or sensuality or to make sharp movements.To avoid showing their naked palms, they wear gloves or hide their hands intheir sleeves.

Like the men, Eskimo women perform their dances sitting or standingon one spot, a characteristic that may derive from the ancient tradition of per-forming dances within the confines of the Eskimo iarangas. All traditionaldances consist of a short prelude of light drum beating accompanied by adrawling cry "ai-iai," and are divided into two main parts. The first part isperformed at a slow tempo, while the second part repeats the same move-ments, but at a faster pace, with more expression, and with the body heldlower. These Eskimo dances are lineally structured, with arm movements thatemphasize precision and a sculptural form. Most Eskimo dances have a setmusical score and choreography. The creators and first performers of thesedances were men, who then taught them to other people. Popular dancesspread rapidly from group to group, but kept the name of the creator, for ex-ample, "gull's flight against the wind" by Nutetein, or "white bear andhunter" by Tukhelian.

The Asiatic Eskimo usually dance in special clothing. For ritual danceswithin the iarangas, women would put on light knee-length trousers made ofsome finely cured, black-painted sealskin. The trouser hems were decoratedwith white and red stripes. The breast was sometimes covered with a piece offinely dressed reindeer skin, but more often was left naked. Some beads wereworn over the shoulders and on the breast, and the arms were decorated withbracelets. Braids were adorned with metallic pendants and button-like decora-tions made of whale or walrus bone; earrings were also popular. Usually, thedancers also wore high summer fur boots made of white suede embroideredwith colored strings and reindeer neck hair. Dance headgear consisted of ringsof finely dressed reindeer skin, worn like a diadem, embroidered and paintedred with a white gull feather fixed to both sides. When dancing in the open,women usually wore their ceremonial clothing, while men donned closely fit-ting trousers and short fur boots. Both men and women wore gloves made ofdark fine reindeer skin, which gave more expression to the plastic pattern ofthe dances, based mostly on arm and hand movements. These gloves were spe-cially cut to allow the hands to move freely during the dances.

Faces were commonly painted with graphite. Women drew one vertical

line on their chin, while men made two lines on their cheeks, one of whichran horizontally from the lips, and the other vertically, down the cheek.

Our data on various Eskimo groups indicate that the traditional ritualdances of the Asiatic Eskimo are part of a wide range of imitative dances cov-ering northern Chukotka and Alaska, the Aleutian Islands, and a considerablepart of North America.

CHUKCHI DANCE

Not long ago, the Chukchi people comprised two economic and culturaltypes—the nomadic reindeer-breeders, and the sedentary sea mammal huntersof maritime regions. Dances of these two Chukchi groups show marked differ-ences.

The leading festival celebrated by the Reindeer Chukchi coincided withthe return of the reindeer herds from summer pasturing and with the autumnslaughter. With dances, songs, and other acts, the Reindeer Chukchi tried toinfluence the spirits believed to be responsible for the well-being of Chukchifamilies and their reindeer herds. A special part of this festival was a thanks-giving dance featuring the cult of fire. The performers danced with drums intheir hands; both the Chukchi and Eskimo people thought of the drum as thevoice of the hearth. The ritual dance known as "banishment of evil spirits"was improvised by each female performer in her own way. A dance connectedwith the scaring away of the evil spirits was the "dance with grimaces" {rul'tynt-gnyk, "to screw up one's face into a grimace"). The female dance vivreliet (trem-bling knee), which I recorded several times, is also performed at this time.

The Festival of Horns was of somewhat less importance. In the past, ac-cording to surviving fragments, this festival included a symbolic pantomimeaccompanied by dances intended to enlarge the reindeer herds.

The ritual dances of Reindeer Chukchi that still survive are extremelyarchaic. Many appear to have been based on noises, such as hand clapping orstamping of the feet, which Chukchi believed frightened evil spirits away.These ritual dances often included erotic movements.

From their Eskimo neighbors, the Maritime Chukchi borrowed the cere-monials, rituals, and sitting dances that were performed at the Whale festival(figure 11-4). However, these Chukchi dances did not follow a single storyline, but rather imitated work activities and the surrounding environment, as

212 MARIIA lA. ZHORNITSKAIA

FIGURE II-4. Chukchi "seateddance," performed by a femaleMaritime Chukchi, Chukchi

Autonomous Area. (Photograph byS. N.Ivanov)

in tanytkon tyrkyl'en (reindeer bullfight), upekechit (looking out for reindeer),tanytkon korakychavych'yn (reindeer running), ketchanrun (crane, ptarmigan,raven), enanvat (skin dressing), and others.

Unlike the ritual dances, which have completely disappeared from theireveryday life, the entertainment dances of the Reindeer and MaritimeChukchi have not only survived, but continue to develop. The most wide-spread dance among the Chukchi is called pkh'einen (throat singing). This per-formance includes throat singing and other cries. In these, as in otherChukchi dances, the movements are smooth and flowing.

KORYAK DANCE

For centuries, the Koryak have been divided into two groups—the MaritimeKoryak who call themselves Nymylan, and the Tundra or Reindeer Koryak,called Chavchuven (Dolgikh 1960:554). Ritual dances were performed by theMaritime Koryak until the early twentieth century. One of the most ancientritual dances was related to beluga hunting. In it, the Koryak ceremoniously"welcomed" the whale. Women danced in costumes consisting of specialtrousers and footwear, and cane masks. They took "sacrificial branches" and

213

FIGURE II-5. Koryak traditional dance meawetyn, Koryak Autonomous Area.

(Photograph by S. N. Ivanov)

fire-brands from their hearths and came to the shore where they kindled a fireand danced around it (Jochelson 1905:1, 1908:70). These dances expressedgratitude to the spirits for a successfial hunting season.

Another ritual dance with a different meaning was related to seal hunt-ing. I have recorded several variations of this dance. During the Koryak festi-vals revolving around sea mammal hunting, women and girls were finelydressed and in their dance imitated the seal's movements (Gurvich 1962). Rit-ual dances of the pantomime type were performed by the Maritime Koryak tocelebrate a young hunter's first killing of a wolf, bear, or other large animal.

Dances of the Reindeer Koryak are almost exclusively related to theirmain activity, reindeer herding, and have much in common with the dances ofthe Reindeer Chukchi. One of the Koryak entertainment dances that havesurvived is the popular mlavytyn (dance), which is danced by everybody—women, men, and children alike (figure 11-5). A few of the other Koryak enter-tainment dances are toporok (puffin), "humpback," "sea gull," and "ptarmigan."In the past, the Koryak also had personal dances and accompanying songs.

All the Koryak dances are improvisations that have no fixed figures orspecific movements. In contrast to the Chukchi and Eskimo dances, those of

214

MARIIA lA. ZHORNITSKAIA

the Koryak feature greater mobility of the head, shoulders, arms, and hips;more pronounced dancing steps and jumps; and a temperamental aspect.

ITELMEN DANCE

The materials made available to me by old Itelmen informants lead me to be-lieve that, even in the early twentieth century, Itelmen dances were expres-sions of thanksgiving for the success of the sea mammal hunt. According toZh. Lesseps (1801—2:9), a common dance of the Itelmen in the late eigh-teenth century was the bear dance pantomime.

Although the Itelmen borrowed dance styles from the Russians and theKoryak early in the seventeenth century, they had previously performed theirown dances, which involved grimaces and kneeling postures. Our elderly Itel-men informants told us that at evening parties they used to dance the chizhik,kamarinskaya, polka, waltz, and others, all borrowed from the Russians.Among the Itelmen of today, dances called "yellow sand" and bakai (bear) arepopular. These dances include such steps as half-steps, triple steps, turns andjumps easily identifiable as Russian dance movements, as well as movementscharacteristic of the original Koryak dances, such as springy leg movements,hip vibrations, and head, shoulder, and arm movements. The style of Itelmendance performances, however, has a character of its own.

The traditional dances of the Northeastern Siberian natives can be tracedfar back in time.These dances all display common traits in their plasticarrangement and composition. As a rule, these dances were performed onspringy knees while squatting, and with expressive movements of the armsand hands. At the same time, each group had its own particular dance tradi-tions. Today, the choreographic art of the Eskimo, Chukchi, Koryak, and Itel-men is characterized by a close intertwining of traditional folk dance motifs,amateur art, and professional performances.

REFERENCES

Arutiunov, S. A., and D. A. Sergeev

1975 Problemy etnicheskoi istorii Beringomor'ia. Ekvenskii mogil'nik (Problems of

Traditional Choreographic Art

215

the ethnohistory of the Bering Sea region {Ekven burial site}). Moscow:Nauka.

Bogoras, see Bogoraz

Bogoraz, V. G.

1939 Chukchi (The Chukchi). Part II. Leningrad.

Dall, W. H.1884

On Masks, Labrets, and Certain Aboriginal Customs. Third Annual Reportof the Bureau of American Ethnology for the Years 1881-1882. Wash-ington, D. C.

Dolgikh, B. O.

1960 Rodovoi i plemennoi sostav narodov Sibiri v XVII v (Clan and tribal compo-sition of the peoples of Siberia in the seventeenth century). Trudy In-stituta Etnografii 50. Moscow: AN SSSR.

Fitzhugh, William W, and Aron Crowell (eds.)

1988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. Washington,D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Gurvich, I. S.

1962 Koriakskie promyslovye prazdniki (Koryak hunting festivals). In

Sibirskii etnograficheskii sbornik 4 (Siberian ethnographic collection 4),pp. 238—57. Moscow-Leningrad: AN SSSR.

Jochelson, W.

1905 The Koryak (Part i, original publication). New York: Leiden.1908 The Koryak (Part 2, original publication). New York: Leiden.

Lantis, M.1947

Alaskan Eskimo Ceremonialism. Monographs of the American Ethnologi-cal Society (New York) 11. New York: J. J. Augustin.

Lesseps, Zh.

1801—2 Lessepsoboputeshestviepo Kamchatke ipo luzhnoi Sibiri (Lesseps's voyageacross Kamchatka and Southern Siberia). Part 1-3. Moscow.

2l6 MARIIA lA. ZHORNITSKAIA

Nelson, E. W.

1899 The Eskimo about Bering Strait. Bureau of American Ethnology AnnualReport 18. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Rubtsova, E. S.

1954 Materialy po iazyku i fol'kloru Eskimosov (Material on the language andfolklore of the Eskimo). Moscow-Leningrad: AN SSSR.

Voblov, I. K.

1952 Eskimosskie prazdniki (Eskimo festivals). In Sibirskii etnograficheskiishornik i (Siberian ethnographic collection i), pp. 320—34. Moscow-Leningrad: AN SSSR.

Zhornitskaia, M. la.

1983 Narodnoe khoreograficheskoe iskusstvo korennogo naselenia Severo-Vostoka

Sibiri (Folk choreographic art of the native population of NortheasternSiberia}. Moscow: Nauka.

ARON CROWELL

THE KODIAK ISLAND ARCHIPELAGO^ IS located in the Gulf of Alaska,on the edge of the continental shelf and just north of the Aleutian Trench (seefigure i-i). The aboriginal inhabitants of this island group are the Koniag,who numbered 8,000—9,000 at the time of first contact by Russian sea otterhunters in the mid-eighteenth century (Clark 1987). The Koniag are Alutiiq-speaking Pacific Eskimos, a group that also includes the Chugach of PrinceWilliam Sound. The mountainous interior of Kodiak Island offers little game,and the Koniag traditionally relied almost exclusively on salmon and coastalresources (Clark 1984a). This chapter examines an important component ofthe Kodiak Island's aboriginal maritime economy—poisoned-dart whaling—as a hunting system and as a social enterprise.

In this form of whaling, carried out from a one- or two-man kayak,whales were struck with a poisoned dart and not recovered until several dayslater, when found drifting or washed up on shore. In its technological, eco-nomic, social, and conceptual dimensions, this practice was very differentfrom the open-boat harpoon whaling traditions of northeastern Siberia, north-ern Alaska, and the Northwest Coast of North America. Kayak whaling re-quired neither the communal effort and resources marshaled in large-boat

217

2l8

ARON CROWELL

whaling nor the economic and political leadership demanded of whaling cap-tains in these traditions. Koniag whalers were elite specialists, organized as asecretive cult, who seem to have stood at a remove from chiefly power. Theyalso differed from other whalers in their spiritual concepts. Among the Koni-ag, whaling magic was hidden, dangerous, and polluting. Its aim was to con-trol and conquer whales, whereas the Inupiat goal was to attract whalesthrough attention to cleanliness and spiritual harmony between the animalsand the entire community.

In the following discussion, ethnohistoric, archeological, and biologicaldata are used to study Koniag whaling in the framework of other North Pacif-ic traditions (see chapter 8).

ENVIRONMENT, SOCIAL COMPLEXITY, AND WHALING

Environmentally influenced coast-interior and north-south gradients of socialcomplexity are evident among aboriginal societies of the greater North Pacificculture area—which here includes northeastern Siberia from the lower AmurRiver to the Chukchi Peninsula, all of Alaska, and the Northwest Coast ofNorth America. Sea mammals and caribou or reindeer (obtained directly orthrough exchange) were generally more important than fish for northern mar-itime groups (Chukchi, Koryak, Asiatic and Alaskan Eskimos). Populationdensities around the shores of the northern Bering and Chukchi seas werecomparatively low and social organization more fluid, egalitarian, and small-scale than in the south; clan organization was absent (except among the Asiat-ic Eskimo) and status differentiation was based on sex, age, and economicstanding rather than ascription.

Populations occupying the ice-free subarctic coasts of the Pacific—in-cluding the lower Amur River cultures, Ainu, Itelmen, Aleut, Pacific Eskimo,and Northwest Coast groups—exploited a broad and abundant maritime sub-sistence base consisting of fish (especially salmon), sea mammals (includingfur seal, sea lion, sea otter and other species not available farther north), shell-fish, and birds. The prehistoric development of complex social formations inthis favored environment is thought to have begun in the mid-Holocene, withthe establishment of salmon runs and shellfish beds, followed by sedentarysettlement along the coast, population growth, territorial circumscription,and the emergence of hierarchical, lineage-based political systems that provid-ed political solutions to the organizational problems of obtaining, storing, re-

219

distributing, and exchanging resources in intensive "collector" economies(Donald and Mitchell 1975; Fladmark 1975; Schalk 1979; Townsend 1980;Yesner 1980; Ames 1981, 1985; Price and Brown 1985; Ackerman 1988).

Koniag culture becomes archeologically definable on Kodiak Island byabout A.D. 1100, and its development up until mid-eighteenth-century Russ-ian contact is marked by growth in its population, house size, ceremonialism,external contacts, warfare, and the elaboration of personal adornment—allconsidered probable correlates of increasing social complexity (Jordan andKnecht 1988). The Koniag phase culminates a long sequence of maritime cul-tures on Kodiak and the southern Alaskan coast that date back to at least7000 B.P. (Clark 1984b). The recent discovery of a pre—Ocean Bay phase onKodiak may push this basal date back several thousand years (P. Hausler andR. Knecht, personal communication).

The aboriginal pursuit of the great whales was practiced at both thenorthern and southern limits of the congruent environmental and socioeco-nomic clines discussed above.^ Whaling was often an important element ofsubsistence strategy in the sea mammal—focused economies of the north, par-ticularly along the coasts of northern Alaska, parts of the Chukchi Peninsula,and St. Lawrence Island. Unusually large coastal villages based on specializedwhale-walrus economies became established over the period a.d. 800-1400 inlocations where bowhead and gray whales were predictably available on an an-nual basis (Sheehan 1985; Krupnik 1984).

In southern North Pacific maritime economies, including that of theKoniag, resources were more diverse, and salmon were usually the main focusof subsistence efforts. Whale meat and fat seem to have been complementaryrather than primary elements of the diet in all but a few limited locales (notethat whaling was not practiced at all along the northern Northwest Coast).Leadership in these southern societies was ascribed rather than achievedthrough leadership in hunting (although Nootka and Makah chiefs also ledwhale hunts), and was associated with managerial functions relating to theprocurement and ceremonial redistribution of many types of food in additionto whale products.

NORTH PACIFIC WHALING METHODS

Communal whaling was practiced by northern Alaskan and Siberian groups,as well as by the Nootka, Makah, and neighboring cultures of the southern

220

ARON CROWELL

Northwest Coast. The hunters worked from fleets or pairs of large open boatsand employed toggling harpoons, float gear, and lances to kill and securewhales. Communal hunting, in addition to poisoned-dart whaling, may alsohave been practiced by groups in the Aleutians (Black 1987) and by theChugach of Prince William Sound (Birket-Smith 1953). Some specific techni-cal and ritual parallels have been noted between communal whaling traditionsin these discontinuous and widely separated regions (Lantis 1938; Duff 1965),and arguments have been advanced for a historical connection between them(Duff 1965), as well as for independent centers of origin (Dewhirst 1982).

Poisoned-dart whaling extended from the eastern Aleutians to the Pacif-ic Eskimo territories of Kodiak Island and Prince William Sound. Thismethod may have been culturally linked to Asian traditions of hunting withpoison, including whaling with aconite-poisoned projectiles by the Itelmenand Ainu (Heizer 1943; Bisset 1976). Black (1987) has argued, however, foran independent prehistoric origin of this method in the Kodiak Island region,pointing out the absence of any evidence for aboriginal whaling across thewestern and central Aleutian Island chain (the route of transfer proposed byHeizer), and the apparently very late appearance (protohistoric or post-Russ-ian contact) of poisoned-dart whaling in the eastern Aleutians.

This complex culture-historical problem will not be addressed further inthis chapter, except to note that I agree with Black's conclusion that poi-soned-dart whaling was of prehistoric antiquity on Kodiak Island. It was pos-sibly as old, or older than, the Ocean Bay II phase (2500—1800 B.C.), which isthe period in which slate bayonets that may have served the same function asethnographic Koniag whaling points first appear in the archeological record(Clark 1979:221). Whale bones in middens date even earlier, to the TakliAlder phase on the Alaska Peninsula (Clark 1977). No toggling harpoonheads large enough for whaling are known from any sites in the Pacific Eski-mo or Aleut regions.

WHALE SPECIES AND DISTRIBUTIONS IN THE GULFOF ALASKA

The high biological productivity of waters in the Gulf of Alaska and else-where on the subarctic shelf is due in part to winter turbulence and densityinversion, which bring bottom nutrients into the upper water column (Acker-man 1988). In the spring, the water column becomes stable and the amount

221

of light increases, with the result that phytoplankton, zooplankton, and inver-tebrate populations are able to expand rapidly. These invertebrates include an-imals important in the diet of baleen whales: copepods, euphausids, andsquid. Herring and capelin (which are also eaten by baleen whales), toothedcetaceans, and other sea mammals concentrate in shallow coastal waters andbays during the warm months to feed and spawn (Scientific Applications1979, 1980a, 1980b).

This abundance of food draws the migratory great whales (blue, fin, sei,humpback, gray, right, and sperm) from their low-latitude breeding groundsto northern waters, where they spend the summer feeding and building up fatreserves. These species are all found in the Gulf of Alaska during the summer(Fiscus et al. 1976; Rice and Wolman 1983). Census data indicate that sum-mer populations of whales are currently much higher along Kodiak's easterncoast, where the continental shelf drops off into the Aleutian Trench, than inShelikof Strait on the west side of the island group. Most gray whales aretransitory, passing through between March and June on their way to primarysummering areas in the Bering and Chukchi Seas, and between October andJanuary on their return migration. The well-defined coastal migration routefollowed by the gray whales takes them along the east side of the Kodiakarchipelago and through Unimak Pass at the eastern end of the Aleutian Is-land chain (Hessing 1983; Braham 1984). Bowheads remain close to thesouthern edge of the Bering Sea ice pack in winter and follow it north intothe Chukchi and Beaufort seas in spring; they do not enter the Gulf of Alaska.Table 12-1 lists size ranges (newborn to maximum adult length), diet, andseasonal presence of the seven baleen whale species that regularly occur in theGulf of Alaska^.

The various toothed cetaceans found in the Gulf of Alaska are all year-round residents; these include killer and beluga whales (the latter primarily inCook Inlet), Pacific white-sided dolphins, harbor porpoises, and Dall porpois-es. The sperm whale, the largest of the toothed whales, was not hunted at all,while the smaller toothed cetaceans were hunted without the use of poison.

KONIAG WHALING

The following description of Koniag whaling is based on published sourcesdating from the early Russian contact period to the late nineteenth century.Merck (1980) and Sauer (1802) were on Kodiak Island in 1790, Davydov in

(A

oO

J3

PQ

M

o

GO

<U

c

4-1

c

Cl,

N

GO

z

o

O

>^

TO

C

oa,

U

a,

W

c

to

(30

Oh

c4

d

to

uuO

t/51-1(U

OS

(Uto

C/3

«5

co

C/3

uO

to^XI

ne

)ha;

O

o

Uh

a

N

3

pe

_U

(U

CO

to

o

O

to

y3

e-p

pep

rfac

' CO

3

d

to

Eup

squi

6

o

-G

a

u

t-l3

o

a,

D

ao

u

toXto3

a

3

o

JG

a

<vu(■^

3CP

to<43

-G

in^G

(AC

X!

i-i

a

GO

N

oa

o

(/5

X

a X

Ba

t/5

3

a ji;

XG

a

3W

o

o

o

o

o

o

•^"^

X

oZ

ooo

CO

•r

O

o

3

4-1

G

(U

S cm

G ,^

e

3G

G

(U

toXO

_a

1ga

6

e

a

X

<u

XC

tooG

a

to

_3

i

II

Si

G

"I

J

-Si

C/D

u

a6

i S o s

t-l ."->

(U

G

to • -H

a

o

-G

a

(U

<-i-i(-1

3

to

X

to

-G

a

3

<u

toXO

a

(U

a

o

u

4-1

X

o

NO

.—1

00

1—1

C\

i-H

i-H

r—t

CM1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1^

4-. ^

4->t-l

o

z

as

ON

>

ID

c

n3OO

(U

j::

6o

4-1

Q

a,

e

XI

X

3

1:1

X

00

OX

^ .

c OS

c ,—1

to w

4-1 5

C C

XO00On

o

00ON

SO

ON

3

o

to

00

ON

-a

G

o

p5

ON X

o

On 00"—I ON

X O

. 00

uo ON

C ^O

u

"a

a,<

otC

4->

c

'oen

ONON

00ON

•I r3 e

ca x"

G

-2

1/1

aa<

<43

C

'G

1802-3 (1977), Gideon in 1804-7 (Black 1977), Lisiansky in 1804-5(1968), Holmberg in 1851 (1985), and Pinart in 1871-72 (1875). Veni-aminov, on Unalaska Island during 1826-34 (1984), discusses Aleut poison-dart whaling. Other references on Aleutian whaling are Sarychev (1969) andLangsdorff (1968); see Black (1987) for an extensive bibliography. Compara-tive data on Chugach whaling are drawn from Birket-Smith (1953).

The limitations of this data base are obvious, and future work must sys-tematically incorporate Russian and American archival sources, as well as therich and largely untapped oral traditions of present-day Kodiak Islanders. Thefollowing account must therefore be regarded as provisional and subject tocritical reevaluation.

Poisoned-dart whaling was practiced on Kodiak during the summermonths when feeding whales moved from the open sea into the relative con-finement of bays and fiords.^ The surfaced whale was silently approached in aone- or two-man kayak, and struck with a dart propelled from a throwingboard. Koniag whale darts were tipped with narrow blades of ground slate20—30 centimeters long, held in either a bone socketpiece or fixed in a wood-en foreshaft designed to detach from the dart upon impact; in either case, thedart remained embedded in the whale.^ An "owner's mark" inscribed on theblade identified the whaler who had cast the weapon.

The strike was aimed at one of the flippers or, as a second choice, the tail(Langsdorff 1968:45; Davydov 1977:223; Gideon in Black 1977:102). Theimmediate reaction of the whale was a violent thrashing that could endangerthe hunting boat; it then either dove or swam away.

The pharmacologically active ingredient of the poison that coated thedart head was an extract from the root of the monkshood plant {Aconitum spp.).Compounded with the aconite were magical poisons, most notably fat extract-ed from corpses (Davydov 1977:223; Lisiansky 1968:174). From his analysis ofthe pharmacology and circum-Pacific distribution of the use of Aconitum, Bissetconcludes that the small quantity of poison that could have been carried on thehead of a whaling dart would have been insufficient to kill a whale outright. Itcould have caused paralysis of one flipper, however, so that the whale wouldhave been unable to keep upright and would have eventually drowned. A tailstrike could have caused a similar loss of control and interfered with the ani-mal's ability to surface for breathing. Most accounts mention that two to threedays would elapse before a struck whale would be found washed up on a beachor floating on the surface, its body buoyed by decomposition gases.

224

ARON CROWELL

Magical efforts were made to control the movements of the whale, bothbefore and after striking it with a dart. According to one report, an intestinalpouch filled with the "fat drawn from a dead male child" would be draggedby a shaman in a kayak across the mouth of Kizhuyak Bay behind enteringwhales, confining them in the bay where they could be attacked (Hrdlicka1944:126). A "poison" made of human fat was similarly deployed by theChugach to prevent wounded whales from escaping into open waters (Birket-Smith 1953:33). After striking his prey, an Aleut whaler would withdraw to aspecial hut for three days, where he fasted and mimicked the sounds of thedying animal in order to hasten its death and prevent its escape (Veniaminov1984:224).

Pacific Eskimo whalers stole bodies or possibly even killed (see Birket-Smith 1953:34) to obtain corpses for use in preparing whale dart poison andhunting talismans and in the performance of pre- and post-hunt whaling rites(Davydov 1977:223). The corpses were mummified and curated in secretcaves, and offerings brought to them there. Necrotic hunting magic wasdangerous as well as powerful; some Aleut whalers were supposed to havedied horrible, premature deaths from rotting (Veniaminov 1984:223), andDavydov mentions a Koniag belief that the rotting of preserved bodies causedthe death of the whaler (1977:233). The numerous parallels between the prac-tices of Koniag whalers and Nootka whale ritualists, in both instances involv-ing the use of human corpses and the substitution of magical control for phys-ical control of whales, merit further investigation (see Lantis 1938).

WHALE SPECIES HUNTED

Analyses of fauna from Koniag archeological sites (Clark 1974) have not in-cluded species identifications for the large whale bones that are often present,although several small cetaceans (porpoises, beluga, Stejneger's beaked whale)were identified at the Uyak site (Heizer 1956). Thus it would not be possibleon this basis to distinguish captured from naturally occurring drift whales.Historic observations are more helpful, but not conclusive. For the easternAleutians, Veniaminov (1984:358) specifies hunting of the humpback,*^ andMerck's detailed description of a whale darted off Unalaska in June 1790(1980:73) refers unmistakably to a young female fin whale.^ Holmberg(1985:47) states that only one species of whale—a balaenopterid—was hunted

off Kodiak Island. The genus Balaenoptera includes the blue, fin, sei, andminke whale. Holmberg indicates that whales were hunted when they enteredbays to feed, behavior that is characteristic of fin and minke whales (as well ashumpbacks); blues and seis tend to remain offshore (see table 12-1). Thequoted maximum length for "old whales" (six fathoms, or 18.2 meters) wouldseem to rule out the minke whale; and the blow, described as a "tremendousfont," matches the unusually high, vertical spout exhaled by the fin whale.Pinart (1875:5) lists the humpback, fin, killer whale, and "blackfish" {Glabro-cephalus scammonii—pilot whale?) as species hunted by the Aleut and PacificEskimo, but does not specify whether all were taken with poisoned darts.

Fin and humpback whales exhibit a behavior called "side-feeding"(Gaskin 1982), which may explain in part why poisoned-dart whalers pursuedthese species. In this method of surface feeding, the whale repeatedly rollsonto one side and turns in a tight circle, trapping swarms of euphausids (krill)or schools of fish inside its wake and then cutting across the concentrationwith its mouth open. One flipper projects vertically above the surface of thewater during this maneuver, whereas in normal surface swimming whales ex-pose only their upper backs. With the whale in this position, a hunter wouldhave found it easier to place a dart in the critical flipper region.

SIZE OF WHALES AND RECOVERY RATES

Although fiill-growrhfin and humpback whales represent very large quantitiesof meat and blubber, ethnohistoric data indicate that whalers selectively hunt-ed immature animals, thereby considerably reducing the yield of the hunt.Koniag hunting of yearling whales is specified by Gideon (Black 1977:102);and of "very young whales" by Holmberg (1985:47). Veniaminov (1984:277)states that whales killed on Unalaska were generally small enough so that awhole animal could be loaded into a single baidarka (umiak). To judge by thesize range of fin and humpback whales (table 12-1), it seems likely that thewhales taken by Koniag, Aleut, and Chugach whalers would rarely have ex-ceeded 8 to 9 meters in length. The level of aconite toxicity in relation tobody size may have been a factor influencing the selection of relatively smallanimals.

Several authors provide figures on the number of whales struck and over-all recovery rates. Veniaminov (1984:277) states that of the 30-60 whales

226

ARON CROWELL

wounded each year off Unalaska and Akun Islands, only 10—33 were recov-ered, and Kittlitz (1858, translated and quoted in Heizer 1943:430) estimat-ed that only i in 10 whales struck by Aleut hunters was found. Wrangell(1839, in Heizer 1943:438) provides the most specific data. During 1831, 43out of 118 whales wounded off Kodiak Island were found on shore, for a re-covery rate of 36 percent.

It is interesting to compare this figure to Jewitt's (1976) data on Nootkaharpoon whaling, discussed in Arima (1988). Jewitt records 18 whales struckand 5 recovered, for a Nootka success rate of 28 percent. Some escaped whaleswould probably have been recouped as drifters. Like the Koniag, Nootkawhalers put owner's marks on their harpoon heads to establish claims to es-caped whales that later died and drifted ashore.

If a whale drifted a long distance, there was the risk of spoilage or beach-ing in the territory of an alien village, which might claim a large portion ofthe kill (Kittlitz 1858, in Heizer 1943:431). As Kotzebue (1821 in Heizer1943:431) explains:

To the district, in which such a treasure comes ashore, one part of its is ap-portioned, and the inhabitants are permitted to eat upon the spot as muchof it as they are able, which accordingly takes place uninterruptedly, for 24hours. Often the owner (i.e. he who killed the whale) and the people eatingthe whale fall into a fierce altercation, because these had not thought to setaside for him the tidbits.

Similarly, native residents of Three Saints Bay on the southeastern part of Ko-diak Island frequently utilized beached whales killed along the distant north-eastern shore of the island and carried down by the current (Khlebnikov1979:43).^

The existence of well-defined village territories and of the beach salvagerights of village chiefs are well documented for the Aleutians (Lantis 1970)and all along the Northwest Coast. Birket-Smith (1953:95) notes that hunt-ing territories controlled by the different Chugach "tribes" within PrinceWilliam Sound specifically included rights to local whales. Similar politicaldivisions and associated territorial claims may be strongly suspected for theKoniag.

In order to avoid the obligation of sharing their kills with neighboringgroups, whalers probably attempted to locate whales while they were stillfloating and then called on members of their own village to tow them back

home for butchering (Langsdorff 1968:45). Only in such cases, and presum-ably when a whale was found on a beach within his home territory, did thewhaler effect a complete recovery of his kill.

WHALING AND THE KONIAG SUBSISTENCE ECONOMY

It would be very useful to be able to quantify the contribution of whale prod-ucts in relation to other items in the Koniag diet, but this is difficult to do onthe basis of the historic accounts or on current archeological data. The relativeproportions of shellfish and fish, sea mammal, and bird bones at old Koniagvillage sites vary widely (Clark 1974; Amorosi 1987), as a result of local andseasonal variations in subsistence efforts. Direct calculations of whale con-sumption on the basis of bones found in settlement middens would be mis-guided, since most bones would have been left on distant shores where the an-imals were butchered. Gideon (Black 1977:91), however, provides an inklingof the importance of whale through a list of the stored belongings marking awealthy "Aleut" (Koniag). Besides clothing, skins, tools, and items of person-al adornment it included "plenty of whale meat" and two sea lion bladders ofwhale oil, along with baskets of berries and roots preserved in oil, a sea lionbladder filled with caviar, and 10 large bundles each of salmon, halibut, andcod. Whale meat and blubber were among the most prized "delicacies" of theKoniag, according to Davydov (1977:175), although he states that salmonwas the staple food. It seems safe to conclude that whale was a highly valuedaddition to an eclectic diet (and possibly an elite food), rather than a centralstaple, as was the case among northern whaling groups. Veniaminov (1984:277) notes that even in villages where large numbers of whales were taken,the Aleut never had sufficient stores of whale meat and blubber to lastthrough the winter.

The generalized seasonal exploitation pattern of the Koniag as recon-structed from historic accounts (Davydov 1977; Holmberg 1985; Merck1980; Sauer 1802) provides further insight into the place of whaling in theKoniag subsistence economy. As is evident from figure 12-1, subsistence ac-tivities are concentrated in the spring and summer. Spring and summer sawthe partial dispersal of the human population from large winter villages tonumerous smaller hunting and fishing stations or to large settlements alongmajor salmon rivers (Clark 1987; Jordan and Knecht 1988; Crowell 1986).

JAN

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

OCT

NOV

FUR SEAL

3.4

HARBOR SEAL

3,4

SEA LION

3.4

PORPOISE

3

SEA OTTER

2,3,4

WHALES

1.2.3,4

SALMON

•3 A

BIRDS

EGGS

4

3 YOl

JNG Bl

^DS

PLANT FOODS

SHELLFISH

1. Davydov. 1977: 224,175

SEASONAL RESOURCE USE 2. Holmberg. IQSS: 50.48

3. Merk, 1980:105-106

KONIAG ESKIMO (CIRCA 1800) 4. Sauer. 1802:178

FIGURE I2-I. Seasonal Resource Use, Koniag Eskimo (ca. iBoo).

Good areas for hunting sea mammals, including whales, were in the middleand outer parts of the bay, while the best salmon fishing was at the heads ofbays or inland along river courses.

Whaling therefore conflicted seasonally and spatially with other urgentsubsistence activities, although the most critical period for stockpiling largequantities of smoked and dried salmon occurred after the whaling season, dur-ing late August through October. As a specialist activity with low manpowerrequirements, kayak whaling may possibly have been a solution to the subsis-tence scheduling conflicts of the busy summer season. On the other hand,kayak whaling was necessarily linked to late spring and summer feeding pat-terns that brought whales into enclosed bays; it would have been minimallyeffective during the early spring period of offshore migration. However, bothnorthern bowhead and gray whaling, as well as Northwest Coast gray whal-ing, were primarily early spring activities that were directed at migratingwhales and preceded the diverse subsistence activities of summer.^

WHALING AND KONIAG SOCIAL ORGANIZATION

In terms of equipment, strategy, and manpower requirements, poisoned-dartwhaling from kayaks could hardly have been more different from the open-boat harpoon whaling traditions that bracketed it to the north and south. Avery different adaptation to whale ecology and behavior is also evident. Themethod was suited to enclosed bay locales rather than to ice leads or the opensea, to feeding rather than migrating whales, and to late spring and summerrather than early spring hunting. Fin and humpback whales were targeted,rather than grays and bowheads. Factors affecting the net productivity ofkayak whaling have already been reviewed above, including the relativelysmall yields from the immature whales that were hunted, and the frequentloss of wounded animals.These factors, combined with the diversity ofalternative subsistence resources available in southern Alaska, help explainwhy whale products are less important in the Koniag economy than incoastal north Alaska. The principal question of concern in the following sec-tions, however, is how the ecological, technological, and economic aspects ofkayak and large-boat methods were factored into the social organization ofwhaling.

Inupiat

Sheehan (1985) has estimated that North Alaskan Inupiat villages, located onpoints of land where northward migrating bowheads pass close to shorethrough spring ice leads, averaged a take of 12 to 20 bowhead whales a year.Most of these whales were taken during the spring hunt at the ice leads, al-though a few were obtained in the fall in open water. Sheehan's quantitativeanalysis indicates that whale meat and blubber alone could have nearly metannual subsistence needs, although the diet was in fact supplemented by wal-rus, seal, fish, caribou, and birds. The coordinated group effort and substantialaccumulation of physical capital required by umiak hunting was managed bythe umialiq, or whaling captain (Rainey 1947; Spencer 1959; Burch 1980).The position of umtaltq was not a matter of birthright, but was an achievedleadership status requiring the politically negotiated economic support of abilateral kindred (the "family group") and the loyalty of a whaling crew. Theumialiqs leadership role extended into matters of war, and to a certain degree,to the direction of other subsistence pursuits. In the summer phase of the

Inupiat seasonal round, however, small family groups were widely dispersedand operated independently.

Although Sheehan argues that Inupiat society should be classified ascomplex on the basis of the economic inequalities between umialiqs and theirclose kin, ordinary families, and poor families (lacking a hunter), it is impor-tant to bear in mind, as Cassell (1987) has emphasized, that the umialiqs au-thority was consensually validated within a basically egalitarian structure andsocial ethic. It also depended upon continued success at getting whales, andthereby catching enough frozen meat and blubber to support crew membersand their families throughout the year. At the same time, the successful umi-aliqs control of stored whale products gave him superior access to trade goodsand enabled him to further enhance his prestige by hosting intervillage Mes-senger Feasts. He thus acted as a classic "rich man" at the apex of a redistribu-tive economy.

Inupiat whaling was supported by religious practices that included indi-vidual magical control (shamanistic ritual and personal songs and whalingcharms), but it also placed significant emphasis on practices and ceremoniesthat were concerned with spiritual harmony between whales and the commu-nity as a whole and that featured the umialiq and his wife in a central role.The cleaning and preparation of whaling gear, behavioral proscriptions, greet-ing ceremonies for the slain whale, and whaling feasts and celebrations in-volved virtually the whole community and were infused with the idea ofpleasing the whale spirits.

Nootka —

Whaling by Nootkan groups inhabiting the west coast of Vancouver Island(Drucker 1951; Arima 1983) represents the integration of open-boat harpoonwhaling^^ into a more diverse subsistence economy^ ^ and into a hierarchical,lineage-based social organization. Whereas whaling leadership among the In-upiat was an achieved position that depended on certain conditions, Nootkawhaling chiefs had a right to their position as one of the many prerogatives ofascribed elite status. Chiefs {ha'wil) were the heads of "houses"—large coresi-dential lineage groups—that cooperated throughout the year to exploit re-sources at specific locations owned by the chiefs: salmon streams, herringcoves, halibut banks, hunting areas, berry grounds, and beaches where driftwhales might come ashore. As was generally true for Northwest Coast

231

economies (Drucker 1983), household heads directed the seasonal settlementshifts and coordinated the group effort required to efficiently harvest, process,and store these rich but spatially and temporally "patchy" resources. Storedfood products, especially dried salmon, sea mammal oil, and berries, enteredinto the complex cycle of ceremonial redistribution through feasts and pot-latches hosted by the chiefs.

Nootka chiefs and umialiqs shared similar roles as leaders of communalwhaling expeditions and as central figures in the productive and redistributivesystems of their respective societies. Salient points of contrast include the in-herited basis of the Nootka chief's rank, privileges, and authority, and hismanagerial responsibility for a more diverse range of economic tasks.

Nootka chiefs played leading roles in public whaling ceremonies, such asthe display of the "saddle" cut from the whale's back, and practiced a varietyof purification rites directed toward spiritual preparation for whaling. Signifi-cant for their parallels with Koniag practices were various uses of human re-mains to obtain power over whales (Lantis 1938). Some chiefly "whale ritual-ists" did not engage in actual whaling, but built whale shrines (see Boas1930; Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988:171, fig. 217) and performed ceremonieswith stolen human corpses to magically bring drift whales ashore.

Koniag

The strongly hierarchical, lineage-based organization of Pacific Eskimo soci-eties paralleled that of other southern Alaskan and Northwest Coast groups.Koniag society was ranked within its free class and stratified between free andslave classes (Lantis 1970; Black 1977; Townsend 1980). The highest politicalposition was that of the chief, or anayugak, who managed political affairs, di-rected subsistence activities, and led in time of war. His authority minimallyextended over a single village (Black 1977:91), but in some cases several (seeBirket-Smith 1953:92 for the Chugach). As among the Nootka, the office ofchief was inherited but maintained by controlling wealth (in the form ofstored food and valuables) and by sponsoring elaborate and competitive feaststhat enhanced the prestige of the leader and cemented the loyalty of subordi-nate kinsmen.

There is no question that Koniag whalers were accorded great respectand were numbered among the elite (see, e.g., Lisiansky 1968:209). In con-trast to Inupiat and Nootka society, however, the Koniag do not appear to

232 ARON CROWELL

have associated whaling leadership with political eminence to any great ex-tent. That is to say, there is no indication in the sources consulted that Koni-ag anayugaks were whalers. This lack of congruence between whaling andchiefly office has been documented for neighboring groups that also practicedpoisoned-dart whaling. Chugach whalers operated under the direction of vil-lage chiefs (Birket-Smith 1953:92), and Aleut "law" assigned a portion of awhaler's kill to his toion (chieO (Langsdorff 1968:45). Aleut and Pacific Eski-mo whaling was, moreover, an inherited, closed, and highly secretive occupa-tion that was passed from father to son within certain lineages (Lisiansky1968; Lantis 1970) that were probably distinct from the lines of chiefly suc-cession.^^

Poisoned-dart whaling thus seems to have entailed a rather different setof social relations than those tied in with large-boat harpoon systems. Presentavailable information suggests that Pacific Eskimo and Aleut whalers werespecialist producers in complex societies, rather than chiefs at the apex of re-distributive economic flows. Why this difference exists can be explained inpart by the contrasting relations of production in systems that use kayaks asopposed to large-crewed boats. Such systems differ on several levels: small ver-sus large investments in the labor and material used to construct and outfitthe boat; individual effort and hunting skill versus a division of labor amongspecialists (steersman, paddler, harpooner, captain); individual autonomy ver-sus a necessary subordination to the authority of the captain. Earlier, I sug-gested that the leadership of Inupiat and Nootka whaling crews was linkedwith social relationships existing outside the context of the hunt. Umialtqsand Nootka chiefs both enjoyed high status, exercised authority over otherdomains (other subsistence pursuits, warfare), and played apical, prestige-en-hancing roles in trade and the accumulation and redistribution of foodstuffs.In the Inupiat case, political centrality in this broader social domain wasachieved and maintained through success in whaling, a success that was essen-tial to the prosperity or even survival of the community. The Nootka chief'shigh status rested on a broader and more structurally permanent founda-tion—his inherited usufruct rights to a wide range of productive resources, aswell as his ascribed authority over a subordinate kin group. Whaling was oneof these inherited rights, and the chief's command over resources and man-power enabled him to carry it out. Success at whaling enhanced his prestige,but was not central to it—with the possible exception of situations in whichwhales superseded salmon as the critical resource.

The organizational contrasts between kayak and crewed-boat whaling arebest drawn by comparing the Koniag and Nootka whaling complexes, be-cause many of the significant parameters in these two cases can be accepted asequivalent; environmental setting, economy, and social organization. Al-though a slightly different set of whale species was pursued, the productivityof whaling was similar for the two groups, and whale products were similarlyincorporated into the diet as prized but usually secondary foods. Kayak whal-ing, however, did not entail any of the organizational requirements of open-boat whaling. The kayak whaler, unlike the Nootka chief (or the Inupiat umi-aliq), did not need to lead, or feed, a crew. He did not have to be linked to asupporting kin group as a general manager and redistributor of resources.

The technology that enabled a single hunter to kill a whale thus permit-ted whaling to emerge as an individualistic specialty, disaggregated from thefunctional role of chieftainship. This specialization and separation was not anecessary consequence of whaling from kayaks, although it seems to have infact obtained among the Koniag, as well as among the Chugach and Aleut. Inthese kayak whaling groups, headmen performed executive roles in directingcomplexly organized. Northwest Coast—type economies. As far as whaling it-self was concerned, however, they merely appropriated portions of capturedwhales rather than becoming directly involved in the hunt. The seasonal con-flict of whaling with other, perhaps more pressing chiefly duties (the salmonharvest, war, and trade expeditions) might have been a contributing factor tothe exercise of this organizational option. The Inupiat link between whalingand political power was also absent; Koniag whalers did not produce and con-trol society's most crucial food resource and so did not automatically assume acentral place in the political economy.

The separation of whalers as a specialist caste may have had more to dowith the cultural construction of whaling as an enterprise requiring extraordi-nary spiritual powers, that were at the same time contaminating and danger-ous; the whaler was not a chief, but rather a type of shaman. In Alutiiq,whalers were called anwarculi, "shamans who hunt whales."^^ Wearing bent-wood hunting hats to transform themselves into predatory killer whales, theyengaged in magical combat with their prey (see chapter 8), which suggests aparallel with widespread beliefs about otherworldly battles between shamansand spirits.

In support of this interpretation, there is evidence that poisoned-dartwhaling bestowed a special spiritual status on its practitioners and distanced

234

ARON CROWELL

them to some degree from "normal" society. The elaborate and secretive ritualwhaling complex involving the theft, preservation, and magical use of humancorpses has already been discussed. Perhaps because of these practices, or thefear of their supernatural power, Aleut and Koniag whalers were regarded asbeings more like evil spirits than humans, who lived in separate villages "hid-den in distant bays, or lost in the minds of the forest" (Pinart 1875:7). Koni-ag whalers and everything they touched were "unclean," at least for the dura-tion of the whaling season (Lisiansky 1968:174).

To conclude, it appears that both material factors (ecological, technologi-cal, economic) and culture history must be incorporated into an explanation ofthe social organization of whaling on Kodiak Island (and more generally,among the Pacific Eskimo and Aleut). The former allowed whaling to developas a specialized occupation within a structurally complex hunting and gather-ing society. The particular role and status of the Koniag whaler were cultural-ly defined, however, through the belief system and ritual complex (probablyrelated historically to the Northwest Coast) that surrounded whales and whal-ing. Future ethnohistoric and archeological work on Kodiak Island is planned,with the goal of expanding on the interpretations and hypotheses offered inthis chapter.

NOTES

1. Hereafter, Kodiak Island

2. The hunting of large whales was not practiced or was less significant along themidlatitude coasts of the Bering Sea. On the Alaskan side, beluga were the only whaleshunted in the shallow shelf waters of Bristol Bay, Kuskokwim Bay, and Norton Sound(Nelson 1983), although gray whales migrate biannually through Bristol Bay and pastNunivak Island (Braham 1984). On the Siberian side, whaling was practiced on thenorthern shores of the Okhotsk Sea, and along the Bering Sea coast northward fromAnadyr Gulf, but not along the eastern or western coasts of the Kamchatka Peninsula(Krupnik 1984). Aboriginal whaling off the southern tip of Kamchatka (Itelmen), theKurile Islands (Ainu), and Japan are discussed in Heizer (1943) and Bisset (1976). Un-less otherwise noted, the term "whaling" here refers to the hunting of baleen whales (pre-dominantly the gray, bowhead, fin, and humpback) rather than toothed whales and por-poises. The latter were usually dart hunted from kayaks (without the use of poison), ornetted.

3. Size ranges are for the northern hemisphere, and combine data from both sexes.For migratory whales it should be noted that all animals in Alaskan waters would havebeen at least three months old, so that the very lowest ends of the size ranges (new-borns) are not applicable.

4. Birket-Smith's informant Makari, however, specified "all seasons, but especial-ly in winter" for Chugach poisoned-dart whaling in Prince William Sound; species notidentified (1953:33).

5. Two complete Chugach examples of this type (142 and 154 centimeters long,and fletched with split feathers) and a number of dart heads are described by Birket-Smith (1941:138). A shorter (finger-length), tanged variety of Chugach slate blade isalso mentioned (Birket-Smith 1953:33).

6. Named by informants as "Alimax"; alamax given as Eastern Aleut for "hump-back whale" in Black (1987:42).

7. In addition to a detailed physical description of the whale, the name "Mangi-dak" was recorded; mangidax given as "fin whale" in Eastern Aleut (Black 1987:43).

8. Prevailing surface currents flow along both inner and outer sides of the Kodiakarchipelago in a southwesterly direction ( Scientific Applications 1980a).

9. Humpbacks were available to Nootka whalers throughout the summer andwere presumably hunted then. Arima (1988) also notes the presence of humpbacksduring the winter in Barkley Sound and Alberni Canal (Vancouver Island), where theyconcentrated to feed on herring.

10. The most significant differences between Nootka and Inupiat whaling werethe species hunted (mostly gray and humpback whales rather than bowheads) andhunting conditions (always open-water as opposed to primarily ice-lead hunting). Har-poon heads, floats, and boats (canoes rather than skin-covered umiaks) were fabricateddifferently but were functionally equivalent.

11. There has been some disagreement over the dietary significance of whales forthe Nootka. Drucker believed that the prestige value of whaling outweighed its eco-nomic significance for most central and northern Nootkan local groups, pointing outthe diversity of other resources and the central place of salmon as a dietary staple. Hementions, however, that whales were the most important subsistence resource for atleast two villages that lacked good salmon streams (1951:49). Swan's observations ofthe Makah (1870), recent reconsiderations of the ethnohistoric data for the Nootka(Arima 1988), and the analysis of whale bones from the late prehistoric Ozette sitenear Cape Flattery (Huelsbeck 1988) indicate that whaling may have been of primaryeconomic importance in localized areas of the southern Northwest Coast.

12. Chugach whalers were not restricted to certain lineages, according to Birket-Smith's (1953:34) information from the 1930s.

13. The Alutiiq term anwarculi is attested in the field notes of William J. Fisher,

236

ARON CROWELL

who collected Koniag objects (including slate whaling points) for the Smithsonian In-stitution from ca. 1880 to 1890. Gloss provided by Jeff Leer, Alaska Native LanguageCenter.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, Robert E.

1988 Settlements and Sea Mammal Hunting in the Bering Sea-Chukchi SeaRegion. Arctic Anthropology 25(i):52-79.

Ames, Kenneth M.

1981 The Evolution of Social Ranking on the Northwest Coast of North

America. American Antiquity 46(4):789—805.1985 Hierarchies, Stress, and Logistical Strategies among Hunter-Gatherers

in Northwestern North America. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The

Emergence of Cultural Complexity. T. Douglas Price and James A. Brown,

eds. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.

Amorosi, Thomas

1987 The Karluk and Uyak Bay Archaeofaunas: An Approach towards thePaleoeconomy of Kodiak Island, Alaska. Paper presented at the 52ndSociety for American Archaeology meeting, Toronto.

Arima, Eugene Y.

1983 The West Coast (Nootka) People. British Columbia Provincial MuseumSpecial Publication 6. Victoria.

1988 Notes on Nootkan Sea Mammal Hunting. Arctic Anthropology25(i):i6-27.

Birket-Smith, Kaj

1941 Early Collections from the Pacific Eskimo; Ethnographical Studies.

Nationalmuseets Skrifter Etnografisk Raekke 1:121—63.1953 Chugach Eskimo. Nationalmuseets Skrifter Etnografisk Raekke 6.

Copenhagen: Nationalmuseet.

Bisset, N. G.

1976 Hunting Poisons of the North Pacific Region. Lloydia 34(2,3):87-i24.

Black, Lydia T.

1977 The Konyag (The Inhabitants of the Island of Kodiak) by losaf

[Bolotov} (1794-1799) and by Gideon (1804-1807). Arctic Anthro-pology 14(2): 79-108.

1987 Whaling in the Aleutians. Etudes I InuitI Studies ii(2):7—50.

Boas, Franz

1930 Religion of the Kwakiutl Indians. Columbia University Contributions toAnthropology 10. New York.

Braham, Howard W.

1984 Distribution and Migration of Gray Whales in Alaska. In The Gray

Whale Eschrichtius robustus. M. L. Jones, S. L. Swartz, and S. Leather-wood, eds., pp. 249—66. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.

Burch, Ernest S., Jr.

1980 Traditional Eskimo Societies in Northwest Alaska. In Alaska Native

Culture and History. Y. Kotani and W. Workman, eds. Senri Ethnologi-cal Studies 4. Osaka.

Cassell, Mark S.

1987 Farmers of the Northern Ice: Or, When Is a Hunter-Gatherer Not a

Hunter-Gatherer? MS. Department of Anthropology. State Universityof New York, Binghamton.

Clark, Donald

1974 Koniag Prehistory: Archaeological Investigations at Late Prehistoric Sites onKodiak Island, Alaska. Tubinger Monographien zur Urgeschichte.Kohlhammer: Stuttgart.

1979 Ocean Bay: An Early North Pacific Maritime Culture. Archaeological SurveyPaper 86. Mercury Series. Ottawa: Canadian National Museum of Man.

1984a Pacific Eskimo: Historical Ethnography. In Handbook of North AmericanIndians. William C. Sturtevant, ed., 5:185—98. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution.

1984b Prehistory of the Pacific Eskimo Region. In Handbook of North AmericanIndians. William C. Sturtevant, ed., 5:136-48. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution.

1987 On a Misty Day You Can See Back to 1805: Ethnohistory and Histori-cal Archaeology on the Southeastern Side of Kodiak Island, Alaska.Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 21:105—32.

238

ARON CROWELL

Crowell, Aron

1986 An Archaeological Survey of Uyak Bay, Kodiak Island, Alaska. MS. De-partment of Anthropology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.

Davydov, G. I.

1977 Two Voyages to Russian America 1802—i8oy. Translated by Colin Bearne.Edited by Richard A. Pierce. Kingston, Ont.: Limestone Press.

Dewhirst, John

1982 The Origins ofNootkan Whaling, A Definition of Northern and Central

Nootkan Ecological Orientation for the Past Four Millenia. Abhandlungender Volkerkundlichen Arbeitsgemeinschaft Heft 33. West Germany:Nortof.

Donald, Leland, and Donald R. Mitchell

1975 Some Correlates of Local Group Rank among the Southern Kwakiutl.Ethnology 14:325-46.

Drucker, Phillip

1951 The Central and Northern Nootkan Tribes. Smithsonian Institution, Bu-reau of American Ethnology Bulletin 144. Washington, D.C.

1983 Economy and Social Organization on the Northwest Coast of America.In The Development of Political Organization in Native North America. E.Tooker and M. H. Fried, eds. American Ethnological Society.

Duff, Wilson

1965 Thoughts on the Nootka Canoe. British Columbia, Department of Recre-ation and Conservation, Provincial Museum of Natural History andAnthropology Report for the Year 1964: EE 24-31. Victoria.

Fiscus, C. H., H. W. Braham, and R. W Mercer

1976 Seasonal Distribution and Relative Abundance of Marine Mammals inthe Gulf of Alaska. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assess-ment Program/NOAA RU 68, Final Report (Quarterly Report, Oct.-Dec.) 1:19—264.

Fitzhugh, William W, and Aron Crowell (eds.)

1988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. Washington,D.C: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Fladmark, Knut

1975 A Paleoecological Model for Northwest Coast Prehistory. Mercury Series Pa-per 43. Ottawa: Archaeological Survey of Canada.

Gaskin, D. E.

1982 The Ecology of Whales and Dolphins. London: Heinemann.Heizer, Robert F.

1943 Aconite Poison Whaling in Asia and America: An Aleutian Transfer tothe New World. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 133:417-68.

1956 Archaeology of the Uyak Site, Kodiak Island, Alaska. University of Cali-fornia Anthropological Records 17(1). Berkeley.

Hessing, Pauline

1983 Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus) Migration into the Bering Sea Ob-served from Cape Sarichef, Unimak Island, Alaska, Spring 1981. Envi-ronmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf, Final Reportsof Principal Investigators 20:47-74.

Holmberg, Heinrich Johan

1985 Holmberg's Ethnographic Sketches. Translated by Fritz Jaensch. Edited byMarvin W. Falk. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.

Hrdlicka, Ales

1944 The Anthropology of Kodiak Island. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute ofAnatomy and Biology.

Huelsbeck, David R.

1988 Whaling in the Precontact Economy of the Central Northwest Coast.Arctic Anthropology 25(1): i—15.

Jewitt, John R.

1976 A Journal Kept at Nootka Sound. New York: Garland.

Jordan, Richard H., and Richard A. Knecht

1988 Archaeological Research on Western Kodiak Island, Alaska: The De-velopment of Koniag Culture. In The Late Prehistoric Development ofAlaska's Native People. R. D. Shaw, R. K. Harritt, and D. Dumond,eds., pp. 225—306. Monograph Series 4. Aurora: Alaska Anthropologi-cal Association.

240 ARON CROWELL

Khlebnikov, Kirill T.

1979 Russkaia America v neopublikovannykh zapiskakh Khlebnikova (RussianAmerica in Khlebnikov's unpublished manuscripts). Edited and anno-tated by R. G. Liapunova and S. G. Fedorova. Leningrad: Nauka.

Krupnik, Igor I.

1984 Gray Whales and the Aborigines of the Pacific Northeast: The Historyof Aboriginal Whaling. In The Gray Whale Eschrichtius robustus. M.L. Jones, S. L. Swartz, and S. Leatherwood, eds., pp. 103-20. Orlando,Fla.: Academic Press.

Langsdorff, George H.

1968 Voyages and Travels in Various Parts of the World. Vol. i. Bibliotheca Aus-traliana 40. Amsterdam: N. Israel.

Lantis, Margaret

1938 The Alaskan Whale Cult and Its Affinities. American Anthropologist40:438-64.

1970 The Aleut Social System, 1750 to 1810, from Early Historical Sources.

In Ethnohistory in Southwestern Alaska and the Southern Yukon. Studies inAnthropology 7. M. Lantis, ed. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.

Leatherwood, Stephen and Randall R. Reeves

1983 The Sierra Club Handbook of Whales and Dolphins. San Francisco: SierraClub Books.

Lisiansky, Urey

1968 Voyage around the World in the Years 180^, 1804, 180^, and 1806. Bib-liotheca Australiana 42. Amsterdam: N. Israel.

Merck, Carl Heinrich

1980 Siberia and Northwestern America ij88—i-/^2: The Journal of CarlHeinrick Merck, Naturalist with the Russian Scientific Expedition Led byCaptains Joseph Billings and Gavril Sarychev. Translated by Fritz Jaensch.Edited by Richard A. Pierce. Kingston, Ont.: Limestone Press.

Nelson, Edward W.

1983 The Eskimo about Bering Strait. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institu-tion Press.

Koniag Eskimo Poisoned-Dart Whaling 241

Pinart, Alphonse

1875 La C basse aux Animaux Mar ins et les Pecheries chez les Indigenes de la CoteNord-Ouest d'Amerique. Boulogne-Sur-Mer.

Price, T. Douglas, and James A. Brown

1985 Aspects of Hunter-Gatherer Complexity. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers:The Emergence of Cultural Complexity. Douglas Price and James A.Brown, eds. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.

Rainey, Froelich G.

1947 The Whale Hunters ofTigara. Anthropological Papers of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History 41(2). New York.

Rice, Dale W., and Allen A. Wolman

1983 Summer Distribution and Numbers of Fin, Humpback, and GrayWhales in the Gulf of Alaska. Environmental Assessment of theAlaskan Continental Shelf, Final Reports of Principal Investigators20:1-46.

Sarychev, Gavril A.

1969 Account of a Voyage of Discovery to the North-East of Siberia, the Frozen

Ocean, and the North-East Sea. Bibliotheca Australiana 64. Amsterdam:N. Israel.

Sauer, Martin

1802 An Account of a Geographical and Astronomical Expedition to the NorthernParts of Russia. London.

Scientific Applications, Inc.

1979 Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf: Lower Cook InletInterim Synthesis Report. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental Assess-ment Program. Boulder, Colo.: U.S. Department of Commerce—NOAA.

1980a Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf: Kodiak InterimSynthesis Report. Outer Continental Shelf Environmental AssessmentProgram. Boulder, Colo.: U.S. Department of Commerce-NOAA.

1980b Environmental Assessment of the Alaskan Continental Shelf: Northeast Gulfof Alaska Interim Synthesis Report. Outer Continental Shelf Environmen-tal Assessment Program. Boulder, Colo.: U.S. Department of Com-merce-NOAA.

242 ARON CROWELL

Schalk, Randall

1979 Land Use and Organizational Complexity among Foragers of North-western North America. In Affluent Foragers: Pacific Coasts East andWest. Shuzo Koyama and David Hurst Thomas, eds. Senri EthnologicalStudies No. 9. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.

Sheehan, Glenn W.

1985 Whaling as an Organizational Focus in Northwestern Alaskan EskimoSociety. In Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherers: The Emergence of Cultural Com-plexity. T. Douglas Price and James A. Brown, eds. Orlando, Fla.: Aca-demic Press.

Spencer, Robert F.

1959 North Alaskan Eskimo: A Study in Ecology and Society. Bureau of

American Ethnology Bulletin 171. Washington, D.C.

Swan, James G.

1870 The Indians of Cape Flattery, at the Entrance of the Strait of Juan deFuca, Washington Territory. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge220(16), art. 8:1-105.

Townsend, Joan B.

1980 Ranked Societies of the Alaska Pacific Rim. In Alaska Native Cultureand History. Yoshinobu Kotani and William B. Workman, eds. SenriEthnological Studies 4. Osaka: National Museum of Ethnology.

Veniaminov, Ivan

1984 Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District. Translated by Lydia T.

Black and R. H. Geogheganns. Edited by Richard A. Pierce. Kingston,Ont.: Limestone Press.

Yesner, David R.

1980 Maritime Hunter-Gatherers: Ecology and Prehistory. Current Anthropol-ogy 2i(6):727-50.

13

Watercraft in the North Pacific:§ A Comparative View

JEAN-LOUP ROUSSELOT

AT THE TIME OF THE ARRIVAL OF Europeans in the 1700s, the coastalNorth Pacific region supported a number of successful maritime and riverinecultures that exhibited refined and varied adaptations to diverse climatic andgeographical conditions. Native craftsmanship in boatbuilding and skill at seagreatly impressed the European mariners, and since that time much has beenwritten on native navigation. The first drawing of an umiak frame was pub-lished in the late eighteenth century (La Perouse i798:Atlas), but it was notuntil the mid-1960s that Adney and Chapelle's (1964) classic work appeared.Current research has been stimulated by today's interest in pre-industrial waysof life, as exemplified by two German exhibitions on worldwide native navi-gation (Koch 1984; Spranz 1984). Among the more recent publications is awell-illustrated history of Indian watercraft (Roberts 1983). Other recentworks on Eskimo boats include a catalogue of the skin boats of eastern Siberiaand Alaska (Zimmerly 1986), a history of Aleutian and Pacific Eskimo kayaks(Dyson 1986), a study of the construction of a Yukon-Kuskokwim kayak(Zimmerly 1979), a study of kayak use and equipment (Rousselot 1983), anda pioneering, well-documented book on western umiaks (Braund 1988).

Native maritime technology has a long history, as demonstrated by

243

244

JEAN-LOUP ROUSSELOT

some archeological finds. Preserved ivory kayak models belonging to theOld Bering Sea Culture dating to the start of the Christian era have beenfound in eastern Siberia (Arutiunov and Fitzhugh 1988:121). The cockpit,bow, and stern are similar to those found on Chukchi kayaks of the turn ofthis century.

In this chapter, I discuss the three most important types of boats in theircultural context: the wooden boats of Siberia and the dugouts of the North-west Coast Indians, the skin boats of eastern Siberia and Alaska, and the barkcanoes of the Athapaskans and southeast Siberia.

WOODEN BOATSYukaghir

Two Siberian groups, the Yukaghir and the Koryak, used the widest range ofwooden watercraft. The Yukaghir lived in Northeastern Siberia along thesouthern tributaries of the Kolyma River. The Yukaghir economy dependedheavily on the seasonal migration of wild reindeer, which were killed in largenumbers from canoes at water crossings. Before contact with the Russians, theYukaghir used rafts, dugouts, and board canoes.

The Yukaghir raft was a triangular-shaped craft made of logs fastenedwith willow lashings; it was propelled by one or two pairs of oars.

The Yukaghir dugout, used for net fishing and hunting birds and rein-deer, was made of a carved poplar trunk. The length of the dugout canoe isabout 6 meters, and the width about 65 centimeters. It was so thin that theboat weighed no more than 30 kilograms and thus could easily be carried onthe shoulders from one river to another. The canoeist used a double paddlewith blades shaped like a poplar leaf. In shallow water the dugout was pro-pelled (punted) with two poles. Travel in such a dugout, as Jochelson noted,was quite awkward:

If there is a passenger he sits with outstretched legs, his face turned to thestern and his back against the back of the canoeist. To keep the balance thepeople in the canoe have to sit without moving, otherwise the canoe wouldcapsize. The canoeist moves only the arms in paddling. (Jochelson1926:375)

A third craft, the board canoe (figure 13-1), was a traditional watercraft of theYukaghir. Its superstructure was made of thin lapped boards sewn togetherwith sinew lashings, attached to a dugout bottom. No iron fittings were em-ployed. The seams were treated with larch-gum and caulked with moss. Thistype of boat was more stable than the dugout, since its bottom was flat. Theribs were fastened to the upper boards with sinew and wooden pegs, and therewere oarlocks for paddles.

Travelling upstream the boats are towed by long ropes made of willows. Ateam of dogs is used for that purpose if the bank is favorable, i.e., if it has nobushes, trees or projecting boulders that would catch the rope. If the bank isnot straight and low men had to help the dogs or do the towing themselves.(Jochelson 1926:377)

The board canoe was used in the same way as the dugout. It is thought tohave developed as an adaptation of Russian boats.

Koryak

Poplar and aspen dugouts like those employed by the Yukaghir were also usedin northern Kamchatka. The hull of these boats was so thin that they were aslight as skin canoes. The Koryak dugout was propelled with a double-bladedpaddle, but in shallow and rapid rivers it was punted with two poles. It wasnormally a river boat, but in some areas it was used to hunt seals in bays, asthe Kamchadal do. Another type of dugout, used exclusively on rivers, was atwo-seater about 12 meters long that was narrow, heavy, and roughly made. Itwas propelled by two persons using poles. Catamarans (figure 13-2) were

246

JEAN-LOUP ROUSSELOT

FIGURE 13-2. Koryak dugout catamaran (length = 5 to 6 meters); after Jochelson

(1908:541). (Illustration by Petra Thaimeier)

sometimes constructed by lashing two dugouts together to ferry cargos andmen across a river: "A double boat of this kind is very convenient for freight-ing, and is quite safe. Whenever the Koryak fish in the river, above their vil-lage, they descend with their families and their catch in such crafts when thefishing is over" (Jochelson 1908:541).

Northwest Coast and Seagoing Dugouts

Dugouts were used in other areas as well. The Coast Salish, the Coast Yurok,and the Athapaskans used a round-bottomed dugout primarily in riverinenavigation. This was exceptionally maneuverable even in swift currents. Suchcraft were better suited for river travel than for the deep sea.

The Northwest Coast Indians constructed large dugouts. They did notmake long journeys over the open sea, but they cruised the coast on voyages ofseveral hundred miles. When the "first Spanish and English explorers reachedthe Northwest Coast there were at least a dozen different dugout canoe typesin use, varying with special conditions and tribal preferences" (Holm 1987:143; see also Holm 1988:157, and chapter 14). In the north, a type called the"head canoe" was supplanted early in the nineteenth century by the "classicnorthern canoe" (Holm 1987). Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, Kwakiutl, and Bel-la Coola used a type of canoe with a high projecting bow and stern and arounded hull. Elaborate designs were painted on the bow. The Haida (QueenCharlotte Islands) dugouts, made out of red cedar, could be more than 17 me-ters long. The Salish (Puget Sound) constructed a small low-sided variant ofthe Haida type. They also had a river canoe—usually called the "shovelnose"because of its blunt, pointed ends—that had a round bottom and narrow,straight lines. The large dugouts could carry a quantity of cargo and warriors.

247

FIGURE 13-3. Koryak umiak (length = 10 meters); after Levin and Potapov (1961:

128). (Illustration by Petra Thalmeier)

Kwakiutl and Haida raided their neighbors in their huge war canoes. Haidacanoemakers in particular were highly regarded for their craftsmanship, andthe mainland groups often sought to buy Haida-built craft. The Nootka werealso renowned canoemakers. Their vessels were traded to the Salish, to theLower Columbia, and to the central Oregon coast groups. "The graceful andpractical lines of the Nootka canoe made it one of the finest seagoing vesselsbuilt in North America" (Drucker 1955:73).

SKIN BOATSOpen Skin Boats

The Koryak built a large open skin boat, called baidara in Russian. Beingconstructed like an Eskimo umiak, with a wooden frame lashed with thongand covered with seal or walrus hide, it possessed great strength and elasticity.But the Koryak skin boat was distinguished from others by several originalfeatures (figure 13-3). It was very wide in proportion to its length, and it hada rounded prow and stern, whereas the Chukchi and Eskimo umiak gunwalerails converged. The rails were joined to the keelson by a heavy T-shapedboard. The keel was made of a single timber bent upward in the direction ofthe prow, like a sled runner, and it terminated in a fork that functioned as aline guide for holding the harpoon line. The bottom of the skin boat was flatand was formed of cross-bars fastened to the keel by thongs and two lateralstringers. The sides of the boat were formed by ribs that connected the curvedchine pieces with the gunwales. The wooden frame was further strengthenedby rails running longitudinally, stem to stern, between the gunwales and thechines. A large boat measured 9 meters in length and 2.5 meters in its maxi-

248 JEAN-LOUP ROUSSELOT

mum width between the gunwales,which was not in the middle, but nearer tothe stern. There were usually 8 or 10 oarsmen, either men or women. Thwartswere situated aft, and freight was placed in the middle of the craft.

On the coast of Bering Sea, Koryak ha 'tdara (open skin boats, or umiaks)were covered with walrus hide, and in other areas with the skin of beardedseal. In fashioning the cover, the Koryak first split the walrus skin to make itlighter and more manageable, then soaked it in water and stretched it overthe wooden frame. Holes were cut through the edges of the skin that lappedover the gunwales, and the hide was tightened around the gunwale and lashedto the upper stringer. Then the boat was turned upside-down and dried sothat the contracting cover pressed the wooden frame tightly together. Finally,the seams were filled with fat, and the whole cover was greased with seal-oil.

The Koryak baidara was propelled with long, round, bladed oars thatwere held in place with rope loops attached to the rails. A wooden guard overthe gunwale protected the skin from the friction of the oars. Such gunwaleprotectors were made of bone among the Eskimo. The Koryak used a rectan-gular sail made of dressed reindeer skins attached to a tripod mast.

The Koryak skin boat can carry fairly heavy loads. . . . [I}n two boats... we carried about two thousand pounds of cargo, and our party consistedof twenty-five members. ... In addition, each boat carried eight dogs inharness, which lay in the stern. Notwithstanding this heavy load, the boatswere not more than half in the water. (Jochelson 1908:538)

The Koryak did not undertake long voyages and rarely sailed away from theshore. When they crossed a large bay, they did it in calm weather only. Intimes of stormy or foggy weather the men did not venture out for fear of tear-ing the skin cover on rocks.

Chukchi and Alaskan Eskimo Umiaks

The large skin boats (umiak) used by the Chukchi are very similar in shapeand in construction to those of the Alaskan Eskimo, probably because theChukchi learned skin boat construction techniques from Eskimo peoples.Both groups were in close contact, and boats and boat parts have been itemsof trade around and across Bering Strait since ancient times (Bogoras1904-9:126; Braund 1988:83). Chukchi and Eskimo boatbuilders coveredtheir umiaks with walrus hide. Their umiaks averaged 8—11 meters long and1.5—2.5 meters wide at the top. Most carried between six and eight paddlers,

while the smallest could carry only a couple of men and were used for shorttrips within range of the village, for example, to check fish and seal nets.

The skin cover had to be dried out between trips or it would become wa-ter-logged and would stretched loose from the frame. In winter it was unfas-tened and stored away to keep it from being eaten by dogs. In the springwhen the cover was put back on the frame, holes were repaired and the coverreceived two or three coats of oil. To prevent warping of the frame, the boathad several sets of special lashings that could be lengthened or shortened con-necting the gunwales with the keelson.

In former times boats were propelled by paddles, and a large paddle wasused for steering. In the late nineteenth century, long narrow oars were usedalong with the paddles. These were either patterned after American whaleboatoars or were bought from the whalers. The Chukchi umiak had a maststepped on the keelson. In former times, the sail was large and square andmade of reindeer skin, gut, or grass mats. This sail was gradually supersededby a triangular canvas sail copied after that of the whalers. Still, with thewind aft, the square sail was much more effective.

In rough weather two large inflated seal-skin floats were fastened on ei-ther side of the umiak to improve its buoyancy. In addition, the sides of manyboats were provided with flaps of skin or canvas, which in rainy weather wereused to cover the cargo and in rough weather were raised above the gunwaleand braced by supports to deflect spray. Bogoras describes an interesting tech-nique for beach landings in stormy conditions, aided by men who held theboat parallel to the shore with lines: "By pulling the ropes tight, the men onthe shore make the water side of the boat stand up high against the breakingsurf, and the first incoming wave catches the boat—crew, cargo, and all—andcasts it ashore" (Bogoras 1904—9:130).

Umiaks were used in Alaska primarily for transportation, but in NorthAlaska they were also used for whaling and walrus hunting. Another type oflarge open skin boat was made for temporary use in the interior of Alaska.The Athapaskan moose-hide boat (Adney and Chapelle 1964:219) was anopen skin boat made and used in the spring to transport hunting parties andtheir catch. The frame was roughly made of poles, and its joints were lashedwithout mortising. The cover consisted of as many as ten moose hides sewntogether. These boats, about 10 meters long, were safer than canoes for roughuse in the spring ice, but the skin quickly became waterlogged. After only asingle voyage, the boat was broken up and discarded, except for the hides,which were used for many other purposes.

250

JEAN-LOUP ROUSSELOT

FIGURE 13-4. Koryak kayak (length = 2.70 meters); after Jochelson (1908: 539).

(Illustration by Petra Thalmeier)

Decked Skin Boats

The Koryak built small skin-covered boats (figure 13-4) of the kayak type,but with a number of different features. They were shorter, and their roundedcockpits occupied the entire width and were not covered with the boat skin.Such a "floating" cockpit coaming was known from the Eastern and CentralEskimo (Western Eskimo and Chukchi kayaks had a fixed coaming that wasan integral part of the Koryak framework). Bow and stern were of the sameshape, so that the craft was symmetrical, a trait also common among EasternArctic kayaks. The two gunwales provided the main strength for the frame-work. The V-shaped bottom was made by mortising ribs into the gunwalesand the keelson. Because it was short and had a convex ("rocker-bottomed")keelson, this boat was highly maneuverable but unstable; however, rock bal-last was used to correct this problem. Two bearded seal skins (sometimeswithout the hair being removed) were used for the cover. Double-bladed pad-dles, like those of the Eskimo, were used with these kayaks, along with smalloars (about 41 centimeters) attached with lines to the cockpit. These wereused in pairs, when the hunter approached his prey. "The progress of the kayakin calm weather is extremely fast; but its use is not without danger, as it iseasily upset by wind or waves, and it is necessary to balance it carefully whilepaddling. In stormy weather the Koryak did not venture upon the sea inkayaks" (Jochelson 1908:540).

A special kayak was used in rivers for hunting reindeer at crossing places.Such a Chukchi vessel (figure 13-5) from the late nineteenth century is keptin Munich (Mus. Nr. 99-120). The frame of this kayak is similar to the com-mon Eskimo form but the craftsmanship is more crude and unsophisticated.

Watercraft in the North Pacific 251

0 2.5 5.0 MI 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

01 23456789 10

FIGURE 13-5. Chukchi kayak (length = 5 meters; beam = 47 centimeters; depth =24 centimeters; weight = 14 kilograms); after Rousselot (1983: 144, 336, 384, 417).a. Afterview, foreview. b. Afterbody, forebody. c. Transversal section through manhole.

d. Transversal section through forebody. (Illustration by Petra Thalmeier)

as can be seen from the irregular shape and construction of its gunwale,stringers, and ribs. The gunwale and the coaming are made of heavy boards,while the ribs and stringers are made of thin twigs. The hull has a V-shapedbottom, which gives it great directional stability (Rousselot 1983:144—56).The cover of reindeer skin instead of seal skin meant the boat was proportion-ally lighter when it was dry, and thus preferable to the wooden canoes of theYukaghir. Its drawback was that the deerskin was highly porous and quicklybecame water-logged and heavy, which made the craft unmanageable until itwas dried. The high triangular cockpit was left open to give the kayaker morefreedom, for there was no need to make it watertight for use on a river. Thedouble paddle was similar to that of the Yukaghir, with blades shaped like apoplar leaf. Often an iron spear point was attached at one end for spearingreindeer while paddling. In shallow water two poles were used for propulsion.

In the fall, when the caribou or reindeer headed south into wooded coun-try, they were hunted at the river and lake crossings. Bogoras said theChukchi hunters would wait downstream and

when the animals are not far from the middle of the river . . . men in canoesapproach the herd and stab the reindeer with spears. . . . The killing is donewith incredible rapidity, a man being able to kill as many as a hundred ani-mals in one hour. The wound is inflicted on the lower part of the body, andthe wounded animals immediately turn on the side and are carried away bythe stream. . . . Old men, women and children, row in boats farther downthe river, and intercept the game. (Bogoras 1904—9:134)

The distribution of the kayak was quite sporadic along the Asiatic shore, butwas continuous along the American Arctic coast. Here kayaks exhibit a greatvariety of designs (figure 13-6), there being at least 28 types known ethno-graphically. They differed in size, weight, and in the shape of their bows andsterns, as well as in their internal construction. The distinctive shape of thestem, especially of the bow, is often sufficient to indicate the boat's ethnic andgeographic origin.

While kayaks in Siberia and in northern Alaska were used mainly forshort coastal and riverine trips, Alaskan kayaks built south of the BeringStrait were almost perfectly seaworthy (figure 13-7) and were suitable forpelagic hunting. Nonetheless, a reasonable paddler avoided unnecessary risksand would not set out when the weather was foggy or stormy. All thesekayaks had some common traits, such as horizontal cockpit coamings and

differing bow and stern forms. However, north of Bering Strait the side viewof the kayak is virtually symmetrical, with bow and stern shapes being practi-cally identical.

A new, well-oiled kayak made of sea mammal skins could remain in thewater for a week or longer. After this, it had to be dried and oiled. A hunterin his kayak had to be ready to take different types of game, especially in theAleutians and Pacific Alaska, and so he kept many different tools and weaponsstowed on the deck and in the hull of his craft. Kayaks were used primarilyfor hunting seals and moulting birds. In addition, Aleuts and Koniags huntedwhales from one- or two-man baidarkas, using spears poisoned with aconite.In early spring, before breakup, hunters north of the ice-free Aleutian watersdragged their kayaks to open water on small sleds built for the purpose.When open leads had to be crossed, the sled was carried on the kayak deck; itwas also used to retrieve seals killed on the ice pans.

Kayaks were among the fastest of human-propelled vessels.

Bark Canoes

Three basic types of bark canoes can be distinguished around the North Pacif-ic rim. The rivers and lakes of the area inhabited by the Athapaskans wereboth sources of food and travel routes. Athapaskans made bark canoes with afew widely spaced frame members, carefully joined to provide a rigid framethat was wholly independent of the covering material, which only addedstrength and form. Light and slim birchbark hunting canoes (the so-calledkayak-form canoes) were designed to carry only one or two men (VanStone1987:7). Hunting canoes were as much as 6 meters long; they were extremelyslender, flat-bottomed, and had comparable proportions to kayaks. A barkdeck for sheltering weapons and gear covered several feet at the bow ofmost Alaskan canoes. These boats were so slender that they could not carrymuch cargo. "While these bark canoes had some superficial resemblance ingeneral proportions to the Eskimo kayaks . . . they did not . . . have thesame hull form as the seagoing [Alaskan] kayaks" (Adney and Chapelle1964:154).

The second type, the traveling canoe, which was 7 to 8 meters long, waswider and could transport a whole family and its outfit. This canoe lacked thedeck-piece and was used primarily by women when moving camp or gather-ing food.

FIGURE 13-7. King Island kayak (length = 4.68 meters); after Adney and Chapelle

(1964: 198). (Illustration by Petra Thalmeier)

Finally, the Nanai (Gold) and the Yakuts of southeastern Siberia and theKutenai and the Salish of southern British Columbia and northern Washing-ton used a bark canoe with reversed ends—called the "sturgeon-nose" canoe—on lakes and rivers (Adney and Chapelle 1964:168). The hull of the craft wasmade of a single large tube of bark, a construction method that differs sharplyfrom the Athapaskan canoe, which was covered with a number of pieces ofbark sewn together.

CONCLUSION

The watercraft of the inhabitants of the North Pacific are of particular interestsince they are an essential means of locomotion for these maritime- and river-ine-oriented societies. The remarkably efficient marine technology of thesehighly successful cultures earned great admiration from the early explorers,who were surprised to discover such sophisticated skills among peoples livingin environments that ranged from wet temperate coasts to icy arctic seas.These groups proved their capacity to adapt to various ecosystems and devel-oped complex technologies to cope with the different situations occurringwithin a yearly cycle. Indians, Eskimos, and eastern Siberian groups shared ac-tivities such as fishing, hunting, and whaling (sometimes) and also had to beable to transport persons and household and trading goods. Every group de-veloped its own unique, effective responses to fill these needs.

Throughout this area, a boat can be identified by traits characteristic fora given tribe, although these traits cannot be said to reflect an inherited de-sign and construction technique, for tradition provided only general guide-lines and allowed a latitude of variations without disrupting ethnic culturalpatterns. The craftsman adjusted the customary forms to personal taste, incli-

256 JEAN-LOUP ROUSSELOT

nation, and need; he was also affected by his own experience, the materials hehad at hand, fashion, outside influences, and new ideas. An example of suchchange in continuity can be seen in the Aleutian kayak bow: the horizontalbifid bow of the late eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century Aleutian kayak(Choris 1820—2 2:viii) became obsolete soon after it was first seen, replacedthereafter by a strongly arched bow. Umiak construction changed from theflat-bottomed to the round-bottomed model (Adney and Chapelle 1964:181;Braund 1988:81). The three-hatch baidarka with a seat in the middle for theforeigner or trader (an elongated two-hatch baidarka) was an adaptation to anew social situation (Zimmerly 1986:22).

Near ethnic boundaries, vessels have certain common traits, such as thedecking on the kayak and on the bark hunting canoe of the Athapaskans.Also, some Eskimos boats were adopted by Indians, and, conversely, Eskimosliving close to Indian territory sometimes used dugouts or bark canoes (Adneyand Chapelle 1964:154). Such transitional situations resulted from inter-tribal exchange and may also reflect local adaptation to unfamiliar environ-ments.

Very few regional differences can be explained by environmental con-straints alone, since tradition always dictated the design of things to a certainextent, without necessarily having a rational basis. Nevertheless, design wassomewhat governed by the materials locally available for these watercraft andby the waters in which they were used. The technique of building dugoutsdeveloped in a area of dense forest and huge trees; the most impressive boatswere large seagoing craft used for whaling and war parties. Inland, wherebirch grows, bark canoes were in use; here, where they combined a response tothe turbulent river currents and the numerous portages between the rivers,boats had to be highly maneuverable and light. The polar regions also calledfor responses suited to the environment. There, boat covers were made fromthe large water-resistant skins of the omnipresent sea mammals since bark wasnot available in large quantity. Note, however, that the most sophisticatedkayaks originated from southern Alaska, where wood is abundant. Lightweight was an important consideration for Eskimo hunters, but a skin boat—even when dry—is not always as light as a bark or even a dugout canoe for itsrude wooden skeleton could be very heavy, as in the case of Central Arctickayaks. Above all, the arctic hunter needed a craft that combined speed andmaneuverability, which were vital in hunting, with the space and buoyancythat would allow him to carry his game back to shore.

Watercraft in the North Pacific 257

REFERENCES

Adney, Edwin T., and Howard I. Chapelle

1964 The Bark Canoes and Skin Boats of North America. Bulletin 230. Wash-ington, D. C: Smithsonian Institution.

Arutiunov, S. A., and William W. Fitzhugh

1988 Prehistory of Alaska's Pacific Coast. In Crossroads of Continents: Culturesof Siberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Bogoras, Waldemar

1904—9 The Chukchee. The Jesup North Pacific Expedition 7. Memoirs of theAmerican Museum of Natural History. New York.

Braund, Stephen R.

1988 The Skin Boats of Saint Lawrence Island, Alaska. Seattle: University ofWashington Press.

Choris, Louis

1820—22 Voyagepittoresque autour du monde. Paris: Imprimerie Firmin Didot.Drucker, Philip

1955 Indians of the Northwest Coast. New York: American Museum of NaturalHistory.

Dyson, George

1986 Baidarka. Edmonds: Alaska Northwest Publishing.

Fitzhugh, William W, and Aron Crowell (eds.)

1988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. Washington:Smithsonian Institution Press.

Holm, Bill

1987 The Head Canoe. In Face, Voices and Dreams. Peter Corey, ed.,pp. 143—55. Sitka: Sheldon Jackson Museum.

Jochelson, Waldemar

1908 The Koryak. Memoir of the American Museum of Natural History 10.New York.

258

JEAN-LOUP ROUSSELOT

1926 The Yukaghir and the Yukaghirized Tungus. Memoir of the AmericanMuseum of Natural History 13. New York.

Koch, Gerd (ed.)

1984 Boote aus aller Welt. Berlin: Museum fiir Volkerkunde.

Langsdorff, Georg H. von

1812 Bemerkungen auf einer Reise um die Welt in denJahren 180^—oj. 2 vols.Frankfurt: Friedrich Wilmans.

La Perouse, Jean-Frangois de

1798 Voyage autour du monde lyS^—iySS. 4 vols. Paris: Plassan.

Levin, M. G., and L. P. Potapov (eds.)

1961 Istoriko-etnograficheskii atlas Sibiri (Historical-ethnographic atlas ofSiberia). Moscow: AN SSSR.

Roberts, Kenneth

1983 The Canoe: A History of the Craft. Toronto.

Rousselot, Jean-Loup

1983 Die Ausriistung zur Seejagd der westlichen Eskimo. Hohenschaftlarn: KlausRenner Verlag.

Spranz, Bodo (ed.)

1984 Boote, Technik und Symbolik. Freiburg: Museum fur Volkerkunde.

VanStone, James W.

1987 The Athapaskan Hunting Canoe. Field Museum of Natural HistoryBulletin 58(3):6—10. Chicago.

Zimmerly, David W.

1979 Hooper Bay Kayak Construction. Mercury Series Paper 53. Ottawa:

National Museum of Man.1986 Qajaq, Kayaks of Siberia and Alaska. Juneau: Division of State

Museums.

14

Canoes of the Northwest Coast

0

BILL HOLM

THE ART OF DUGOUT CANOEMAKING reached a high State of develop-ment on the Northwest Coast of America, with more than a dozen distinctlydifferent types of canoes known during the historic period (figure 14-1). Someof these were confined to specific areas of the region, while others had a widedistribution. All were designed with an eye to sea conditions, type of use,and available building materials, and all were successful in filling the needsfor transportation and utilization of the marine resources of the NorthwestCoast.

Some canoe types (the West Coast, or Nootkan, canoe, with its verticalstern and distinctive upswept, animal-like prow; the shovelnose river canoe;and the low, graceful Coast Salish models, which may have been the ancestorsof the high-prowed northern canoe of the nineteenth century) were seldomseen on the northern coast. A few West Coast canoes made their way to thisarea (de Laguna i972:pl. 74) in the late nineteenth century, however, whenNootka hunters employed to harpoon fur seals in the Bering Sea brought lit-tle sealing canoes northward aboard commercial sealing schooners.

The classic northern canoe, familiar to us from early photographs, mod-els, and full-size specimens in museums, was a graceful craft with upswept

259

26o BILL HOLM

FIGURE 14-1. Northwest Coast canoes. (Drawing by Bill Holm and Karen AckofF; reprintedwith permission from The Handbook of North American Indians)

261

and overhanging bow and stern, elegant sheer, and a distinctive square cutwa-ter under the bow. It was made in sizes ranging from tiny one- or two-personboats to great seagoing canoes said to be as long as 21 meters (70 feet), with abeam of 3 meters (10 feet). These classic northern canoes had rounded bot-toms and flaring sides with a slight lip at the gunwales that extended all theway to the upraised ends and that lifted the canoe in the waves, turning thewater and spray outward. They were excellent sea boats and were probablyperfected by the Queen Charlotte Haida, who carried on a brisk trade in ca-noes during the historic period and probably before. Their islands were hometo the gigantic red cedar, which is ideal for canoes, but lacked other materialsand certain food resources, which the Haida obtained through trade with theTsimshian on the mainland and the Tlingit to the north. Characteristic of thelarger traveling canoes of this general type were their wide, protruding gun-wale bands and blocky bow and stern pieces finishing the ends.

Gunwales flaring all the way to the ends and an open groove betweenthem at the bow—a resting place for the harpoon—were characteristics ofsouthern canoes, which were apparently moving northward into the QueenCharlottes and Southeastern Alaska at the beginning of the historic period(Holm 1987:145, 153). None of the drawings by late eighteenth- and earlynineteenth-century Europeans on the northern coast illustrate canoes of thistype. What the early explorers saw were canoes of several other forms, but allwith thin, projecting fins at each end and without the flaring gunwales. Themost spectacular of these early historic period canoes had a large, roughly rec-tangular fin extending from the bow and a similarly large but tapered fin atthe stern. Because of its distinctive, flat bow fin, this vessel was commonlyknown as the "head" canoe (Durham 1960:56—57; Drucker 1950:253; Holm1987:147—55). Just aft of the convergence of the sides of the hull at the bow,the gunwale line dropped sharply. Near the stern, it rose abruptly again. Thisdistinctive profile and the large, decorated fins are seen in many models and indrawings in early ships' journals. Since no full-size examples of the head canoesurvived even into the age of photography, these models and drawings are theonly record we have of this important canoe type of the early contact period.To judge by this meager record, the head canoe was made in many sizes, butmost seem to have been moderately large, and those used by the Tlingit were,according to native tradition, traded from the Haida.

A small to moderately large canoe was made of spruce to the north of the

range of the western red cedar (de Laguna 1972:337; Holm 1987:146). This"Sitka canoe" (or "spruce canoe," as its Tlingit name is translated) had thetypically northern feature of thin fins extending from bow and stern, but bothwere slanted, somewhat like the stern of the head canoe, although they wereless exaggerated in size. Subtle breaks in the line of spruce canoe gunwalesnear the bow and stern recall the dramatic drop in the sheer of the head canoe,emphasizing the relationship between the two canoe types. Spruce canoes ap-pear in the drawings of early explorers and continued in use into the twenti-eth century. A few early illustrations show canoes that share the characteristicsof head canoes and spruce canoes combined (Henry 1984:144, pi. 12).

Closely related to the spruce canoe in form, but differing from it in ma-terial and in some subtle features, was the cottonwood canoe typical of Kluck-wan and other river villages (de Laguna 1972:336-37). Cottonwood canoesalso have unflared gunwales and extending flat fins. Of all Northwest Coastcanoes, Tlingit cottonwood canoes exemplify the technique of steaming andspreading to produce a vessel wider than the log from which it was carved.Before spreading, the gunwales of cottonwood canoes nearly touched eachother at the center and were rolled outward after steaming to form the wide,open hull. Such extreme spreading caused the radical changes in shape thatmade it difficult for the makers to achieve the perfection of form seen inspruce canoes of the same design.

Although it never appears in the early drawings, the little Yakutat hunt-ing canoe, with its striking ramlike bow projection, may have been presentbut unnoticed at the beginning of the nineteenth century. It was only used bythe Yakutat, the northwesternmost Tlingit people, and their Eyak neighborsto the west (Durham 1960:46; de Laguna 1972:337-38). Not surprisingly, ithad the northern characteristics of little or no gunwale flare, but the shape ofthe bow and stern fins was unlike that of any other canoe. At the stern, the finwas sharply cut away, superficially resembling the square cutwater at the bowof the classic northern canoe. At the bow, a sharp, triangular fin thrust for-ward under the projecting prow. Apparently it was used to break and turnaway the thin ice that could quickly wear through the fragile yellow cedar orspruce hull. These canoes were always small, just large enough for a hunterand his steersman. They were used primarily in hunting seal and sea otter.Traveling, especially in the open Gulf of Alaska, was accomplished in thelarger, imported head canoes, or later in the classic northern pattern with itshigh, flared bow and stern.

Canoes of the Northwest Coast

263

Many models depict yet another unusual canoe type, decorated with dis-tinctly northern painted designs. However, there are no drawings of it fromthe early nineteenth century in the northern area (Durham 1960:58—63;Holm 1987:145). Perhaps it, too, was diffusing northward in the historic pe-riod. The Kwakiutl referred to it as "munka" and considered it a war canoe.Its abruptly raised, extremely wide bow piece was said to act as a shield inwar. The flaring sides, upstanding snout, and projecting "uvula" echo similarif more subtle features of the West Coast canoe, as does the form of the raisedstern block. No munkas survived past the middle of the nineteenth century,so again we have only models and drawings to document its form.

All of these canoes were typically propelled by single-bladed paddleswith transverse or "crutch" grips and rather short shafts (in relation to thelength of the blades). Details of their design differed from place to place alongthe coast, and also depended on their specific uses. Canoes used in rivers werecommonly driven by poling. Everywhere on the coast, they were sailed beforethe wind using sails of matting or thin planks. After European sailors intro-duced their techniques along with fore-and-aft sails of canvas in the late eigh-teenth century, Indians successfully sailed their keelless canoes on points up toa beam reach, or close to a right angle to the wind. Thereafter most canoes ofany size were equipped to step masts. Later in the contact period, many ca-noes were fitted with rowlocks and oars, and in the twentieth century, withgasoline, usually outboard, engines.

Early in the twentieth century canoemaking ceased, except for the con-struction of long, narrow racing canoes and occasional cottonwood canoes andsome dugout skiffs and fishing boats. Planked boats were stronger and couldbe fairly easily built using sawn lumber, which was becoming increasinglyavailable. Once the gasoline engine took over from the paddle, fewer and few-er canoes could be seen in the channels and on the beaches of SoutheasternAlaska. But in the later years of the century a renewed interest in traditionallifeways has inspired the carving of dugout canoes again. A number of classicnorthern-type canoes have been built in Alaska and elsewhere on the coastsince midcentury, and in the summer of 1987 a spruce canoe was made inGlacier Bay. The revival is continuing and by the end of the century theremay be many more plying the waters of the Northwest Coast.

264 BILL HOLM

REFERENCES

de Laguna, Frederica

1972 Under Mount St. Elias: The History and Culture of the Yakutat

Tlingit. Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology. Vol. 7. Washing-ton, D.C.

Drucker, Philip

1950 Culture Element Distribution: XXVI Northwest Coast. AnthropologicalRecords 9(3). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Durham, Bill

i960 Indian Canoes of the Northwest Coast. Seattle: Copper Canoe Press.Henry, John F.

1984 Early Maritime Artist of the Pacific Northwest Coast. Seattle: University ofWashington Press.

Holm, Bill

1987 The Head Canoe. In Faces, Voices and Dreams: A Celebration of the Centen-nial of the Sheldon Jackson Museum, i888-ig88, pp. 143—55. Sitka:Sheldon Jackson Museum.

13.

Social Structure of the Peoples ofNortheastern Asia

VLADIMIR I. VASIL'EV

THE DISTINCTIVE SOCIAL STRUCTURES OF the peoples of Northeast-ern Asia and the lack of clear signs of a clan system, or of rudiments thatwould indicate its existence in the past, present an interesting topic of studyfor ethnographers of the Chukchi, Koryak, Eskimo, and Itelmen.

CHUKCHI

One of the best experts on the Chukchi was Waldemar Bogoras, who wroteextensively on their economy, family life, and culture. Field observations overthe course of several years led Bogoras to conclude that the Chukchi lacked aclan system at the end of the nineteenth century but that such a system wasjust, in fact, developing:

Only in recent years have I concluded that a whole series of facts concerningChukchi family and marriage life, as well as other elements of their socialorganization, can be understood and explained only as vestiges and relics ofan earlier stage of primitive communist society, either preceding clan order,

265

or relating to the period of the formation of the clan order. ^ (Bogoras1934:15)

Another authority of Paleoasiatic ethnography, Lev Sternberg (1933), holdsjust the opposite view—namely, that the Chukchi in former times had a clanstructure but had stopped practicing exogamy and dropped the clan (rod) sys-tem.

Recent work on the Chukchi, by I. S. Vdovin, lends support to Bogoras'sargument by pointing to the existence of such social institutions as bloodfeuds, levitate, sororate, and a few others. Initially, Vdovin (1948:61) alsosuggested that matriarchy was the rule among the Chukchi ancestors whofirst arrived in the North. With the mastering of new economic activities—wild reindeer hunting and later reindeer breeding—the economic foundationof matriarchy was undermined, and the leading social cell in Chukchi societywas gradually filled by the family, which began to form along patriarchallines. In later works, however, Vdovin (1965) abstained from applying theterm "matriarchy" to the history of Chukchi society.

The Chukchi custom of establishing spouse-sharing alliances should beascribed to the archaic phenomenon of group marriage. Some married couples,generally from different nomadic camps, concluded voluntary agreements onthe variable fulfillment of conjugal rights in relation to their wives. Accord-ing to Bogoras (1934:136-37):

Each "wife-sharer" takes home another man's wife, lives with her severalmonths, and then returns her to her husband. It happens that he keeps herfor a longer period of time, or even forever. In our times, spouse-sharing cus-tom is followed by almost every Chukchi family. A family which does notenter into such a union has no friends, well-wishers, or protectors in case ofneed. Members of the group marriage stand closer to one another than evenrelatives related along the male line.

In relation to the kinship system of the Chukchi, Bogoras (1934:91, 136)notes, "The paternal line to a significant degree predominates over the mater-nal."

In the eighteenth century and even earlier, according to Vdovin, the pa-triarchal family raiyr"yn ("home fulfillment") was the basic social and econom-ic unit of the Chukchi. More complex social alliances emerged not only be-cause of the economic life of the Chukchi, but because of their relations with

267

neighboring ethnic groups and the Russian administration. These socialunits, which included several patriarchal families, generally connected by kin-ship ties, constituted the settlement group among the Maritime Chukchi, andthe nomadic camp among the Reindeer Chukchi (Vdovin 1965:81, 87).

At the beginning of the eighteenth century one could already observethe establishment of an embryo of military democracy among the Chukchi.Leaders of the military democracy were the heads of patriarchal families en-gaged in continuous raids on their neighbors, the Koryak, Yukaghir, andAlaskan Eskimo. Only in the last decade of the eighteenth century did themilitary campaigns of the Chukchi gradually cease as a result of a combina-tion of events: economic improvements from incorporation of the ChukchiPeninsula into the Russian state; territorial isolation of nuclear families fol-lowing disintegration of the patriarchal commune; and increased trade be-tween the Reindeer and Maritime Chukchi and their neighbors after the es-tablishment of the Aniui and Gizhiginsk fairs. In Far Northeastern Asia, arelatively solid and durable peace then became established.

KORYAK

The social structure of the Koryak was in many ways similar to that of theChukchi. From the seventeenth through the first half of the nineteenth cen-turies the patriarchal commune, which united the relatives of three genera-tions (father, son, grandson) along the father's genealogical line, was the basicproductive and social cell of the Maritime Koryak. All members of the com-mune lived in a semisubterranean house, but each nuclear family usually hadits own sleeping platform. The commune had a baidara (skin boat), but forwild reindeer hunting or whaling, the men of the family collective joinedwith members of the other family communes in the settlement. The settle-ment itself represented a higher form of social organization. In addition tohunting together, its inhabitants united for military raids or for defense. As arule, all families of the settlement were connected by kinship ties or marriage.

Like the Chukchi, the Koryak practiced such customs as levitate, soro-rate, polygamy, and paying for a wife by working in the household of the fu-ture father-in-law. The existence of these social institutions led Sternberg(1933) to conclude that the Koryak practiced clan exogamy in the past.Antropova (1957:131—38) supported the hypothesis of the existence and then

268 VLADIMIR I. VASIL'EV

subsequent disappearance of kin exogamous collectives among the Koryak.The evidence she noted was cited in the works of K. Bauerman (1934) and S.N. Stebnitskii (1938:92). In his analysis of the family kinship terms of theAliutor Koryak, Stebnitskii found archaic words tracing back, in his opinion,to the epoch in which matriarchy existed.

ESKIMO

Traces of a clan system are quite clear in the social relations of the Asiatic Es-kimo until recent times. Menovshchikov, the well-known linguist-eskimolo-gist, detected kin collectives with patriarchal reckoning among the Eskimo ofChaplino, Naukan, and Sireniki. These data were expanded upon and con-firmed by another leading eskimologist and archeologist, D. A. Sergeev. AsMenovshchikov produced additional evidence of patriarchy among the Eski-mo (1962:29-33), Sergeev discovered characteristics reflecting patrilocal ex-ogamous gens organization (1962). Later investigation provided no furtherconfirmation of exogamy among the Eskimo. According to Chlenov(1973:11), the basic social unit of the Asiatic Eskimo as late as the end of thenineteenth century was the endogamous patrilineal commune, which in a lat-er work Krupnik and Chlenov (1979:20) characterized in a more streamlinedfashion as the patrilineal kin collective of the clan type.

ITELMEN

The social structure of the Itelmen is known mainly from its description inthe works of the participants in the Second Kamchatka Expedition of1733—43, organized by S. P. Krasheninnikov and G. V. Steller. As far as onecan judge from their essays, at that time no exogamous clan collective, neitherwith matriarchal nor patriarchal calculations of kinship, was manifest amongthe Itelmen. Steller's observation concerning the settlement of a husband aftermarriage in the home of his wife's father is probably nothing more than aform of payment in work for marriage, a custom found among many peoplesof the world, including those in Northern Siberia. Payment in work for mar-riage does not signify the existence of matriarchy and a matrilocal form ofmarriage among Itelmen in the late eighteenth century, but merely individual

vestiges of this type of social organization, to which payment in work for mar-riage should be ascribed. To identify it with the kinship unit of the inhabi-tants of the Itelmen forts, as Antropova (1957:140) tried to do, is incorrect.The social basis of such settlements in the period being examined was morelikely a family commune of a patriarchal type, and matriarchy can only bespoken of as a vestigial phenomenon.

REINDEER BREEDERS AND MARITIME HUNTERS

Throughout Northeastern Asia, the period between the second half of the nine-teenth century and the beginning of the twentieth was one in which neighbor-communal relationships began to play a determinant role in the economic andsocial life of the local ethnic groups. This economic and social process affectedall categories of native inhabitants of the region, from reindeer breeders roam-ing with their herds in the tundra to coastal hunters of sea mammals who set-tled in villages on the coasts of the Bering Sea and Bering Strait.

The patriarchal family was the primary social basis of the reindeer-breed-ing nomadic camp of the Chukchi and Koryak. The head of such a nomadiccamp among the Chukchi was called the ermech'yn, "athlete-elder-official." Thecomposition of the nomadic camp was not stable and sometimes changed inthe course of a year. Its social structure also varied. Some nomadic camps con-sisted of families with few reindeer, who united their herds for joint pasture.In other cases, the families with few reindeer roamed with large reindeerbreeders who, to all intents and purposes, acted as shepherds for the latter'sherds. For their work as shepherds, the "helpers" (as they were still called) re-ceived from the well-to-do reindeer breeders not only reindeer meat but alsolive calves at the end of the year. The offspring of these calves became theirproperty. Having accumulated a sufficient number of reindeer (100 or more),the worker customarily separated from his former "boss" and began to live in-dependently. Bogoras cites cases in which the "helpers" themselves becameowners of significant herds.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, there were some Chukchiwho owned thousands of reindeer. Especially large herds pastured in the west-ern Chuktoka area, in upper Omolon, and in the Chaunsk and Indigirka tun-dras. The observations made about the Reindeer Koryak give an analogouspicture of property stratification. There, too, a group of herd owners with sev-

270

VLADIMIR I. VASIL'EV

eral thousand reindeer appeared, who used their propertyless kin and neigh-bors for shepherding.

The nomadic camps were quite stable. These neighboring communes notonly roamed along the same defined routes, but also fulfilled a series of socialfunctions, deciding on organizational questions and carrying out festival cere-monies together. According to Bogoras (1934:153):

Among the Reindeer Chukchi, who live in little nomadic camps widely dis-persed in the tundra, the nearest nomadic camp represents the only group ofpeople with whom constant intercourse is possible. ... In the case of somemisfortune, the inhabitants of the neighboring nomadic camp would alwaysgive help, all the more so, that they for the most part are relatives, or in anycase good friends of the victim. Neighboring nomadic camps, when chang-ing pasture, usually follow the same path and thus for a long time preservetheir neighboring status. They gather together all fiirs and hides, and givethem to one person to take them for sale to a very distant region. They alsogather together for sacrifices and games.

Among the Maritime Chukchi, Koryak, and Asiatic Eskimo, the haidaraartel (skin-boat team) was the most important economic unit, constituted forand during the entire season of sea mammal hunting. The members of thehaidara artel hunted together and divided the catch into equal parts. As in thecase of the Reindeer Chukchi, the head of the artel was generally the eldest ofthe able-bodied members of the patriarchal family and was known as the mver-mech'yn, "boating official," who was, at the same time, the owner of thehaidara. Characteristically, the members of the haidara artel usually lived inone part of the settlement and jointly observed various ceremonial activitiesconnected with the beginning or the ending of the hunting season (Gurvich1970:415).

The maritime settlement played an organizational role in the productivelife of its inhabitants during the time of collective hunting for whales andwalrus (Vdovin 1948:197). According to Bogoras (1934:154), the settlementfulfilled not only economic but also social functions, being a neighbor-territo-rial commune, based "not on family kinship, but on the principle of territorialcohabitation." The role of the head of the settlement was usually filled by theowner of the "main house," which belonged to the family of the founder ofthe village: "A family, living for many years in one place, has many advan-

tages over others. Complete knowledge of the nearby locales permits it to getout easily by one means or another from various difficulties, even in the mostunsuccessful economic year (Gurvich 1970:415). The house of the family thatheaded the settlement was usually distinguished by the fact that it was situat-ed in front of the other residential buildings, "that is on the right side of aline of houses which here are all turned with their entrances to the sea." How-ever, Bogoras goes on to say that in many Chukchi settlements, "even in thevery biggest, there is no main house. In these settlements, all inhabitants arefound in an equal position, and houses are dispersed without any order."

On the whole, there are some differences in the evaluations of the varioustypes of neighbor-territorial associations among the peoples and ethnographicgroups of Northeast Asia at the turn of this century. Bogoras, for example,considered the nomadic camp of the Reindeer Chukchi and the settlement ofthe Maritime Chukchi to be the basic social units in this period. Vdovinagreed with Bogoras concerning the Reindeer Chukchi, but cited the haidaraartel as the basic social cell among the Maritime Chukchi. He even proposedto use the terms "haidara commune" and "nomadic camp commune" to de-scribe the Maritime and the Reindeer Chukchi communities, respectively. Inany case, the Chukotkan reindeer breeding nomadic camps (and analogous as-sociations of Reindeer Koryak) undoubtedly lacked firmness and continuity,unlike the haidara artel, which represented quite a stable social unit.

At the end of the nineteenth century, the importance of the sea huntingindustry in Kamchatka and Chukotka increased greatly. The sea hunting fleetwas fitted out with American whaleboats, and harpoon guns and firearmswere introduced. In these circumstances, the owner of the haidara became asignificant social figure. He personally disposed of the whalebone, walrustusks, and hides, although sea mammal meat, as before, was still equally di-vided among all members of the artel. At this time also, the neighborhoodcommune of the sea hunters lost its former social-economic unity. In parallelwith the skin-boat owners and the trade intermediaries, who carried out thetraveling trade for a firm or for individual successful entrepreneurs, thereemerged a significant strata of propertyless hunters who depended on theirwealthy kin and neighbors. Consequently, in the first decade of the twentiethcentury, property stratification became a characteristic feature of the social lifeof the Chukchi, Koryak, and Asian Eskimo in the tundra and along the oceancoasts.

272 VLADIMIR I. VASIL'EV

NOTES

I. All the quotations from Bogoras (1934) are translated from the Russian text.

REFERENCESAntropova, V. V.

1957 Voprosy voennoi organizatsii i voennogo dela u narodov krainego

severo-vostoka Sibiri (Issues in military organization and war practicesamong the people of Far Northeastern Siberia). In Sibirskii Etno-grajicheskii Sbornik 2 (Siberian ethnographic collection 2). Trudy Insti-tuta Etnografii 35. Moscow-Leningrad: AN SSSR.

Bauerman, K.

1934 Sledy totemicheskogo rodovogo ustroistva u Panenskikh Koriakov.

(Traces of a totemic clan system among the Panen Koryak). SovietskiiSever 2.

Bogoras, see Bogoraz

Bogoraz, V. G.

1934 Chukchi (The Chukchi). Part i. Leningrad.

Chlenov, M. A.

1973 K kharakteristike sotsial'noi organizatsii aziatskikh eskimosov. (Char-acteristics of the social organization of the Asiatic Eskimo). In /XMKAEN (Papers of the Soviet delegation). Moscow.

Sosedskaia obshchina i proizvodstvennye ob "edidineniia malykhnarodov Severa" (The neighbor commune and productive associationsof the "Small Peoples of the Siberian North"). In Obshchestvennyi stroi unarodov Severnoi Sibiri (Social structures of the peoples of NorthernSiberia). Moscow.

Gurvich, I. S.

1970

Krupnik, I. I., and M. A. Chlenov

1979 Dinamika etnolingvisticheskoi situatsii u aziatskikh Eskimosov (konets

Social Structure of the Peoples of Northeastern Asia

273

XIX v.-1970-e gg.) (Dynamics of the ethnolinguistic situation of theAsiatic Eskimo [late 19th century—1970s}). Sovetskaia Etnografiia 2.

Menovshchikov, G. A.

1962 O perezhitochnykh iavleniiakh rodovoi organizatsii aziatskikh Eski-

mosov (Vestiges of clan organization among the Asiatic Eskimo). Sovet-skaia Etnografiia 6:29—33.

Sergeev, D. A.

1962 Perezhitki otsovskogo roda u aziatskikh Eskimosov (Vestiges of patri-archy among the Asiatic Eskimo). Sovetskaia Etnografiia 6:35—42.

Shternberg, L. la.

1933 Sem'ia i rodu narodov Severo-Vostochnoi Azii (Family and gens among thepeoples of Northeastern Asia). Leningrad.

Stebnitskii, S. N.

1938 Aliutorskii dialekt nymylanskogo (koriakskogo) iazyka (The Aliutordialect of the Nymylan [Koryak] language. Sovietskii Sever i.

Sternberg, see Shternberg

Vdovin, I. S.

1948 Iz istorii obshchestvennogo stroia chukchei (From the history of thesocial system of the Chukchi). Sovetskaia Etnografiia 3.

1965 Ocherki istorii i etnografii chukchei (Essay on the history and ethnographyof the Chukchi). Moscow-Leningrad.

16.

Traditional Culture of the Peoples ofthe Russian Pacific Coast

CHUNER M. TAKSAMI

THE PACIFIC COAST REGION OF THE FORMER Soviet Union, nowRussia again, is a huge territory extending 4.5 thousand kilometers fromnorth to south and covering more than 3.1 million square miles. This regionencompasses the Chukotka, Kamchatka, Amur, and Primorie (Amur mar-itime region) areas and Sakhalin and Kurile islands. The territory abounds inlarge lakes and rivers; in some places it has a kilometer of river for each kilo-meter of territory. Nearly 300 fish species inhabit these waters and the sur-rounding seas, which are also rich in sea mammals such as seal, walrus, sea-ot-ter, sea-lion, dolphin, and whale, along with crabs, edible mollusks,sea-cabbage, and other useful plants. The richness of the local marine faunaand flora has long since left its distinct imprint on the economic life of thearea's population, which includes the Aleut, Ainu, Itelmen, Nivkhi, Nanai,Oroch, Orok, Ulchi, Negidal, Maritime Chukchi and Koryak, Eskimo,Udege, and Maritime Even. Fish was the basic food for many of these peoples,and fishing was therefore their main economic pursuit. In addition, sea mam-mal hunting was of great importance in the lives of the Eskimo, Aleut, Mar-itime Koryak, Nivkhi, Ainu, and others.

These economic pursuits led to the establishment of a permanent popu-

275

276

CHUNER M. TAKSAMI

lation in which each of the various groups developed a distinctive cultureadapted to their specific ecological situation. However, these different cultureshave many common elements, which can be attributed to both long-standingethnocultural contacts and formative processes that were taking place in simi-lar ecological conditions. This chapter is about those common elements, par-ticularly those in the area of spiritual culture.

Soviet scholars, including myself, who have dealt with the culture offishermen and sea mammal hunters, find that one of its most striking featuresis its settlement pattern, which survives to the present day. Since ancienttimes, the population engaging in coastal fishing and sea mammal huntinghas resided in the areas that have fed them. Their residence pattern includedboth permanent winter and summer settlements and was shaped by the natur-al and climatic conditions and the requirements of their complex economy. Asa rule, summer settlements were found in places where people fished salmonand hunted seals. People moved from winter to summer settlements whenthey changed from fishing to hunting seasons. Only a few groups did not havepermanent settlements. Tungus-speakers, for example, had to move continu-ously with their reindeer, and each time they moved they had to rebuild theirtent camps and racks for drying and jerking fish. In the summer fishing areas,people were scattered in small groups to avoid depleting the stock of fish.With their detailed knowledge of the land and its resources, these people ob-served native principles of ecological conservation. Through trial and error,they accumulated the knowledge and experience they needed to maintain anecological balance. The economic, social, and cultural development of tradi-tional communities depended directly on the health of the surrounding bios-phere. These factors led the inhabitants of these regions to become protectiveof nature.

Indeed, the traditional worldview of aboriginal people actively promotedthe concept of protecting nature. In the view of the Nivkhi people, for exam-ple, their surroundings are a big house. People are expected to show respectfor clan property—the fishing and hunting grounds of one's own clan ortribe—and to observe the principle of inviolability of the property of theirneighbors. Wherever a hunter or a fisherman found himself he was obliged toshow the same respect and care for any living, thinking, acting being as hewould show to man. This basic idea of universal respect for nature is reflectedin the mythology and folklore of the aboriginal population. The ethnic groupswe have studied have many myths and oral traditions relating to the protec-tion of nature.

^11

These cultures also share some dwelling designs, means of transporta-tion, clothing, hunting and fishing tools, the practice of preserving fish, andartistic activities. What struck me first was that the Nivkhi, Eskimo, andAleuts used a toggling harpoon, but the Eskimo people made harpoons ofwalrus ivory, while the Nivkhi used primarily bone. Similar types of harpoonheads and bone fishing hooks were widespread among almost all of these peo-ples. In addition, the peoples of the Amur River area and Kamchatka com-monly hunted seals with walrus hide nets and wooden hammers.

There are many similarities in the style of fishing nets, tackle, hooks,and weir. All along the sea coast, nets set with long poles were used to catchsalmon. Boats made of boards, birchbark, and skins were also widespread. Inaddition, similar methods were used to preserve fish products, notably dryingiukola (which provided dried fish jerky), the tradition of storing fat in sealstomachs, and methods of butchering sea mammals. Many peoples along thecoast also had similar dietary practices, such as the eating of raw fish.

Dog-breeding played an important role in the complex economies offishermen and sea-mammal hunters. Judging from the available data, this isan ancient occupation, as indicated by historical documents of the first centu-ry A.D. which describe the Lower Amur's population as the "people of the dogkingdom." The written sources of the seventeenth century say the Nivkhipeople "have in their ulusts [settlements] from 500 to 1000 [dogs]." Theircenturies-old experience in dog-breeding enabled some peoples to elaboratethis complicated technology as well as dog transportation itself. People every-where stored fish for dog food by drying fish skeletons with the heads on andsouring the fish in pits.

The spiritual culture of fishermen and sea mammal hunters and theirworldview were closely linked to water, and many of them knew the mythabout the "master" and "mistress" of the sea. According to traditional beliefs,oceans, lakes, and seas harbor a wholesome life system structured in the sameway as the world of men. According to folklore, the "marine masters" residein a big house found on the sea bottom that is also the home of seals, walrus-es, fish, and other forms of marine life. In the myths of some peoples, for ex-ample, those in the Amur river area, the master and mistress of the water, orgrey-haired old men alone, are common, whereas most Eskimo myths have afemale deity. The master or mistress is usually a wise grey-haired person witha long beard or long hair. But in sculptured depictions they appear in miscel-laneous forms, more often than not as animals. For example, the Nivkhi's totyz, "master of water" (tol chnai), collected from the Nivkhi people of the Amur

278 CHUNER M. TAKSAMI

estuary (Chomy village), is a wooden figure with a seal's head wrapped in apiece of seal skin. Another tol yz is made of wood in the shape of two seals.That figure was acquired from the Sakhalin Nivkhi (Kiakrvo village).

Since they believed that the world of water was alive, the ancient fisher-men and sea mammal hunters elaborated a number of complex ceremonies toappease water with sacrifices. To maintain good relations with the master ormistress of the water local inhabitants made special sacrifices in spring andautumn. When hunting or fishing, they "fed" the master of water by throw-ing pieces of meat, berries, or roots into the water. In addition, Itelmen,Aleut, Koryak, Ainu, Nivkhi and Orok carried hare amulets to protect them-selves from the attack of "sea devils." Itelmen even wore hare-skin fur coatsfor this purpose. Myths about the master and mistress of water are as wide-spread in the Pacific North as the myth that depicts the master of water as akiller whale. In their worship of this animal, people made numerous woodenimages.

To prepare for the hunt, the Nivkhi people put some fresh shavings ofinau wood, and some saran [??], ramson [garlic], nuts, and dried berries into thebows of their boats. When encountering a killer whale, Nivkhi people wouldsay ''ekt pryd'" (they come to beg) and would immediately throw the inau andfood into the water, believing that the killer whale would then disappear.

A similar tradition was found among the Eskimo, Koryak, Oroch, Orok,and other peoples. According to Nivkhi elders, killer whales often took longtrips and did not have enough fire or food. Thus they would come to peoplefor help, and hunters would throw fire and food into the water for them. Toexpress gratitude for this treatment, killer whales would kill other whales,bring big pieces of whale fat to the boats, and throw seals they killed ontoshore.

The sea mammal hunters believed that seals could understand humanspeech and think as people do, and for this reason they did not like to see sealsswim close to shore, where they could spy on the people there, listen to theirconversations, and pass everything they heard on to other marine animals.This is why hunters were so secretive in preparing their hunting tools andtried not to speak about their hunting plans. Even when actually huntingthey spoke to each other in code words. In the past, special hunting ritualsand customs were observed both by the hunters themselves and those who re-mained home. For example, people were not allowed to sweep floors, to sew,or to comb their hair when men were hunting.

Traditional Culture of the Russian Pacific Coast 279

Sacrificial vessels with zoomorphic depictions representing birds (loon),fish, and marine animals provide further insight into these beliefs. Some ves-sels as decorated with paired depictions of animals and fish. The sacrificialdishes used by the Eskimo, Itelmen, and Aleutian peoples were made of woodand bone, and those shaped like a fish or a loon resembled the artifacts of thepeoples from the Amur River area.

The folklore of the northern peoples residing along the Pacific coast con-tains a wealth of information on the fauna and flora of seas, rivers, and lakes.Many folklore texts provide excellent descriptions of the appearance andhabits of various animals and fish. A number of peoples have similar narra-tives, including such nature tales as "Crafty Sable," "Bear and Chipmunk,""Greedy Wood-Grouse," "Why Does the Partridge Have Red Eyelids?" "Craband Polar Fox Chase," "Legend about Killer-Whale," and "Ivici Plaice." Someof these tales are indigenous to the group whereas others represent borrowingsmade through long ethnocultural contacts. It is possible that many of the cul-tural parallels mentioned here have analogues in neighboring territories, asubject that merits further investigation.

Beads at the Crossroads of Continents

PETER FRANCIS, JR.

BEADS ARE THE UNIVERSAL PERSONAL adornment, the oldest andmost widespread form of art. In use since the beginning of the modern humanrace, they are found among all peoples. The trade in beads and bead materialsis ancient. Small, portable, durable, and often highly valued, they have alwaysbeen part of the cargo of explorers and wandering merchants.

Although relatively isolated, the Alaskans and Siberians were as fond ofbeads as anyone. Before contact with Europeans, their beads were made of softstones, bone, ivory and other teeth, shell, and amber. After contact, beadscame into the region from many quarters: Venice (Italy), Bohemia (now partof Czechoslovakia), China, and perhaps Central Asia or Russia.

The methodology adopted for the study of the beads found at the "cross-roads of the continents" is essentially the same as that used by the Center forBead Research for beads in an archeological assemblage. It consists of gather-ing information from historical, ethnohistorical, archeological, and othersources, and combining this with data derived from studying a particularbead assemblage. These data are used to answer questions about the origin ofthe beads, how they arrived at the site, their use, and their final disposal. In-

281

282

PETER FRANCIS, JR.

GLASS BEADS

WOUND DRAWN

melon "vase melon"

disk dentalium

FIGURE 17-1. Bead types in the "Crossroads of Continents" collection. (Artwork by

Marcia Bakry, Smithsonian Institution)

formation from a number of related sites gathered in this way can be used tounderstand the role beads played in past societies.

This is the first time such a method has been applied to ethnographicmaterial. The material referred to in this chapter comes from the "Crossroadsof Continents" exhibition and from an earlier study of beads excavated fromReese Bay, Unalaska Island, by Jean S. Aigner of the University of Alaska,Fairbanks (Francis 1987a).

THE ORIGIN OF THE BEADS

The beads under discussion can first be classified according to their composi-tion. The overwhelming number of beads in the exhibition are made of glass(figure 17-1). Since there is no evidence of glass beadmaking in either Alaskaor Siberia, we may assume they were all imported. This chapter concentratesmainly on these beads, but many were also made from other materials andwere probably of local manufacture.

Most of the nonglass beads are made of organic materials, while othersconsist of imported objects not originally intended to be used as beads. In ad-dition, there is a brass pendant (CXR fig. 338, AMNH 70-3594) and a plasticbead that is apparently an early amber imitation (CXR fig. 260, MAE 6750-i6a).l

The most common organic material is tooth. The Bering Sea Eskimobelt with 363 caribou front teeth is one of the outstanding items in the exhi-bition (CXR fig. 296, NMNH 358255). Dall sheep teeth are found on aheadband from Point Barrow (CXR fig 213, NMNH 209841). Ivory was usedfor spacers (multiply perforated beads used to hold strands apart) in itemsfrom the Bering Sea Eskimo (CXR fig. 283, NMNH 16204) and in smallcarved birds and men on Aleut hunting visors (CXR fig. 411, MAE 2868-40;CXR fig. 204, MAE 2868-82).

Shell is the next most common organic material. Dentalium shells deco-rate a blue hunting visor from Kodiak (CXR fig. 406, NMNH 74720). Den-talium had long been imported from further south along the coast. G. I.Davydov (1977:149) reported their use in Alaska at the beginning of the lastcentury, while Alexander Rowand (ca. 1841) noted that the shell was muchprized at New Archangel and was used as the first labret after piercing the lip(Rowand n.d.:6). Small cubical beads cut from a nacreous shell (and a few

284

PETER FRANCIS, JR.

substitutes of translucent stone) are strung on an Aleut hunting visor (CXRfig. 411, MAE 2868-40).

There are also two sets of unidentified beads of a black material. A Kodi-ak truncated hat features barrel beads of what may be wood (CXR fig. 202,NMNH 90444), and some disc beads on a pair of gloves from the Even ofSiberia are possibly jet (CXR fig. 300, AMNH 70-560iH).

Three objects that were not manufactured as beads but that the Siberiansadapted to that purpose are cartridge butts, used as pendants on a pair of ear-rings by the Chukchi (woman) (CXR fig. 36, AMNH 70-7267a,b); navy but-tons on a Chukchi necklace from Mariinsky Post (CXR fig. 325, AMNH 70-7435); and some ribbed or segmented brass tubes with one end enlarged onan Even pouch from Markovo (CXR fig. 34, AMNH 70-56). These are allbrass objects and may be assumed to have been Russian made. The use of flot-sam and jetsam from industrial (or even pre-industrial) Europe as ornamentsby other peoples is well attested. Several such examples were cited by earlyEuropean explorers in America (Francis 1986a), and several modern exampleshave been recorded in the pages of at National Geographic in the past twodecades (Francis 1987b).

ORIGIN OF THE GLASS BEADS

Glass beads have long been made throughout the world. Some centers (in theMiddle East and West Africa) produced beads only for local consumption,whereas others (in Europe and Asia) had an active trade in beads and were po-tential sources for those in the "Crossroads of Continents" exhibition.

Although India has been a major glass beadmaker for millennia (Francis1982), no beads of Indian origin have been identified in the collection. We doknow, however, that Indian glass beads were used late in the Russian trade inAlaska. "Indian glass beads" as well as "glass beads" were among the articlessold by the Russian American Company from its Sitka headquarters when itsold out to Hutchinson and Hurth of San Francisco in 1867 (Oswalt 1980:

154)-

China, the other great glass beadmaker of Asia, has been exporting glassbeads nearly as long as India (Francis 1986b), although at one time this wasdisputed (Van der Sleen 1967:99). There has also been some debate aboutwhether Chinese beads ever went to Alaska, with de Laguna (1956:62), Chu

and Chu (1973:138), Liu (1975:14), and Ross (1975:3-4) taking the affirma-tive and Woodward (1967:14-19), Sorensen (1971:15), and Jenkins (1975:6)the negative.

Three accounts of two events during Vitus Bering's 1741 voyage indicatethat Chinese glass beads were indeed introduced into Alaska more than twocenturies ago. Sofron Khitrov and Sven Waxel (Golder 1922:99, 272), bothrecorded that when Khitrov and G. W. Steller landed at Kayak Island, theyfound a hut that had been hastily abandoned from which they took a basket, ashovel, and a stone with some copper stains on it. Later, at Bering's insistence,Khitrov returned and left "16V2 arshins of green material, 2 iron knives, 20Chinese strings of beads, 2 iron pipes for smoking Chinese tobacco, called'shar'" (Golder 1922:99). The log book, apparently written by KharlamYushin, of Bering's ship, the St. Peter, records that Bering ordered presents tobe handed down to men in a baidara (open boat) near the ship. These consist-ed of "4V2 arshins of red cloth, 2 mirrors, 3 strings of Chinese beads, smallbells" (Golder 1922:147).

The Russians bought beads from China and were eager to do so. Accord-ing to William Coxe's (1780:241) account of trade at the Siberian-Mongolianpost of Kiakhta (Maimatschin to the Chinese), the Russians were allowed toimport a few products without duty, including "glass beads, corals."

Later traders, such as the American Fur Company, bought beads forAlaska and the Northwest Coast from Canton (Porter 1931:461, 539; see alsoWoodward 1967:18—19). The fact that explorers to the region were unfamil-iar with the trade beads suggests that the beads were not of European origin.As Captain Cook described them,

They were in possession of iron and a few sky blue beads such as have beenbefore mentioned. These they seemed to value very much, and I had somedifficulty to purchase two or three to satisfy my self {sic] whether they wereglass or made of some substance they might have amongst themselves. (Bea-glehole 1967:365)

The bead most certainly of Chinese origin was highly valued all along theAmerican Northwest Coast and in Siberia. It was usually light blue andopaque, although its color might vary. These blue beads, James King (CaptainCook's companion) wrote, were "the most certain proofs" that the peoples ofthis region had "a frequent supply of articles belonging to civiliz'd Nations. . . ; these of which they set a very great value, have not the good shape of

English beads, but are manufactured by some nation ruder in this art thanourselves, they are about the size of a large current berry & intended to be(but are not) round" (Beaglehole 1967:1418).

It is not clear precisely how the beads were made beyond the fact thatwinding was used—a technique in which a bit of hot glass is twirled up aniron rod or mandrel. The beads appear to have no traces of a perforation de-posit (Francis 1983). Small "peaks" on the end are similar to those on Chineseglass beads made by dripping hot glass onto a bamboo rod (Chu and Chu1973), but such "peaks" are also present on beads made in a furnace or by thelamp-winding technique (personal observation and experimentation).

De Laguna (1947:138, 1956:60-62, 211) has named this blue bead the"Cook type," because Cook saw them at Prince William Sound before theRussians arrived. They have been excavated from early Russian contact sites inAlaska, including Reese Bay (Francis I987a:4—5), Three Saints Bay Colony(Clark 1985:114, 120), and Pedro Bay (Townsend and Townsend 1961:48—49). These are the beads demanded by the natives at Unalaska (King inBeaglehole 1967:1424), Prince William Sound (Cook in Beaglehole 1967:346), Kodiak (Sauer 1802:177), in the Columbia River Basin (Lewis 1814:84), and by the Yakutat Tlingit (de Laguna 1972:445). They were one of thefew trade items carried by the promyshleniki (Bancroft 1886:205, n.6).

In the "Crossroads" collection, the bead is found on two artifacts gath-ered in the 1840s, on three collected between 1897 and 1902, and one in the1920s. Two of the four later examples have beads that have clearly beenreused, and this bead is given a place of honor on the object, most notably asthe two rows of beads on the caribou teeth belt (CXR fig. 296, NMNH358255).

Taking second place to these blue beads was a very similar opaque whitebead. These white beads are less frequent in excavations and appear to havebeen valued less (Francis I987a:4—5, 11). Only three in the exhibition werecollected in the period 1897 to 1902.

Several other wound beads may also be Chinese, judging from their ap-pearance and the fact that they do not occur at other North American sites.They include large (up to 1.5 centimeters in diameter) translucent blueoblates and elliptical beads, similar beads in amber-colored glass, and smallerblue oblates made in a series of four and later cut apart into singles and dou-blets. These were collected in the 1840s through the 1920s. On material col-lected in the late 1800s, however, Chinese-type beads occur only on Siberian

objects, many of which come from areas near China. These include variouscolored beads on a pouch from Kamchatka (CXR fig. 423, AMNH 70-1951)and unusual melon and vase-melon beads on a Koryak hairband (CXR fig.299, AMNH 70-3590)

Most of the beads in the exhibition are not Chinese but European in ori-gin. Many European countries have had glass bead industries for the past fewhundred years, but they have been insignificant except for those of Venice,Italy, and Jablonec, Bohemia.

The Russians have made glass beads as well. The polymath M. V.Lomonosov (1711—65) set up a bead factory at Ust' Ruditskii in 1753. De-spite high hopes and ample equipment, it stopped bead production within acouple of years and began making mosaic tiles (Menshutkin 1952:96—99). Inthe 1880s beads were being made around Moscow. Although they were saidto have been locally consumed, the output for 1881—162,000 pounds(73,636 kilograms)—suggests at least some sales outside the immediatevicinity (Anonymous 1885). The beads on a Chukchi necklace collected in1902 (CXR fig. 325, AMNH 70-7435) were made in series and later cutapart, a method used in Bukhara (Uzbekistan) before 1917 (Francis 1979a:7-9).

The main source for the beads in the "Crossroads" collection was proba-bly Venice. Most of these beads were made by the drawing method in which atube of glass is pulled or drawn out and then cut into small segments, whichare heated to round them off. The most common product of this technique isthe small (2—4 millimeters in diameter) monochrome drawn "seed" bead, thefoundation of the Venetian industry. These beads are found on a great manypieces in the exhibition, as well as in the earliest Russian contact sites thathave been excavated.

Another Venetian drawn bead is a long, black hexagonal tube, known asa "macca" bead in the trade. The process for making this type was invented byLorenzo Graziati in i860 (Carroll 1917:20). Another group of Venetianbeads, called "cornaline d'Allepo," have a core of one color of glass and a redexterior. The earliest of these have translucent green (and less often blue,brown, or clear) cores with opaque brownish red exteriors, sometimes coatedwith a thin clear layer. By about 1830 gold was used to make the outer coattranslucent red and the inner layer was usually opaque white. Toward the endof the nineteenth century, the translucent red was being colored with seleni-um (Francis 1988:26).

288 PETER FRANCIS, JR.

The other great European beadmaker was Bohemia. Its most popularproduct in Alaska and Siberia was a drawn bead of hexagonal section that hadits 12 corners ground down. These cornerless hexagonals come in two styles: alarge (about i centimeter in diameter) monochrome with roughly cut endsand a smaller type with a white inner layer and nicely finished ends (Francis1988:39-40).

Two ornaments, a button clasp on a Chukchi bracelet (CXR fig. 325,AMNH 70-7455) and a blue bead on a necklace from Nunivak (CXR fig.324, NMNH 340331), were made by the process named after the Prosserbrothers, who invented a technique for making small glass objects throughthe application of pressure. The method, introduced in the 1840s, has beenused in several European countries, but Bohemia is usually considered to havebeen the major producer (Francis 1988:49).

A final Bohemian bead is on a pair of Bering Sea Eskimo earrings (CXRfig. 299, NMNH 340332). It is a translucent red cornerless pentagonal mold-ed bead with the flash (the extra material squeezed out at a seam) poorlyground off. Molding, often combined with grinding, was a Bohemian spe-cialty.

IMPORTATION AND TRADE

Beads came to the North Pacific region by many means, some of which can bedocumented historically. The Russians dominated trade on the Siberian side,where many individuals and companies competed against each other for trade(Gibson 1987:39). The records of these enterprises have not even begun to beexplored for information on the bead trade. The Russians also opened thebead trade on the Alaska side, and beads entering the trade from 1741 untilabout 1810 were probably handled by them.

At first, beads and other goods were brought overland through Siberia.Later, round-the-world voyages leaving from St. Petersburg supplemented theoverland trade. Both routes were long and arduous, and travel along them wasexpensive. Much of the overland route depended on trade with China at Ki-akhta, on the Russian-Mongolian border, where the Russians exchanged fursfor Chinese products, including beads. At times, the Chinese arbitrarilyclosed the border, most notably between 1785 and 1792. In this period, G. I.Shelikhov, the founder of the Russian American Company, laid plans to dobusiness directly with Macau, a Portuguese enclave in southern China near

Hong Kong, but this does not seem to have borne fruit (Okun' 1951:34;Tikhmenev 1979:20).

Alternatives were necessary. Soon after the estabhshment of the RussianAmerican Company in 1799, the governor of the Alaskan colony, A. A. Bara-nov, privately contracted with Yankee (mostly Bostonian) skippers to supplythe colony. They brought Chinese and European goods and took Alaskan fursto sell in China. The first ship was scheduled to arrive in Sitka in 1807, butwas shipwrecked before it finished its voyage (Khlebnikov 1973:61—64). Af-ter that, such contacts were frequent.

More official contacts began in 1810 when J. J. Astor's American FurCompany was allowed to trade with Alaska (Khlebnikov 1973:77—78). In1839 the Hudson's Bay Company was allowed to enter the trade (Gibson1976:157, 201). These contacts became increasingly important. Between1797 and 1820 the sale of furs to China via American ships amounted to 22.3percent of the total trade through Kiakhta (computed from Tikhmenev1978:153, 163). From 1867, of course, trade was almost entirely in Americanhands.

These multiple sources for Alaskan trade beads have led to some confu-sion. Much of the bead literature concerning Alaska (Jenkins 1972, 1975;Morgan 1973; Mille 1975) has been based on private collections. One com-mon point of confusion is that many collectors call the cornerless hexagonalbead "the Russian bead." These beads are certainly not Russian made, and theevidence from the material in this exhibition suggests that the Russians rarelyeven handled them. Of the 12 occurrences in this exhibition, only 2 are fromSiberia, both from the early twentieth century. Although Woodward saidthese beads were part of the stock of the Russian American Company in Sitka(1967), the list of goods sold to Hutchinson and Hurth in 1867 included only"glass beads" and "Indian glass beads" (Oswalt 1980:154). Neither phraseseems to describe these beads, believed to have been called "cut beads" whenthe American Fur Company sold them for the rather steep price of 37V20 perdozen (Good 1983:165).

NAMES OF THE BEADS

The Russian literature uses primarily two words for beads. One is bisery (sin-gular biser), which means "bead" in Russian and was used mostly for smalldrawn beads. The other is korol'ki (singular korolek), derived from the word for

290

PETER FRANCIS, JR.

coral {koralt) and used mostly for larger beads (see Ramsay 1981:110).

Three other words are also used for beads: pearl, enamel, and garnet. Thefirst is widely used for bead in many languages (such as German and French),although on one occasion Davydov applied it to dentalium shell (1977:149)."Enamel" was once commonly employed as a synonym for glass.

The term "garnet" was frequently used by Carl Merck, a scion of thepharmaceutical family and a member of the Billings expedition of the early1790s. He sometimes qualified the term and spoke of "melted garnets" or"glass garnets." Although he used the words "bead" and "coral" as well, he ap-pears to have distinguished between all three terms: "The favored items forwhich they bartered their own merchandise were blue, and more seldomwhite glass garnets. Less eagerly they sought corals of the same color. Theywell knew how to select corals of equal value" (Merck 1980:123). Beads madeof natural garnets are translucent, whereas corals are not; moreover, garnetsare often faceted. No faceted translucent glass beads are found at the earlyRussian contact sites (Francis 1987a), but beads of this description are foundin the "Crossroads of Continents" exhibition. They are made of translucentred or blue glass and have been wound and then paddled into crude square bi-cones. Only the white (probably clear) garnets mentioned by Merck are not inthe collection. Similar beads were only rarely found at American sites from1700 to 1890 (Brain 1979:111, type WIIA7).

THE MECHANICS OF THE BEAD TRADE

A recent survey of the early exploration literature in the Americas has revealedthat beads were transferred from the Europeans to the natives by severalmeans. In the earliest contacts, beads were among the gifts used to makefriends and get around the timidity of the natives. Later, gifts were given onlyas marks of esteem, and bartering became very common, with beads becom-ing a quasi currency (Francis 1986a:33-36).

A similar pattern can be seen in the Alaskan context. Vitus Bering musthave anticipated considerable use for beads. When S. Glotov and J. Malevin-skoy retrieved the remains of the St. Peter from Bering Island 20 years afterthe ship's fatal wreck, they found "several thousand beads" (Coxe 1780:107).Like the explorers who left beads in an abandoned hut on Kayak Island in1741, Jan Ribault left beads by an abandoned campfire along the South Car-

olina coast in 1582, "for to hang them at their ears and neck(s), and to givethem to their wives and children" (Hakiuyt 1582:02 verso). The passingdown of beads to natives in watercraft who would not board the Europeanships recalls schemes along the Maine coast in 1607 described by John Davis(Burrage 1906:402—3; see also Francis 1986a:34).

By the time the Cook expedition reached Alaska, trading was alreadywell established, and the natives sought beads, tobacco, knives, and pieces ofiron. Samwell at Cook Inlet recorded getting "Darts and other Things," Kingat Unalaska mentioned "fresh & dryed berriesk" and Clerke at English Baysaid, "for a few Beads we might purchase of the Natives almost any Quantityof dryed fish we please, either Salmon or Halibut" (Beaglehole 1967:1121,1337, 1442). Nor were foodstuffs the only thing for sale. Edger remarked thatat English Bay some men went to a nearby bay where "the Women are pleas-ingly fair & kind in all respects, granting you favours very freely for a hand ofTobacco or a half a Dozen Beads" (Beaglehole 1967:1351).

The Cook expedition also found an internal network of trade among thenatives. The English reached Prince William Sound before the Russians, butthe popular light blue wound beads were already there, no doubt as a result ofregional exchange.

Various motives lay behind the trade between Europeans and natives.The 1788 voyage of S. G. Izmailov and D. I. Bocharov bartered beads for fur,a boy to serve as an interpreter, and an old anchor (Shelikhov 1981:84, 96,102); on the other side, the beads were sought by a man who wanted some forhis wife (Beaglehole 1967:85).

The natives were better traders than the English: "yet our men makevery bad bargains, which is certainly owing to their own faults in spoiling themarket ... for the Natives have Phlegm enough to keep up the price of theirgoods, & we are endued with little patience" (King in Beaglehole 1967:1442). The Russians were better traders and sometimes keen observers. FatherIvan Veniaminov described trade on Unalaska between 1824 and 1834. Theseller chose a young man to go to another native or a visitor and offer goodsfor exchange. The youth would return with the proffered swap, but mighthave to make another trip or so before a bargain was reached. Although hemight be known, the name of the man initiating the trade was never men-tioned (Veniaminov 1984:212).

It seems as though the natives set the demand for goods, at least aftertrading had been established. Glotov and Malevinsky at Kodiak Island in

292

PETER FRANCIS, JR.

1763 noted, "[The natives} did not set the least value upon goods of variouskinds, such as shirts, linen, and nankeen, but demanded glass beads of differ-ent colours, for which they exchanged their skins with pleasure" (Coxe1780:113-14).

In time, demands changed. Very early, the natives looked for pieces ofiron that could be worked into knives (Beaglehole 1967:346). Firearms werequickly appreciated, but the Russians would not trade them. The Americansand British did not mind, however, and thereby gained an advantage over theRussians, much to the annoyance of Baranov (Khlebnikov 1973:28—29). AfterBering introduced tobacco, it, too, came into demand. At Unalaska, tobaccowas preferred to "all other things" (King in Beaglehole 1967:1442), and onthe Billings expedition it was "an article of the greatest necessity amongthem" (Sarychev 1806:38). Another addictive substance that also became pop-ular was alcohol. By 1861 the historian P. A. Tikhmenev (1978:438) wouldsay about Nunivak and Univak: "They buy only manufactured goods that arestrictly necessary for home use. They also buy beads, but their favorite barteris for firearms and alcohol." Even popular taste changed. Tikhmenev(1978:425) said of Bristol Bay: "Beads, formerly much used, are bartered nowonly in small quantities and only red, black, and white ones of large size."

THE USES OF THE BEADS

The uses of beads are legion. They most commonly adorn the human bodybut are also used to decorate other objects. Moreover, they serve many otherfunctions in the sociotechnic and idiotechnic realms of behavior.

Even the uses of beads for personal decoration may stem from many mo-tives. Beads may indicate social status, may mark important life stages, ormay be treated like amulets, talismans, or social markers.

For the most part, information on these secondary uses is unfortunatelylost to us. Although many early explorers of the North Pacific described theapplication of beads in detail, none attempted to discover what the variousbeads meant to the natives. With the passage of time and only the beaded ob-jects left, it is now difficult to say what particular beads or combinations ofthem may have meant. That there were patterns of use is clear from the es-teem accorded certain beads (such as the light opaque blue bead discussed ear-

lier) and from the recurring color combinations, particularly the blue, white,and black combination so common with the small seed beads. This combina-tion was especially popular in Siberia. The exhibition features 11 Siberian ob-jects decorated entirely or largely with it. It is particulary prominent on ob-jects such as the shaman's hat.

Beads were available to decorate nearly any class of objects. One of themost important was clothing—including men's hunting visors and othercaps, belts, coats, jackets, aprons, boots (such as the pair meant for a burial[CXR fig. 341, AMNH 70-2887a,b}), gloves, and fur caps.

Beads were also used in jewelry, especially earrings, but also labrets,bracelets, head bands, braids, and hat ornaments. Beads in necklaces were rareon the Alaska side, at least. The literature shows that they were never worn bythe Aleut (Francis 1987a), except on Kodiak (Merck 1980:103; Saueri8o2:pl. vi). No necklaces in the exhibition were collected before 1901.

In addition, beads decorated objects used for the hunt, such as sealscratchers, lures, fishing boards, and quivers (e.g., CXR fig. 67, FM 14937).Reindeer saddles and saddlebags were decorated with beads. Household ob-jects included wooden boxes, mostly used by the men for their tobacco, pipes,bowls, and pouches. For children, beads decorated cradles and dolls. For ritualor ceremonial purposes, women's and men's dance masks were decorated withbeads, and the exceptional beaded dance headdress (CXR fig. 48, NMNH90453) must have been made for some special ceremony as well. In the realmof the supernatural, the shaman's hat (CXR fig. 333, AMNH 70-387) and theSun Worm charm (CXR fig. 338, AMNH 70-3594) both have a variety ofbeads, but the charm bundle has only two beads, one a plastic imitation ofamber and the other a Bohemian molded glass bead.

Beads could be socially valuable. Sarychev (1806:39) recounted thatBillings had given a woman on Unalaska a large amount of tobacco and beadsbecause she had been most helpful. Upon their return the next year (1791),the expedition learned "that she had become an object of universal envyamong her female country-women, and was esteemed the richest of all inhabi-tants." Billings described a beaded ornament considered precious:

In their ears they have various perforations, in which they wear a multitudeof bead decorations: two or three rows of such beads under the ears. Theyobtain these decorations from the land of Aliaska (the Peninsula), and it is

considered so precious that formerly they used to sell for such a pair of ear-rings a girl or a woman in eternal slavery. (Titova 1980:201).

The prestige of certain beads, which reflected upon their owners, is evidentfrom several pieces in the exhibition. The most striking single piece is thebelt of caribou front teeth from the Bering Sea Eskimo (CXR fig. 296,NMNH 358255), Only one type of bead, the opaque wound blue bead, wasworthy of being put on this belt, which attests to the killing of 363 adult ani-mals. The importance of this piece has long been recognized. When Evansbought it from Ye Olde Curiosity Shop run by J. E. Stanley in Seattle in1938, it had two tags, apparently written by Stanley, which say: (i) "Very finewar trophy of the hunt. Wampum belt. It took 363 caribou to make thisbelt." And (2) "Very finest we have ever had in 20 years. Has old rare bluewampum trading beads. $125." The beads are not wampum, which were shellbeads in circulation in the Northeast, nor is this a wampum belt, but its im-portance was understood, even if its meaning was somewhat confused.

The importance of beads can also be seen in their recycling. The opaqueblue wound bead, which was probably out of circulation by the early nine-teenth century, is found on pieces collected as late as the 1920s. In several cas-es, it has clearly been given a place of honor on the piece (CXR fig. 325,AMNH 70-6620; CXR fig. 296, NMNH 358255). This process is even moreevident in the small drawn seed beads.

The seed beads on the earliest collected objects are similar to those foundin excavations of early Russian contact sites. They are irregular in diameterand length. The blues vary greatly in both hue and diaphanity. The whites arenearly all cased with a clear layer of glass, a bead type popular in Americafrom about 1600 to 1890 (Brain 1979:105).

Later beads are much more uniform; their diameters and lengths arequite regular. The blue beads are a strong, opaque blue, and the whites are nolonger cased in clear glass. This uniformity can be attributed to two inven-tions in Venice in 1867. Carlo Romiti and Viovanni Sola improved the auto-matic tube-cutting machine invented in 1822 by Captain Long (Morazzoni etal. 1953:53-54; Gasparetto 1958:198, n. 48); and Guissepe Zecchin andAgostino Ceresa built a mechanical sorter made of sieves of different sizes(Gasparetto 1958:198). At the same time, glassmakers had been able to im-prove the quality and uniformity of their colors (Francis 1988:20—21).

When older seed beads were reused, they were usually kept separate

from the newer beads. On the Even apron (CXR fig. 270, AMNH 70-5601F),the top one of two beaded panels was cut from another garment and sewed on.On an Even pouch (CXR fig. 34, AMNH 70-5623c), the older white beadsare all at the bottom, while on a Bering Sea Eskimo pipe (CXR fig. 315,NMNH 176304), the older beads are all near the bowl. It may be argued thatreusing a perfectly good beaded panel saves time and energy and that mixingolder with newer beads would disturb the uniformity of the latter. From whatwe know of Siberian and Alaskan traditions, however, it is safe to assume thatthese are examples of the conservation of old objects and their reuse in an hon-ored position.

Beads that may have been accidentally broken in half were also reused.Most large beads attached to objects without being sewn appear to be broken;this is clearly the case with a throwing board (CXR fig. 193, MAE 593-67),two labrets (CXR fig. 283, NMNH 37663 and NMNH 38800), and proba-bly a tobacco box (CXR fig. 321, MAE 956-65a). The conservation of evenbroken beads shows that Siberians and Alaskans had high regard for beads.

THE FINAL TRANSFER OF THE BEADS

The term "transfer" is used here to refer to the act by which beads leave thesystemic or living context to enter the archeological or ethnographic contexts.With respect to beads in archeological assemblages, we try to determinewhether they were transferred through purposeful disposition, disposal, loss,or abandonment. These categories do not apply to ethnographic collections, inwhich it is known when, where, by whom, and from whom a given object wasobtained.

One question that may be explored in regard to ethnographic collectionsis how long a given bead may have been in circulation. This may be estimatedby noting the time between the first known production of a certain bead andthe first ethnographically collected example of it. Several factors may affectthe length of this period, including how long it took for a given new bead tobe introduced into the Alaskan—Siberian trade and the conservatism of the na-tives. At present, we have no way of separating the relative effects of these fac-tors. Indeed, inquiry along these lines is new, and our remarks here are to beconsidered preliminary.

However, if we look at the earliest known date for certain beads or bead-

TABLE 17-1. Time Lags between the Earliest Manufacturing Dates and EarliestCollecting Dates of Beads in the Crossroads of Continent Exhibition

Bead Type

Earliest Date

First Collected

Lag (in years)

1. Mandrel pressed

1820

1901

81

2. Cornerless hexagonals

1819

1884

65

3. New cornaline d'AUepo

1830

1884

54

4. Prosser beads

1840

1901

61

5. Macca beads

1860

1884

24

6. New seed beads

1867

1884

17

7. Selenium red glass

1880(?)

1884

4

making processes and compare it to the first date at which they were collectedin the North Pacific region, we may estimate the length of time the bead wasin circulation (table 17-1). Seven bead types may be used in this analysis be-cause of their known dates of introduction into the worldwide bead market:

1. Beads with conical holes and slightly broken entrances around thesmaller aperture, sometimes called "mandrel pressed" beads. They weremade in Bohemia (Francis 1988:38-39). Earliest date, 1820; first collect-ed, 1901; time lag, 81 years.

2. Cornerless hexagonals, made by drawing hexagonal tubes and grindingoff the 12 corners, mostly Bohemian. First known, before 1820; first col-lected, 1884; time lag, about 65 years.

3. Translucent red on opaque white cornaline d'AUepo beads, Venetian inorigin (Francis 1988:26). First known, 1830; first collected, 1884; timelag, 54 years.

4. Prosser beads, made by the process patented by Richard and ThomasProsser in the United Kingdom and the United States in 1840 and 1841,respectively, and improved by Jean-Felix Bapterosses over the next fewdecades (Francis 1988:49). First known, 1840; first collected, 1901; timelag, 61 years.

5. Macca beads, drawn beads with hexagonal sections, invented in Veniceby Lorenzo Graziati (Carroll 1917:20). First known, i860; first collected1884; time lag, 24 years.

6. Blue and white seed beads of uniform size and color. First known,about 1867; first collected, 1884; time lag, 17 years.

7. Selenium was first widely used to make translucent red glass in placeof gold in Venice (Francis 1988:26). First used about 1880; first collect-ed, 1884; time lag, 4 years.

The average time lag in these cases is 43.5 years, which seems a signifi-cant amount of time. Note, however, that there is a considerable difference inthe time lags between the first four cases and the last three.

Beads made before 1840 took on average 65 years to first enter ethno-graphic collections, while those made after i860 took only 15 years. This con-siderable difference calls for some explanation. Better transportation, perhapslinked to the purchase of Alaska by the United States, may account for someof this difference. As we have already seen, however, by i860 there was amarked change in the demands for beads by the natives, who no longer heldbeads in such high esteem as before and no longer demanded the traditionallyfavored beads. Thus, the demands of an increasingly disintegrating native so-ciety must have played an important role in this change.

CONCLUSION

As already mentioned, the study of a single collection or assemblage of beadsrarely answers all of the questions we may have concerning beads. However, aparticularly interesting question that the "Crossroads of Continents" exhibi-tion made it possible to investigate concerns the dynamics of the bead tradebetween two alien cultures (Europe and Siberia—Alaska). Whereas evidence ofthe bead trade in the early years of European penetration into the Americas(Francis 1986a) is haphazard and scattered, the Alaska—Siberia region providesalmost a "laboratory" situation in which to pursue this question. This regionwas one of the last to be explored by Europeans, and by then literacy wasmuch more widespread in Europe than it had been in the days of Columbus.One need only compare the evidence available from the Cook or Billings ex-

298 PETER FRANCIS, JR.

pedition with that available form Drake, de Soto, or Cortez to see the differ-ence. Moreover, the region, controlled by two of the world's most powerfulnations, has been treated to significant archeological, ethnographic, and his-torical studies.

The beads in the region indicate that the pattern of trade was similar tothat seen in the rest of the Americas. The first explorer, Vitus Bering, waswell stocked with beads, as was Columbus 250 years before, having had expe-rience in the West African trade. Early contacts included beads given away astokens of friendship, and instances in which beads were left in an abandonedhut and handed down into boats recall scenes along the Atlantic coats muchearlier. Increasingly, beads were used for simple barter and later assumed therole of a quasi currency. As older beads became scarce or devalued, the Euro-peans introduced new types.

While the broad outlines of the bead trade were similar in all parts ofAmerica, the details differed significantly. Although the early explorers inmuch of the Americas treated beads in a condescending manner, calling them"toys," "trifles," and even "trash," the Russians, with centuries of trading ex-perience behind them, were more practical-minded. On the other hand, theRussians, like their counterparts elsewhere, did not introduce especially fineor expensive beads; there has not, for example, been a single example of achevron bead found in any of the material considered here.

The attitudes of the natives can only be discerned from the artifacts andthe Russians' secondhand reporting to guide us. That glass beads were highlyprized is clear; they quickly replaced those made of traditional natural materi-als. The high rate of broken beads, compared with lost or abandoned ones,suggests the heavy curating of valued articles. Their high value is also attestedby the formation of internal bead networks run by the natives themselves.Such networks also grew up elsewhere: Merriwether Lewis discussed them inthe Columbia River Valley and they are known in Africa. But no known casesof such internal trade networks are as extensive or reported as early as the oneCook found along the Alaskan coast.

Another point to note is that beads suffered a steady and rather steep fallfrom grace in the lives of the natives. When beads first reached the region,they became extremely valuable—a few strands of what were probably seedbeads made into a pair of earrings was enough to buy a woman on Unalaska.Although this ornament was devalued by the 1780s, the large gift of beadsfrom Billings to a native woman made her very wealthy. Members of both the

Beads 299

Cook and Billings expeditions made liberal use of beads for bartering, butthey also found an increasing demand for iron, tobacco, and later for alcoholand arms.

By the 1860s, the historian Tikhmenev noted less demand for beads, butat the same time a demand for a greater variety of beads. From this period on,we see a much greater range of beads in use among the artifacts gathered inthe "Crossroads of Continents" exhibition.

The changes in bead styles and their acceptance is a significant phenom-enon. Many factors must have been involved, beginning with changes in thepeople supplying beads. From 1740 to 1810, the trade in the region was aRussian monopoly. From 1811 to 1839, Americans shared in the trade, andfrom 1839 to 1867, the British joined in as well. After 1867, Americansdominated in Alaska, while Russians continued to control the trade inSiberia. When supply begins to exceed demand for the traditional (often thefirst-introduced) beads, suppliers often try to introduce new beads to renewdemand. This appears to have been the role of the popular cornerless hexago-nals, which were introduced to the area late in Russian times or early in theAmerican period.

Although changes in the supply side must not be ignored, changes inthe attitudes of the customers were also important. As long as the Eskimo,Aleut, and Siberians remained conservative in their outlook, their selection oftraditional beads was not likely to change, nor did it. But a century of contactwith the often harsh white man, the increased addiction to alcohol and tobac-co, and the loss of their freedom and land naturally took their toll.

The decline in traditional native culture is a well-documented fact. Thehypothesis I wish to introduce here is that this decline may be reflected in thebead assemblage. Disdain for traditional beads and a greater willingness touse new and novel beads results in a greater variety of beads and a muchshorter time lag between the introduction of a new type and its acceptance.

NOTES

I. "CXR" refers to the catalogue, Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia andAlaska (Fitzhugh and Crowell 1988). It is followed by the museum catalogue number;NMNH = National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution; MAE =Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, St. Petersburg; AMNH = American Mu-seum of Natural History, New York; and FM = Field Museum, Chicago.

300

PETER FRANCIS, JR.

REFERENCESAnonymous

1885 Report on the Russian Glass Industry for 1881. In Pottery and Glass-ware Reporter.

Bancroft, Hubert Howe

1886 History of Alaska ij^o-i 883. The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft. Vol.33. San Francisco: A. L. Bancroft.

Beaglehole, J. C. (ed.)

1967 The Journal of Captain James Cook on His Voyage of Discovery. Vol. 3, pt.2. Hakluyt Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brain, Jeffrey P.

1979 Tunica Treasure. Cambridge, Mass.: Peabody Museum, HarvardUniversity.

Burrage, Henry S. (ed.)

1906 Early English and French Voyages, Chiefly from Hakluyt, i ^^4—1608:Original Narratives of Early American History. New York: CharlesScribner's Sons.

Carroll, B. Harvey, Jr.

1917 Bead Making at Murano and Venice. General Records of the Depart-ment of State (RG 59), State Decimal File 1910-1919, File No.165.184/3 (165.184.2). Washington, D.C.

Chu, Arthur, and Grace Chu

1973 Oriental Antiques and Collectibles: A Guide. New York: Crown.

Clark, Donald W.

1985 Archaeological Test at the Russian Three Saints Bay Colony, Alaska.Historical Archaeology 19(2): 114-21.

Coxe, William

1780 The Russian Discoveries between Asia and America. Reprinted. March ofAmerica Facsimile Series 40, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor,Mich., 1966.

Davydov, G. I.

1977 Two Voyages to Russian America 1802-180-/. Translated by Colin Bearne.Edited by Richard A. Pierce. Materials for the Study of Alaskan His-tory 10. Kingston, Ont.: Limestone Press.

de Laguna, Frederica

1947 The Prehistory of Northern North America as Seen from the Yukon. Memoirs

of the Society for American Archaeology 3. Menasha, Wis.1956 Chugach Prehistory: The Archaeology of Prince William Sound, Alaska.

Seattle: University of Washington Press.1972 Under Mount Saint Elias: The History and Culture of the Yakutat Tlingit.

Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology 7, pt. i. Washington,

D.C.

Francis, Peter, Jr.

1979a Third World Beadmakers. World of Beads Monograph Series (WBMS) 3.

Lake Placid, N.Y.: Lapis Route Books.1979b The Czech Bead Story. WBMS 2. Lake Placid, N.Y.: Lapis Route Books.

1982 Indian Agate Beads. WBMS 6. Lake Placid, N.Y.: Lapis Route Books.

1983 Some Thoughts on Glass Beadmaking. In Proceedings of the 1^82 GlassTrade Bead Conference. Charles F. Hayes, ed., pp. 193—202. ResearchRecords 16. Rochester, N.Y.: Rochester Museum and Science Center.

1986a Beads and the Discovery of the New World. Occasional Papers of the Cen-ter for Bead Research (OPCBR) 3. Lake Placid, N.Y: Lapis RouteBooks.

1986b Chinese Glass Beads: A Review of the Evidence. OPCBR 2. Lake Placid,N.Y: Lapis Route Books.

1987a Report on the Beads from Reese Bay, Unalaska Island, Alaska. Contri-butions of the Center for Bead Research i. Lake Placid, N.Y.

1987b Bead and Adornment Index to the National Geographic 1971—1985.Center for Bead Research, computer file.

1988 The Glass Trade Beads of Europe: Their Manufacture, Their History, andTheir Identification. WBMS 8. Lake Placid, N.Y: Lapis Route Books.

Gasparetto, Astone

1958 // Vetro di Murano. Venice: Neri Pozza.

Gibson, James R.

1976 Imperial Russia in Frontier America: The Changing Geography of Supply ofRussian America, 1J84—186-/. New York: Oxford University Press.

1987 Russian Expansion in Siberia and America: Critical Contrasts. In

Russia's American Colony. S. Frederick Starr, ed., pp. 32—40. Durham,N.C.: Duke University Press.

Golder, F. A.

1922 Bering's Voyage: An Account of the Efforts of the Russians to Determine the

Relation of Asia and America. Vol. i. The Log Books and Official Reports ofthe First and Second Expeditions 172^—1 -j^o and 1733—1742. AmericanGeographical Society Research Series No. i. New York.

Good, Mary Elizabeth

1983 A Comparison of Glass Beads from Upper Creek Indian Towns in theSoutheast and in Oklahoma. Proceedings of the 1(^82 Glass Trade BeadConference. Charles F. Hayes, ed., pp. 159—66. Research Records 16.Rochester, N.Y.: Rochester Museum and Science Center.

Hakluyt, Richard

1582 Divers Voyages Touching the Discouerie of America. Reprint. March ofAmerica Facsimilie Series 14, University Microfilms, Ann Arbor,Mich., 1966.

Jenkins, Michael

1972 Trade Beads in Alaska. Alaska Journal 2(3):3i—39.1975 Glass Trade Beads in Alaska. BeadJournal 2(i):23—26.

Khlebnikov, K. T.

1973 Baranov: Chief Manager of the Russian Colonies in America. Translated byColin Bearne. Edited by Richard A. Pierce. Materials for the Study ofAlaska History 3. Kingston, Ont.: Limestone Press.

Lewis, Merriwether

1814 History of the Expedition under the Command of Captains Lewis and Clark.Reprint. March of America Facsimilie Series 56, University Micro-films, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1966.

Liu, Robert

1975 Chinese Glass Beads and Ornaments. BeadJournal 1(3): 13—28.

Menshutkin, B. N.

1952 Russia's Lomonosov. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Merck, Carl Heinrich

1980 Siberia and Northwestern America IJ88—1-/92: The Journal of Carl

Heinrich Merck, Naturalist with the Russian Scientific Expedition Led byCaptains Joseph Billings and Gavriil Sarychev. Translated by FritzJaensch. Edited by Richard A. Pierce. Materials for the Study ofAlaskan History 17. Kingston, Ont.: Limestone Press.

MiUe, Polly

1975 An Historical Explanation of Alaskan Trade Beads. BeadJournal

2(2):20-24.

Morgan, Lael

1973 Trade Beads: Alaska's Native Heirlooms. Alaska Journal 3(4):217-25.

Morazzoni, Giusseppe, and Michelangelo Paskupo

1953 Le Conterie Venziane. Venice: Societe Veneziana Conteriee Cristalerie.

Okun', S. B.

1951 The Russian-American Company. Translated by Carls Ginsberg. Editedby B. D. Grekov. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Oswalt, Wendell H.

1980 Kolmakovskiy Redoubt: The Ethnoarchaeology of a Russian Fort in Alaska.Monumenta Archaeologia 8. Los Angeles: University of CaliforniaInstitute of Archaeology.

Porter, Kenneth Wiggins

1931 John Jacob Astor: Businessman. 2 vols. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Uni-versity Press.

Ramsay, Marina

1981 See Shelikov.

Ross, Lester

1975 Sizing Systems for Beads. BeadJournal 1(3):3—4.

Rowand, Alexander

n.d. Notes of a Journey in Russian America and Siberia during the Years 1841

and 1842. Pamphlet, privately printed.

304 PETER FRANCIS, JR.

Sarychev, Gavriil Andreyevich

1806 Account of a Voyage of Discovery to the North-East of Siberia, the FrozenOcean, and the North-East Sea. Vol. 2. London: Richard Phillips.

Sauer, Martin

1802 An Account of a Geographical and Astronomical Expedition to the NorthernParts of Russia. . . . London: T. Cadell Jun and W. Davis.

Shelikhov, Grigorii L

1981 A Voyage to America ij8^—ij86. Translated by Marina Ramsay. Editedby Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History 19. Kingston, Ont.: LimestonePress.

Sorenson, Cloyd

1971 The Enduring Intrigue of the Glass Trade Beads. Arizona Highways47(7): 10-37.

Tikhmenev, P. A.

1978 A History of the Russian-American Company. Translated and edited byRichard A. Pierce and Alton S. Donnelly. Seattle: University of Wash-ington Press.

1979 A History of the Russian-American Company. Vol. 2. Documents. Translatedby Dimitri Krenov. Edited by Richard A. Pierce and Alton S. Donnel-ly. Materials for the Study of Alaska History 13. Kingston, Ont.:Limestone Press.

Titova, Z. D.

1980 Voyage of Mr. Billings from Okhtotsk to Kamchatka. ... In Siberiaand Northwestern America ij88—ijc}2. Fritz Jaensch, trans., pp.199-210. Materials for the Study of Alaska History 17. Kingston,Ont.: Limestone Press.

Townsend, Joan B., and Sam-Joe Townsend

1961 Archaeological Investigations at Pedro Bay, Alaska. AnthropologicalPapers of the University of Alaska io(i):25-58.

Van der Sleen, W. G. N.

1967 Handbook on Beads. Reprint. York, Pa.: Liberty Cap Books.

Beads 305

Veniaminov, Ivan

1984 Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District. Translated by Lydia T.

Black and R. H. Geoghegan. Edited by Richard A. Pierce. AlaskaHistory 27. Kingston, Ont.: Limestone Press.

Woodward, Arthur

1967 Indian Trade Goods. Portland, Oreg.: Oregon Archaeological Society.

Interactions: Trade, War,and Peace

18

Interethnic Ties in Far§ Northeastern Siberia

il'ia s. gurvich

TRADITIONAL INTERETHNIC RELATIONS provide important clues tothe character of linguistic and ethnic contacts in Far Northeastern Asia beforethat area became part of the Russian state. At the time of the first Russiancontact, Chukotka, Kamchatka, and the adjacent Okhotsk coast and Yakutiawere a vast territory populated by diverse ethnic communities. According to amap of the distribution of ethnic groups, tribes, and peoples of Siberia in theseventeenth century prepared by B. O. Dolgikh (i960), a prominent specialiston Siberia, the continental area from the lower Lena river to the Anadyr Basinwas occupied by Yukaghir tribes; the inner part of Chukotka by ReindeerChukchi; the Arctic and Pacific coasts of Chukotka by Maritime and ReindeerChukchi and Asiatic Eskimo; the inner areas of the northern and middle partsof Kamchatka by Reindeer Koryak; the eastern and western coasts of Kam-chatka and the Okhotsk sea coast up to Okhotsk city by Maritime Koryak;and the continental areas adjoining them by Lamuts (now called Even). Thepopulation of the Northeast was distinctive not only linguistically but also inits method of subsistence, material and spiritual culture, and way of life.

It was probably long before the arrival of the first Russians that the basiceconomic-cultural types had taken shape in this territory. Sedentary popula-

309

tions of the Chukchi, Bering, and Okhotsk sea coasts—that is, the ReindeerChukchi, Koryak, and Eskimo—had learned to subsist on walrus, seals, andwhales; nomadic Chukchi and Koryak reindeer-breeders relied on their do-mesticated reindeer; and the Yukaghir hunters and fishermen hunted wildreindeer as they moved from forest to tundra and fished. In fact, each ethniccommunity was adapted to a specific ecological niche that enabled it to sur-vive in the harsh environment of northeastern Siberia (Krupnik 1988:183—

91).

We may wonder then how different forms of intertribal and interethniccommunication developed and how ties between these ethnic communitiesbecame established under those conditions. Further, what factors causedgroups to move beyond the boundaries of their ecological niches? This prob-lem is central to our understanding of the character of the ancient ethnicprocesses and relationships, not only at the margins of Asia but also in thenorthwestern regions of North America. The ethnographical literature, espe-cially the recently published documents of the geographical expeditions tonortheastern Asia in the first half of the eighteenth century, throw some lighton these questions (Anonymous 1978; Lindenau 1983).

Documents from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries as well asmore recent records indicate that four forms of interethnic relationships wereestablished in the area: (i) economy-oriented expeditions into the territoriesof neighbors, (2) traditional and semiregular exchanges with neighbors, (3)mute exchange and fairs, and (4) military expeditions, internecine disputes,and slavery.

ECONOMY-ORIENTED EXPEDITIONS

To overcome the narrowness of mastered ecological niches, people often hunt-ed, fished, and organized other economy-oriented expeditions into the territo-ries of their neighbors. Because of the climatic conditions, the inhabitants ofeach of the northeastern ecological niches and ethnographical regions fre-quently experienced shortages of some types of food and materials that forcedthem to travel beyond the boundaries of their habitat from time to time.

The coastal inhabitants of Northeastern Asia occasionally undertook ex-peditions to procure wood and hunt reindeer at water crossings. Nomadic

people, in their turn, frequently came to the coast to hunt sea mammals.However, these expeditions took part of the population away from importantactivities, particularly its strong young people, who were needed to protectthe party from the owners of the land they planned to enter. According to oneof the members of the Second Kamchatka Expedition, la. I. Lindenau, theChukchi Sea Chukchi planned their expeditions carefully and traveled far tothe south:

And in summertime they go some 50 miles or more by water from the veryNose [Cape Dezhnev} to the mouth of the Anadyr River and further for fish-ing and reindeer hunting. Every baidara (walrus-skin boat) holds 15 to 20people or more, and they go in such crowds so as not to let others hunt orfish." (Lindenau 1983:163)

In 1660 a member of the Russian military, Kurbat Ivanov, observed the resultof such hunting parties. In one of the settlements near Crest (Cross) Bay, hisCossacks found 2,000 grey geese cached in one storage hut, and nearly 100Russian pounds of reindeer flesh in another (Anonymous 1952:269—70).^

In the course of these expeditions, participants came into contact withneighbors speaking different languages and became acquainted with their dif-ferent conditions of life. Such hunting or fishing experiences or military en-counters inevitably led to economic and cultural borrowing. Memories of ex-peditions of this type are still retained by some of the native population ofChukotka and Kamchatka. Expeditions to procure wood for sleds, walrus-skincanoe frames, and iarangas (skin tents) continued until recently—at least un-til the 1930s, when the kolkhozes (collective farms) were organized in the re-gion. According to the stories I have collected among the Chaun Chukchi,when these expeditions returned safely to their settlements, thanksgiving cel-ebrations were arranged and the wood collected was smeared with the bloodof sacrificed reindeer to incorporate it in the families' property.

These hunting parties are reflected in the remarkable ancient Chukotkapetroglyphs and rock paintings at Pegtymel River, which are thought to dateto the middle of the first millennium A.D. and later (Dikov 1971 and chapter5 of this volume). Scenes with people hunting reindeer at water crossingsfrom kayaks and walrus-skin canoes, reindeer braying and dancing, runninghuman figures, marine pinnipeds, and other forms of life are depicted on therocks.

TRADITIONAL SEMIREGULAR EXCHANGESWITH NEIGHBORS

At times, sedentary coastal-dwellers and nomadic northeastern Siberiansremedied shortages of food and materials through trade and exchange. AsWaldemar Bogoras noted, exchange relations between Reindeer Chukchi andsedentary Maritime Chukchi and Eskimo had developed long before the ar-rival of the Russians (Bogoraz 1934:79). Many documents describe such ex-changes for the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. For instance, one Cos-sack who had been imprisoned by the Reindeer Chukchi wrote in his report:"The Reindeer Chukchi acquire their seal and sea-mammals from the Chukchiresiding at the sea" (Anonymous 1936:182). Natural exchanges between theReindeer and Maritime Chukchi, and between the Reindeer and MaritimeKoryak took place until the 1930s.

More details about exchanges between Coastal and Reindeer Chukchiare found in the writings of C. H. Merck, a participant of the Billings expedi-tion:

Although the Reindeer Chukchi provide sedentary (Maritime) Chukchiwith the latter's supply of reindeer meat slaughtered especially for them, itis, properly speaking, not an exchange but rather a kind of compensation attheir own discretion. This is possibly because Reindeer Chukchi alwaysmaintain economic relations with those sedentary Chukchi from whom theyreceive year after year everything they need and whom therefore they call"Aivan"—our people. (Titova 1978:98)

Participants of the Second Kamchatka Expedition reported finding relativelyregular exchange relations in the mid-eighteenth century between sedentaryOkhotsk Koryak and Even (called Lamut then) and between nomadic Rein-deer Koryak and Russians. The Even and Russians supplied copper pots,knives, bows and arrows, and sewing needles to the coastal inhabitants in ex-change for whale fins, cod liver oil, blubber oil, seal flesh, and seal-skin belts.The sedentary Koryak also needed reindeer skins, fiir coats, and wood formaking sleds.

It is interesting that the Koryak perceived this trade as gift exchange. Inthe words of Lindenau (1983) , "in trading, they do not part at once but a yearlater." Exchange was usually accompanied by a guest reception. The ReindeerChukchi who came to the Maritime Chukchi for walrus meat were treated as

guests, and the same was true of the coastal people who came to the reindeercamps to obtain venison and reindeer skins. Even so, the nomadic reindeer-breeders considered themselves superior to the sedentary people. Merck ob-served: "Reindeer-breeders do not marry the daughters of sedentary people be-cause they consider them unworthy of themselves. However, this does notprevent Reindeer Chukchi from sleeping with the wives of the sedentary peo-ple, and their own wives do not look askance at them for that" (Titova1978:131).

MUTE EXCHANGE AND FAIRS

Inhabitants of Chukotka, Kamchatka, and Alaska also took part in intertribaltrade, that is, exchanges of valuable materials and artifacts held at certain tra-ditionally known places. Thus, during the military expedition of 1731 toChukotka, for example, the Cossacks were shown a "Yukaghir trading place"near the mouth of the Anadyr Pinch, that is, a place where Yukaghir carriedout exchanges with Chukchi and Eskimo people (Anonymous 1936:159).

Bogoras learned that in earlier times in Naukan and Uelen, fairs wereheld outside some settlements on the seashore and reported that "both sidescame to the place of bargaining fully armed and offered their goods to eachother on the points of their spears" (Bogoraz 1934:79). A diary of travels toChukotka in 1791 by Sotnik (Lieutenant of Cossacks) Kobelev provides a de-tailed description of these interethnic exchanges based on personal observa-tions. Some Maritime Chukchi offered Kobelev a chance to take part in a mil-itary trade expedition to the King Island. Having spotted the approachingwalrus-skin umiaks, the islanders put on their armor and met the newcomersholding spears and bows with arrows on the bow strings in readiness. Thenewcomers, some of them also armed, spread out their goods, and the is-landers exchanged their marten parkas and fox, wolf, wolverine, otter, andreindeer skins for iron spears, knives, axes, copper pots, and large and smallbeads brought to them from Alaska. On the whole, however, gift exchanges ofskins and meat took place in a friendly atmosphere through visits and guestreceptions, whereas the so-called mute exchange was a kind of trade with pay-ments in kind between armed, ethnically different groups of people. Valuablegoods were brought to marketing places and then passed from hand to handuntil they reached those groups that needed them.

314 il'ia s. gurvich

MILITARY EXPEDITIONS, INTERNECINE DISPUTES,AND SLAVERY

Hunting expeditions, travel beyond the boundaries of one's own ethnic terri-tory, changes of hunting or fishing grounds when resources became depleted,and misunderstandings between neighboring groups frequently led to mili-tary collisions. This aspect of life of the population of Northeastern Siberia iswell documented by the Russian materials of the seventeenth and eighteenthcenturies.

Chukchi are first mentioned in 1641—42 when they, together with theYukaghir, offered resistance to yasak (tax) collectors on the Alazeia river: "Andwe, your servants, were met on the Alazeia river by many Alazeian people,princelings Nevgocha and Mundita. And together with them, Your Majesty,there were Chukchi men from the tundra with their clans and ulus people,"wrote Ivan Erastov and Fiodor Chukichev (Anonymous 1951:134—35).

In the 167 OS the peaceful relations between the Alazeian Yukaghir andthe Chukchi changed to enmity. In 1678—79 the tax-paying Alazeian Yuk-aghir complained to the governor general of Yakutia that the bellicoseChukchi, who did not pay taxes, killed many of their people, took their wivesand children prisoners, and robbed them of their reindeer (Anonymous1936:239). Blood feuds seem to have played an important role in seven-teenth-century Northeastern Siberia. Military raids provoked retaliatoryblows and caused a shifting and shuffling of the population. Fearing the dan-gers of raids, some groups were obliged to seek the protection of their neigh-bors or the Russian military.

Since the Chukchi and Asiatic Eskimo frequently had to defend them-selves against the predatory raids of the Aleut and the American Eskimo, mil-itary arts were well developed in Northeastern Siberia. As a text from the ear-ly eighteenth century described it, "There is no peace between them, i.e., theEskimo and Chukchi of the Chukchi Sea coast, and the islanders [meant hereare inhabitants of Alaska} often fight each other" (Anonymous 1936: 157).When threatened by military invasions, the Chukotka and Kamchatka peopleorganized large military detachments, which, according to the Cossacks' re-ports, numbered in the hundreds. These figures are probably exaggerated, butit is known that in cases of danger the forces of the reindeer-breeders andsedentary people were united against the expeditions of the Russian military.

The volunteer corps of these ethnic peoples were brave enough to go into

combat against well-armed detachments of the Russian military. In 1730, forexample, the Chukchi people defeated a military expedition headed by Cos-sack Afanasii Shestakov on its way to Kamchatka (Sgibnev 1869:63—65).

During the eighteenth century, hostility between the Chukchi and Ko-ryak increased significantly, and the Chukchi stepped up their raids againstthe Maritime and, more especially, the nomadic Reindeer Koryak. Between1730 and 1740 military Chukchi groups began making regular visits toNorthern Kamchatka. The character of such raids can be assessed by the com-plaints of the Koryak. In 1741 the tax-paying Koryak reported to the Cos-sacks that they had been attacked by Chukchi Sea Chukchi on the TalovkaRiver and had lost 12 men, their women and children were captured, andthey lost five of their reindeer herds. In retaliation, a detachment of 60 Ko-ryak with accompanying Cossacks launched a raid on the Chukotka, but bythat time the captives had managed to escape from the Chukchi on their own(Anonymous 1936). For half a century the Koryak, especially the northerngroups, had to defend themselves against the repeated raids of the Chukchi.According to Russian authorities, during that period the Chukchi capturedsome 240,000 reindeer from the Koryak (Vdovin 1965:61—71). It should benoted that many lives were lost in those raids. Afraid of revenge, the raiderswould try to exterminate all the men and capture the children and women.Among the defeated, it was not only the warriors who were lost; women oftenstabbed their children and then committed suicide.

Billings's records of the Geographical Expedition show that the coastalChukchi undertook devastating military expeditions against the Alaskans totake them into captivity and to obtain valuable furs. In the eighteenth centu-ry the Chukchi exchanged furs for Russian goods such as copper pots, axes,and knives, and the same opportunity was attractive to the inhabitants ofAlaska who, if the desired items could not be obtained through an exchange,organized their own expeditions to Chukotka and were no less cruel to its in-habitants. The hostile relations between the Chukchi and Asiatic Eskimo, onthe one hand, and between the Chukchi and the inhabitants of Alaska, on theother, took a senseless toll of human lives. In 1790, for example, someAlaskans killed all the Chukchi men in three umiaks stranded by a storm.Fearing revenge, those Alaskans were obliged to leave their settlements after-ward (Titova 1978:121).

These military collisions and intermittent periods of peaceful relationshad considerable ethnic consequences: groups were dislocated, many had to

3i6

il'ia s. gurvich

adopt new forms of economy, some became acquainted with different kinds oftools, and there was undoubtedly an ethnic mixing of the population.

According to Merck, one of the aims of the expeditions organized by theMaritime Chukchi to Alaska was to capture slaves. The Reindeer Chukchi ob-tained American women (probably, Eskimo women) from the sedentarycoastal Chukchi for the price of 10—12 female reindeer, the price for childrenbeing even lower. "They use the women for permanent work, beat them a bit,and provide them with worn clothes" (Titova 1978: 121).

These data are confirmed by the Russian military officer P. Popov, whoin 1711 visited the Coast Chukchi and saw there "some ten" Chukchi captiveswith "labrets" (i.e., Eskimo) (Anonymous 1936:156).

Kuznetskii, who was kept prisoner by the Chukchi, met in one of thecoastal settlements "two women and one man who told him among otherthings that they had been taken by those Chukchi prisoners from the BigLand [Alaska]" (Anonymous, 1936:182). The Coast Chukchi often marriedcaptive American women. Married female captives were frequently used as in-termediaries in barter, and some of them probably served as interpreters.

There were also some ransom rules, as Kuznetskii reported:

They, the Yukaghir, came to ransom their wives and children. Those Yuk-aghir were received by Chukchi honestly with no offense at all, and thoseYukaghir ransomed their wives and children from the Chukchi by givingtobacco, copper pots, axes, knives, spears, bows, arrows, and big beads, andransomed all in all nine male and female people. In return the Chukchi pre-sented these Yukaghir with reindeer parkas, white fur of your reindeer,white reindeer leg skins, marten parkas, and red foxes. (Anonymous,1936:183)

In fact, the act of ransom turned into an exchange of gifts and reconciliation.

Captured people served as informants about the life of their countriesand communities, as can be seen from the "Interrogation of a Chukchi maidItteni," dated from 1763 (Anonymous 1936). She was from the "Big Land"(Alaska). During one of their raids, the "labretted" Chukchi had caught herand brought her to Chukotka, where she was in "somebody's" service for twoyears, after which she was sold to a Reindeer Chukchi for two spears and twopieces of white fiir of young reindeer. She lived there for one year, and thenwas brought to the Lower Anadyr River and was offered to Anadyra Shipunovfor two copper pots. Itteni gave a good description of the life of the Alaskans

317

and of the way to her native settlement. Thus prisoners brought bothChukchi and Eskimo people a great deal of information about their neighbors'home life and customs.

CONCLUSION

Data on ethnic contacts at the time of the early arrival of the Russian militaryand fur traders in Northeastern Siberia allow us to extrapolate with some cau-tion into the period before that area became part of the Russian state. The rel-atively narrow ecological niches that were mastered by people in the extremeNortheastern Asia served in themselves to intensify the ethnic processes there,as they forced their inhabitants to go beyond the boundaries of these naturalareas from time to time and to come into contact with the populations ex-ploiting the natural resources of the neighboring areas. The traditional natur-al exchange, in the forms of gifts and return presents at the level of the rein-deer-breeders' camp and maritime settlements, was accompanied by guestreceptions. These contacts not only facilitated the exchange of cultural wealth,but perhaps also helped groups overcome language and ethnic barriers.

Another form of contact known in the Northeast was barter, or the so-called mute exchanges between ethnic communities with different languages.These contacts were not always peaceful. Often they consisted of predatoryraids and armed collisions resulting from blood feuds and various internecinedisputes, and they led to the extermination of a considerable part of the malepopulation and to the capture of women and children and their subsequent as-similation. These prisoners gradually became bilingual and served as interme-diaries in tradition negotiations, and they undoubtedly introduced their owncustoms and cultural values into the life of the camps and settlements of theircaptors.

The various contacts, both peaceful and military, facilitated exchanges incultural values and helped overcome the natural linguistic insulation of sepa-rate ethnic groups. As a result, there emerged some amorphous conglomeratesof kindred cultures and economies, tribes, or ethnic groups that interactedone way or another across the ethnic borders. The Koryak, for example, brokeup into a number of tribal and dialectal groups, who, although not recogniz-ing their common ethnic ties, were easily identifiable from the outside by anumber of common cultural traits. However, each group within that commu-

3i8 il'ia s. gurvich

nity had its own dialectal and cultural-economic traits, its own sense of iden-tity, and its own ethnonym or microethnonym. A special term has been sug-gested in the Soviet ethnographical literature to describe this formation: themeta-ethnolinguistic entity (Bromlei 1983:83). Ethnic and linguistic tiesthus seem to have been an important factor in the ethnic development of thepopulation in Northeastern Asia and in the adjacent areas on the eve of Russ-ian contact.

I. One Russian pound, or pood, was equal to 36 pounds, or 16.38 kilograms.

REFERENCESAnonymous

NOTES

1936

KoloniaVnaia politika tzarizma na Chukotke i Kamchatke (Colonial policyof tzarism in Chukotka and Kamchatka). Leningrad.Otkritiia russkikh zemleprokhodtsev i poliarnykh morekhodov v. XVII v. naSevero-Vostoke Azti (Discoveries of Russian travelers and polar seafarersin the seventeenth century in the North-East of Asia). Moscow.Russkie morekhody v Ledovitom i Tikhom okeanakh. (Russian seafarers inthe Arctic and Pacific Oceans). Moscow and Leningrad.

1951

1952

Bogoraz, W. G.

1934

Chukchi (The Chukchi). Leningrad.

Bromlei, lu. B.1983

Ocherki teorii etnosa (Essay on the theory of ethnos). Moscow.

Dikov N. N.

1971

Naskal'nye zagadki drevnei Chukotki (Petroglify Pegtymelia). (Rock-drawing riddles of Chukotka: the petroglyphs of the Pegtimel River).Moscow.

Dolgikh, B. O.i960

Rodovoi i plemennoi sostav narodov Sibiri v XVIIv (Clan and tribal compo-sition of the peoples of Siberia in the seventeenth century). Moscow:

AN SSSR.

Interethnic Ties in Far Northeastern Siberia

319

Krupnik, I. I.

1988 Economic Pattern in Northeastern Siberia. In Crossroads of Continents:Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. W. W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Lindenau, la. I.

1983 Opisanie narodov Sibiri (pervaia polovina XVIII v.) (Description of thepeoples of Siberia [first half of the eighteenth century]). Magadan.

Sgibnev, A. V.

1869 Istoricheskii ocherk giavneishikh sobitii v kamchatke (Historical ac-, count of the main events in Kamchatka). Morskoi Sbornik 8.

Titova, Z. D. (compiler)

1978 Etnografcheskie materialy severno-vostochnoi geografuheskoi ekspeditsii

(lyS^—ifg^) (Ethnographic material from the North-East Geographi-cal Expedition [i785-1795}). Magadan.

Vdovin, I. S.

1965 Ocherki istorii i etnografi chuckchei (History and Ethnography of theChukchi). Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka.

ANN FIENUP-RIORDAN

IN THE POPULAR LITERATURE OF THE twentieth century, Eskimos ingeneral and Yup'ik Eskimos in particular have often been represented as neverhostile, let alone warlike. This literature—like the stereotype that depicts theresidents of the Arctic as living year-round in snow houses, subsisting on rawmeat, and forever spoiling their children—emphasizes the nonviolent charac-ter of Eskimo social interaction and pays little attention to the violence andwarfare that are a very real part of Eskimo history and tradition. Thus, a com-mon perception is that the Yup'ik Eskimos of western Alaska carefully avoiddirect confrontation and the expression of hostility in interpersonal relations.Nevertheless, homicide, the publicly condoned execution of dangerous indi-viduals, and warfare appear to have been regular aspects of eighteenth-centuryintra- and intergroup relations. As has been suggested for the Central Eski-mos (Eckert and Newmark 1980), as well as for the Eskimos of north Alaska iand Siberia (Burch 1974), interpersonal tranquility was likely coupled withan extremely high homicide rate.

The American notion that Eskimos are "naturally" peaceful, in contrastto our warring selves, can be traced in part to the character of our encounterswith them. Unlike our confrontations with American Indians, these encoun-

321

322

ANN FIENUP-RIORDAN

ters were generally peaceful from a nonnative's point of view. Although theinitial encounters with Eskimos were often less than friendly, hostility andsuspicion typically gave way to hospitality and trade. In western Alaska, Eski-mos killed only a handful of nonnatives during the nineteenth century(Fienup-Riordan I988b:20—31). Since nonnatives did not seek to dispossessthem of their lands or livelihood through violent means, Eskimos did not reactviolently to them. Whereas the European—Indian encounter had provoked war-fare and produced the image of a warlike red man, the nonnative encounterwith Eskimos in Western Alaska brought an end to the violent interregionalstruggles that had characterized the region before the arrival of outsiders.

Initial contacts with Yup'ik Eskimos in the nineteenth century suggest-ed that the inhabitants of western Alaska were a fairly docile people. At thesame time, a handful of observers, including Zagoskin and Nelson, describedthe bloody wars that predated the arrival of the Russians (Michael 1967:218;Nelson 1899:264, 328). But because interpersonal relations between miners,trappers, traders, missionaries, and government personnel were by and largenonviolent, and because the Yup'ik Eskimos preferred not to argue or resistopenly even when they opposed some action, reports on Eskimos tended todepict them as passive to the point of lethargy and to dismiss accounts of tra-ditional warfare as fantastic mythology. People who were closely acquaintedwith them knew otherwise but did not always choose to advertise theirknowledge. For example, the nineteenth-century Moravian missionary JohnKilbuck recorded what are perhaps the most detailed ethnohistoric accountsof the bloody battles fought during the period of bow-and-arrow wars; howev-er, he never published them. Instead he put them in a breadbox in a Kansasvault for safekeeping, while in his published accounts he emphasized the la-tent Christian character of his Eskimo converts.

As in the case of other hunting societies, the relatively small scale of Es-kimo society may also have contributed to the tendency to underestimate orignore the occurrence of warfare and violence. Whites who encountered nastynatives labeled them oddballs or evil shamans and dismissed their aggressiveactions as exceptions to the rule of nonviolence. For example, Moravian mis-sionaries attributed the killing of a native Moravian helper by his fellow vil-lagers to an "epidemic of insanity" and the act of a madman. The helper'sdemise was more likely a socially sanctioned execution of an individual be-lieved to be putting the community in jeopardy (Fienup-Riordan 1988a).

Farther north, on the Seward Peninsula, the government teacher and

missionary Harrison Thornton blamed the hostile response of his Inupiatparishioners on, among other things, alcohol abuse, writing in his diary thatEskimos are generous, peaceful, and friendly until they begin to drinkwhiskey. In fact, Thornton's own authoritative behavior probably elicited thisnegative response. Little suspecting that native hostility might represent anormal Eskimo aggressive reaction to his un-Eskimo mode of interaction, hepaid for his ignorance with his life.

Today in Alaska, nonnatives all too often continue to consider violencein rural areas to be without precedent in traditional nonviolent Eskimo soci-ety and therefore conclude it was "introduced," a product of "culture contact."In response to the Anchorage Daily News series "The People in Peril" (1988)detailing the current epidemic of self-destructive violence of Eskimos in west-ern Alaska, an Anchorage resident wrote: "Such a happy people! If we hadtheir gift for peaceful living the world would be a better place. And to thinkof the violence and trouble we have introduced them to." Perhaps more sig-nificant, some Alaska Eskimos agree with this interpretation. At the 1988 an-nual meeting of the Yupiit nation, the Eskimo sovereignty group, Yup'ik el-ders were almost unanimous in denying that violence and warfare had everexisted in traditional Eskimo society. According to Willie Lomack of Aki-achak:

This Yup'ik way

has always been a peaceful way

where no one ever fought with each other.

(Lomack 20 April 1988)^

Kenneth Peter, also of Akiachak, added: "They never used to kill. . . . Recent-ly, since white men arrived, killing has started. I suspect that they havelearned to do that by watching television, or by smoking pot, or by drinkingalcohol (Peter 4/20/1988:26—27). Statements such as these have been dis-missed by some as "hyperbolic cant" (Hippler 1974:23). On the contrary, theyrepresent a powerful current political attempt to depict Eskimo history andculture as distinct from, and superior to, its nonnative counterpart.

In the continental United States, the generalized image of the peacefulEskimo was strongly influenced by descriptions of Canadian Inuit. Just as thePlains Indians became our Indian with a capital I, so the Central Eskimos be-came the Eskimo. In the ethnographic literature on the Central Eskimos there

repeatedly appears a native ideology of goodwill, peaceflilness, cooperation,and equality (Eckert and Newmark 1980:193—94).

At the same time, others pointed out that in fact Canadian Inuit in gen-eral and the Central Eskimos in particular had a great propensity for lethal vi-olence (Hoebel 1961:88—92; Balikci 1970). Rasmussen (1933:17) wrote thatno less than 9 out of 15 men in one community had murdered one or moreadults and concluded that every grown man had been involved in a killing insome way. Even so, these acts of violence were most often viewed as the "nat-ural consequences" of a society constrained by a harsh environment and lack-ing formal mechanisms of social control. These "deficits" made erratic homi-cide inevitable. They also implied that Eskimos were unable to organize forformal warfare, an activity that was presumed to require a political sophistica-tion that the Eskimos were presumed to lack.

Meanwhile, back in Alaska, MGM's widely viewed film The Eskimo (pro-duced in Teller in 1933) solidified the image of the smiling, nose-rubbing,gentle dwellers of the Arctic for a generation of American viewers. Where theEskimo hero Mala did engage in murderous activity, it was in retaliation forthe broken promises of a deceitful whaling captain. He killed in self-defenseand because it was required for survival in a hostile environment. Like hisCanadian predecessor, Nanook of the North, Mala was eulogized as the pre-eminent resourceful individual. Hence our fascination with him. His violencedid not reflect an inner flaw, but rather what was required by the situation,which ironically was one of contact between a just native and an unjust whiteworld. The native hero was not an Eskimo but a Western Everyman corruptedby civilization.

The same pernicious pacifism also invades the closing scenes of the 1974film White Dawn. Throughout the film, the viewer is repeatedly assaultedwith how uncivilized and violent the white whalers are in comparison withtheir Inuit hosts. In the end, they more than merit the execution they elicit.Instead of letting the whalers rest in peace, however, an Eskimo turns to hiscompanions and queries, "We were not killers of men. What caused this sadthing to happen to us?" The filmmaker could not let the act speak the truth(that a violent life merited a violent end) but instead felt compelled to declareit an exception to the rule of nonviolence.

Twentieth-century anthropological theory has tended to obscure not onlythe relatively peaceful reception of nonnatives by Alaska Eskimos and ourpropensity to apply Canadian Eskimo characteristics to them, but also our un-

derstanding of violence (socially sanctioned and otherwise) in Alaska Eskimosociety. Culture and personality theory of the 1930s and 1940s reinforced thetendency to extend observations on Eskimo interpersonal relations to charac-terize intergroup relations and Eskimo culture in general. On the one hand,interpersonal relations within Alaska Eskimo groups were indeed largely char-acterized by nonconfrontative, self-effacing behavior and restraint. The codefor conduct prescribed carefully controlled thought and deed in order not toinjure another's mind, let alone his body. The misrepresentation of traditionalEskimo intergroup relations as nonconfrontative has in part been broughtabout by the false extension of these rules of interpersonal deference to inter-national relations. On the other hand, apparent nonaggression, even withinthe group, may be viewed as a matter of tactics rather than attributed to theabsence of interpersonal hostility. An extreme example is the Yup'ik story ofthe young widow who showed no anger when her husband was killed, thenseduced his murderer with smiles, only to crush him to death in her arms.

Anthropology in the 1960s further contributed to the stereotype of thepeaceful Eskimo. As their long-haired students marched to end the war inVietnam, anthropologists thought they could see in hunter-gatherers, includ-ing Eskimos, an originally peaceful humanity with generally low levels of vio-lence (Lee and Devore 1968:9; Service 1966:60; TurnbuU 1968:341). Thischaracterization, along with a number of other generalizations, reflected theposition that hunting societies represented the most elemental form of thehuman condition. Embers (1978:443) subsequently tabulated warfare datafrom a worldwide sample of hunter-gatherers and found that only 10 percenthad no, or rare, warfare. He therefore concluded that hunter-gatherers couldhardly be described as peaceful. In 1974 Burch dealt the death blow to theview of the nonviolent Eskimo in his detailed discussion of Inupiat warfare innorth Alaska.

In the popular imagination, however, the stereotype remains. As a result,politically aggressive acts, such as the formation of the Yupiit Nation sover-eignty movement along the Kuskokwim, and the distressingly high rates ofinterpersonal violence are almost universally understood as "corruptions"brought on by the onslaught of civilization and as inexplicable exceptions tothe rule of nonviolence, rather than social phenomena firmly grounded in apolitically aggressive and violent past.

Here the question of the derivation and implications of the peaceful Es-kimo stereotype cannot be answered with reference to Alaska alone. We must

look to our European, Canadian, and Soviet colleagues, not just for details ofEskimo lethal violence in other parts of the Arctic, but for clues to whetherthe generalized American image of the peaceful Eskimo has a Canadian, Euro-pean, or Soviet counterpart.

The point here is not to replace the picture of the peaceful Eskimo withthe picture of a violent one. The point is to replace a false image with one thatis more readily supported by the evidence and thereby to more fully under-stand Eskimo social and political action today. To understand Eskimo pastand present we need to understand the people at war as well as at peace. As afirst step in this direction, we can ask Yup'ik elders in western Alaska to oratethe detailed ganemcitt, or historical narratives, which provide an oral record oftheir past. This oratory, combined with ethnohistorical documentation, maynot answer all our questions, but it can provide a beginning.

Oral and ethnohistoric accounts indicate that in the early 1800s as manyas 15,000 people inhabited the coast of western Alaska, including thedrainages of the Yukon, Kuskokwim, and Nushagak rivers. This populationwas organized into approximately 12 sociopolitical units, which Burch(1988:229) has aptly referred to as nations (see figure 19-1). Each of these 12Yup'ik nations was characterized by a common language, subsistence cycle,and regular travel between villages, people "moving around like they were be-ing poured" (Mary Worm 5/14/1988). Although tiny by contemporary stan-dards, each nation viewed itself as socially and territorially distinct and waswilling to wage war to remain so. Although interregional feasting, visiting,and trading served to express and create international goodwill between na-tions, violence and conflict regularly characterized interregional exchange pri-or to the arrival of the Russians.

Throughout western Alaska, a single story is repeatedly cited to accountfor the origin of warfare. This is an old story, and narrators typically locate theincident in a village in their region. According to tradition, two boys wereplaying with bone-tipped darts in the men's house. One of the boys aimedpoorly and accidentally hit his companion in the eye, blinding him. The fatherof the offender told the father of the injured boy to go ahead and poke out oneof the eyes of his son in retribution. However, the father whose son had beeninjured was so enraged that he poked out both of the offender's eyes, blindinghim completely. The other father reacted by killing the first man's son. Andso it went, the violence escalating and each man in the men's house joiningsides until the entire village, and eventually the entire region, was at war.

Here the origin of war is associated with blindness, a disability with

FIGURE 19-1. Regional groupings for the Yukon-Kuskokwim region, circa 1833.

(Artwork by Julie Perlmutter)

devastating implications for a hunter. In fact, the opposition between restrict-ed human vision and powerful supernatural sight was a critical element inYup'ik cosmology, and elaborate rules circumscribed sight in the humanworld to empower strong supernatural vision (Fienup-Riordan 1987). Giventhis emphasis, it is hard to imagine any more appropriate beginning for thedramatic confrontations that would follow.

Although the time when the first wars were fought is unknown, ethno-historic and oral accounts agree that warfare had ceased by the 1830s. Vasilevdescribed a bloody encounter between Kiatagmiut and Aglurmiut that oc-curred in 1816 (VanStone 1988:91). In 1818 Korsakovskii encountered thefamous coastal warrior Apanuugpak (Black 1984:27; VanStone 1988:45),who, according to oral accounts, outlived warfare. By the time Zagoskin ar-rived in western Alaska in 1842, warfare was a thing of the past (Michael1967:298), laid to rest by both the population decline attending the smallpoxepidemic of 1838—39 and increased trading possibilities associated with thearrival of the Russians.

As in other parts of Beringia, warfare in western Alaska was strictly amale activity, and young boys were trained in the arts of war from their earli-est years. All a young man's early training focused on making him agile,swift, and strong, traits he needed as both a warrior and a hunter. Boys gener-ally worked hard—shoveling porches, clearing waterholes, filling and carryingwater-buckets—strengthening their bodies while enhancing their spiritualpower. Elders encouraged them to assume disagreeable jobs like emptying theurine bucket. They were instructed to rub their dirty hands over their stom-achs to create a barrier to sickness and protect them from enemy arrows.

Food restrictions were another important part of the regime. To makehim swift and light, a young man's intake of water and oil was carefully con-trolled. Likewise, he was never to eat the wings of ducks or geese or he wouldlack endurance when he tried to double-oar his kayak during raiding expedi-tions. Boys were also warned against eating the delicious membrane that en-cased a seal's internal organs, lest when he was fighting he be surrounded byfog and not be able to see.

Specialized skills required for warfare included the ability to dodge mis-siles and use a staff to deflect oncoming arrows. The agile warrior who couldaccomplish these feats was used as bait to spend the arrows of the opposinggroup. A special jump competition (gecgaurluteng) performed on the last day ofthe annual Bladder Festival on Nelson Island publicly displayed this skillalong with other shows of strength, such as climbing a rope up to the centralgut skylight (Billy Lincoln 4/1986).

Young men also practiced the art of speedy escape. Since war was oftenwaged from kayaks, they would put their craft on wooden rollers by the bankof the river with the oars in readiness. Then they would run to the kayak, jumpin, and be off in an instant (Mary Worm 5/14/1988; Eddie Alexie 3/1988:23).

Just as the training required to make a successful hunter was in many re-spects the same as that required to make a skilled warrior, the tools of thehunt were the tools of war. Yup'ik offensive weaponry {anguyagcuutet) wascomparable to that used by the Eskimo warriors of north Alaska and Siberia,and included the bow and arrow, spear, knife, and club. Arrowheads used inbattle were more highly fractured than arrowheads used in hunting so thatthey would shatter the enemy's body and leave a jagged wound. Their protec-tive equipment was also distinctive. Coastal Yup'ik warriors used shieldsmade of bearded seal skin when fighting from a kayak (Billy Lincoln1/26/1987:4). Warriors also wore protective bent wood headgear, which bythe end of a battle would be badly damaged by the nicking of arrows (TimAgurtak 6/21/1984).

Neither plate armor (like that used prehistorically in the Bering Straitregion) nor telescoping hide band armor (used by the Chukchi and SiberianEskimos) was employed (VanStone 1983:3—4; Burch 1974:5). Rather, for easymovement the uniform of choice was a light rabbit skin or seal-gut parka,belted around the middle and sometimes concealing loosely constructed shellarmor.

Last but not least, Yup'ik warriors, like their Inupiat counterparts, tookcare to ensure that they had good footgear before going to battle, for a lamewarrior soon would likely be a dead one. A warrior's grass bootliners were theobjects of special concern and would be hung on the wall of the men's housebefore a raid and elaborately entertained, as guests, to ensure success.

In the eighteenth century interregional relations in western Alaska wereregularly punctuated with bloody encounters, usually in retaliation for a spe-cific act or acts of aggression by the opposing group. Mounting a particularraid required having both a grievance and the force to back it up. Enmity waslong-standing, and retaliation often was postponed until the aggrieved feltrelatively sure of their chances of success.

The object of organizing a war party was not to acquire booty, extendterritory, or defend boundaries, but to exterminate the enemy. There was noone time of year that was best suited to this end, and war parties were dis-patched both on foot in winter and by kayak in summer. During periods ofintense hostility between specific groups, warring factions sometimes ex-changed hostages {ilaliyak, "the one making allies") to maintain periods ofsafe hunting. As long as such a "guest" was present, the host village wouldnot attack.

330 ANN FIENUP-RIORDAN

Although the season of the year was not specified, the number and quali-ty of warriors that could be mustered, both from within the region and fromallied groups, was a critical factor in mounting a raid. Like the Inupiat,Yup'ik warriors were fully aware of the importance of outnumbering their en-emy and would retreat if they found themselves outmanned.

The element of surprise was a third important factor. Raiding warriorstraveled in a single line to avoid detection and exerted extreme care duringtheir approach. If a fire was lit, it might be built on supports over a stream sothat it could be doused at the slightest noise. To avoid being taken off guard,the home village maintained lookouts and runners to warn them of an ap-proaching war party. In lowland areas, soil might be gathered to bring up theground level of the village both for easy defense and to keep watch because, asone man said, "those people had no binoculars" (Tim Agurtak 7/17/1985).^These mounds were visible for over 10 miles and are said to have been im-pregnable (Kilbuck 1988:8). Tunnels between houses and multiple exits werealso built to increase the chances of escape should the village be surrounded(Fienup-Riordan i988b:48-49).

In Yup'ik as in Inupiat warfare, the ideal form of engagement was a sur-prise attack (Nelson 1899:327). The aggressors would approach stealthily,hoping to find their foes at home, where they could club them to death beforethey had a chance to rally a defense. Or they might find the unsuspecting vil-lagers gathered in the men's house in celebration or asleep. The attackingwarriors would then block the entrances, set fire to the structure, and eitherburn the occupants alive or kill them by smoke inhalation. These neat plansdid not always succeed, as in the tale of the warriors who literally laughedtheir way to freedom. Finding themselves surrounded in the men's house,they were debating what to do when an old man among them fell off hisbench head first into a bucket of urine. His companions laughed so loud thattheir clamor convinced the enemy that they must have a secret escape route,and the latter left at once fearing the tables would be turned.

Although ambush was the favored form of attack, direct confrontation oftwo armed groups did occur. A pitched battle was usually unintentional onthe part of at least one of the warring parties. In the case of two antagonisticgroups living close together on Nelson Island, a broken spear sent down theriver was recognized as a sign of war, and both sides immediately prepared forbattle.

Battles opened when opposing sides lined up, faced each other, and en-

gaged in ritualized taunting. The taunting consisted of verbal sallies accom-panied by a stifF-legged sideways jumping movement intended to goad theenemy into wasting their arrows. As the lines of battle closed and more andmore arrows found their mark, the war cries of successful bowmen filled theair. In some areas when a warrior shot an enemy, he would put his bow in hisleft hand and his spear in his right hand and jump up and call out his familywar cry. A final hand-to-hand encounter brought the battle to a close with thesurvivors of the defeated party beating a rapid retreat.

A decorative reminder of one such successful escape is the strip of cari-bou skin Nelson Island women sometimes sew on the shoulders of fancyparkas. Known as the "vomit design," the skin commemorates the retreatingwarrior who had just eaten the rich back fat of a caribou before his pursuerscommenced to chase him. As he ran, he turned first to one side and then theother, emptying his stomach of its rich contents and making his pursuers'path both slippery and treacherous.

Surrender was not an option for the losers, for captives were not taken,but a single survivor was left alive to tell the tale. Although mutilation didnot always follow a battle, successfial warriors sometimes severed the headsand genitals of the corpses. This mutilation might have been related to theYup'ik belief that to finally kill an opponent, especially one with supernaturalpowers, the body must be severed at the joints. If the body was not dismem-bered, the spirit of the dead might successfully reanimate the corpse and thefight begin all over again.

Just as the remains of animals and fish were carefully disposed of afteruse, so were the bodies of fallen warriors. Along the coast below the mouth ofthe Kuskokwim, the successful combatant sometimes covered the body of hisfallen enemy with rocks. If the dead were numerous, they might be gatheredtogether and placed in a single large grave covered with logs or rocks whenavailable. Alternately, all the bodies might be gathered and thrown into alake, which is how the bones of sea mammals were disposed of.

The defeated warriors were not the only ones to die. All the young boysof a defeated village met the same fate, and in some cases the women and girlsas well. The latter might be taken back to the village of the victors. Whetheror not they were retained as slaves or wives, they were by all accounts guardedclosely, kept indoors, and allowed to wear only grass insoles without boots toprevent their escape.

Following a battle, warriors tattooed their foreheads to commemorate

332

ANN FIENUP-RIORDAN

the number of enemies they had killed. Great warriors could be recognized bythe row of small marks extending one beside the other over their eyebrowshorizontally across their foreheads.

Like the Eskimos of north Alaska and Siberia, the Yup'ik fought inter-group wars. Yup'ik war parties made up of warriors representing one or morenations mounted surprise raids and took part in open battles against the war-riors of other Yup'ik nations. Both Inupiat and Yup'ik warfare was intergrouprather than intragroup in character.

Although Yup'ik warfare resembled Inupiat warfare in its internationalcharacter, hostilities as well as alliances between particular nations were ap-parently less transient than those described for north Alaska. According toBurch (1974:5), regional groups in northwest Alaska that might be allied oneyear could be fighting one another the next. In western Alaska, however, itappears that hostilities as well as alliances between particular nations ran overa longer period of time, at least for the century immediately preceding thetermination of interregional warfare.

Before the Russians arrived, two long-standing conflicts organized rela-tions between the 12 Yup'ik nations. Put simply by Billy Lincoln of NelsonIsland: "The Yukon area people had Hooper Bay as their enemy. And the oth-ers, like Apanuugpak bunch had those who kept fleeing toward Dillinghamfor an enemy" (Billy Lincoln 8/1987:6). These "Yukon people" included theresidents of three adjoining nations: Kuigpagmiut, Pastulirmiut, and Unalir-miut (see figure 19-1). These nations did not fight each other but insteadjoined in various configurations and waged intermittent warfare with the low-er coastal nations (including the Maryarmiut, Askinaruit, Qaluyaarmiut, andCaninermiut), as well as the people of the middle Kuskokwim (Kusquq-vagmiut) and the Big Lake region (Akulmiut). The lower coastal nationsmaintained a loose alliance in opposition to their Yukon adversaries. At thesame time, I know of no accounts of raids or battles fought among these lowercoastal groups or between the coastal nations and their tundra and riverineneighbors. Moreover, there is no indication that coastal and Yukon groupsever joined together in an alliance against a third party.

The second major long-standing conflict was that between a small butscrappy nation, the Aglurmiut, and the lower coastal and riverine nations, in-cluding the Qaluyaarmiut, Caninermiut, Kusquqvagmiut, and Kiatagmiut.Although the members of these latter groups did not regularly organize forcoordinated raids against their common enemy, neither did they ever wage waragainst each other. Moreover, there is some evidence that the warlike Aglurmi-

ut originally migrated from the Yukon area after being defeated in an earlierYukon or coastal encounter. Thus the history of Yup'ik warfare, roughlydrawn, may have involved the long-standing opposition between two groups ofallied nations, rather than a larger number of continually shifting alliances.

To bring the discussion back to the stereotype of the peaceful Eskimo,the failure to recognize the political alliances that were forged between Yup'iknations during the period of bow-and-arrow wars has severely limited ourability to understand current political activity. In western Alaska today,Qaluyaarmiut, Caninermiut, Akulmiut, and Kusquqvagmiut are again join-ing forces in aggressive opposition to what they perceive as hostile acts byoutside nations, in this case, the U.S. government and the state of Alaska.Their aggressive stance has surprised many observers, who view it as inexplic-ably "un-Eskimo." On the contrary, it seems to me directly related to—al-though by no means identical to, or completely explained by—the strong in-ternational political alliances of their past and is impossible to understandwithout referring to them.

Perhaps an appropriate note on which to close this discussion is a Yup'ikrendition of the end of wars. According to one Nelson Island account, twosurvivors approached their enemies seeking revenge after their village hadbeen destroyed. As they drew closer in their kayaks, however, they broke thespears they had intended to kill with and instead used them to beat the sidesof their skin boat like drums. In response, the women of the opposing villagewalked down to the shore to meet them and, standing in front of their men,began to dance. From that time forward, it is said, Yup'ik people never foughtwith bows and arrows but rather through the dance (Frances Usugan 7/1985).Anyone who has seen Yup'ik dancing knows that this is still the case. The re-cent exchange of dancers instead of warriors between Alaska and Siberia seemsa fitting extension of this tradition. Whereas Eskimo have learned falsely fromus that they had a peaceful past, we might learn truly from them the salutaryvalue of a "festive occasion."

NOTES

1. Yup'ik narrative is referred to by orator and date. Full transcriptions and trans-lations of the material are in the author's possession but are as yet unpublished.

2. Sighting game and periodic flooding were also the impetus for establishingsettlements on high ground. Mounds were not always constructed for defense but were

334

ANN FIENUP-RIORDAN

just as often the result of natural processes, including long occupancy (Nelson1899:249-327).

REFERENCESBalikci, Asen

1970 The Netsilik Eskimo. Garden City, N.Y.: Natural History Press.Black, Lydia

1984 The Yupik of Western Alaska and Russian Impact. In The Central

Yup'ik Eskimos. Ernest S. Burch, Jr., ed. Etudes/lnuit Studies, Supplemen-tary Issue, 8:21-43.

S.Jr.

Eskimo Warfare in Northwest Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the Uni-versity of Alaska i6{2):i-i^.

Trade and Warfare at the Crossroads. In Crossroads of Continents: Culturesof Siberia and Alaska. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, eds.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Eckert, Penelope, and Russell Newmark

1980 Central Eskimo Song Duels: A Contextual Analysis of Ritual Ambigu-ity. Ethnology 19:191-212.

Embers, Carol R.

1978 Myths about Hunter-Gatherers. Ethnology 17:439—48.

Fienup-Riordan, Ann

1987 The Mask: The Eye of the Dance. Arctic Anthropology 2o(2):40-55.

1988a The Martyrdom of Brother Hooker: Conflict and Conversion on theKuskokwim. Alaska History 3(1): 1-26.

1988b The Yup'ik Eskimos as Described in the Travel Journals and Ethnographic Ac-counts of John and Edith Kilbuck 188^-1900. Ann Fienup-Riordan, ed.Kingston, Ont.: Limestone Press.

Hippler, Arthur E.

1974 Some Alternative Viewpoints of the Negative Results of Euro-Ameri-can Contact with Non-western Groups. American Anthropologist76:334-37.

Burch, Ernest1974

1988

Eskimo War and Peace 335

Hoebel, E. Adamson

1961 The Law of Primitive Man: A Study in Comparative Legal Dynamics. Cam-bridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Kilbuck, John

1911 Report from Hooper Bay. Kilbuck Collection, Moravian Archives,Bethlehem, Pa.

Lee, R. B., and I. Devore (eds.)

1968 Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine.

Michael, H. N. (ed.)

1967 Lieutenant Zagoskin's Travels in Russian America, 1842-1844. Toronto:University of Toronto Press.

Nelson, Edward

1899 The Eskimos about Bering Strait. Eighteenth annual Report of the Bureauof American Ethnology for the Years 1896-1897. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution.

Rasmussen, Knud

1933 Explorations in Southeastern Greenland. Preliminary Report of theSixth and Seventh Thule Expeditions. Geographical Review23(3):385-93-

Service, Elman R.

1966 The Hunters. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

TurnbuU, C.

1968 Comments on Primitive Behavior and the Evolution of Prefarming So-cieties. In Man the Hunter. R. B. Lee and I. Devore, eds., pp. 321-34.Chicago: Aldine.

VanStone, James

1983 Protective Hide Body Armor of the Historic Chukchi and Siberian Es-kimos. Etudes/Inuit Studies 7:3—24.

1988 Russian Exploration in Southwest Alaska: The Travel Journals of Petr Kor-sakovskiy (1818) and Ivan Y. Vasilev (1820^). The Rasmuson LibraryHistorical Translation Series. Vol. 4. Fairbanks: University of AlaskaPress.

20.

Aleut in the Kurile Islands:1820—iSyo

VALERII O. SHUBIN

THIS DISCUSSION IS DEVOTED TO A RELATIVELY unknown chapter

in the nineteenth-century development of the Kurile Islands (Urup, Simushir,and Shumshu) that took place with the active participation of Koniag Eskimoof Kodiak Island and Aleut from the Aleutian Islands (both known in Russianterminology as "Aleut"). The information herein has been derived from mate-rials in the archives of the Russian American Company in the U.S. NationalArchives in Washington (microcopies of which exist in the archives of Russianforeign policy in Moscow) and from results of the author's archeological exca-vations on the above-mentioned islands in 1978—88.

The discussion focuses on the leading role of the Aleut in developing thenatural (fiir) resources of the Kurile Islands, the background leading up totheir movement to the Kuriles, statistics concerning these movements, andthe level of their material and spiritual culture development. As the followingparagraphs point out, when traditional Koniag culture came under Russianand Ainu influence, it was transformed into a new ethnic community and asingle Kurile culture.

337

HISTORICAL REVIEW

The earliest information concerning the appearance of the Aleuts on theKurile Islands comes from 1774 and 1795. But they did not arrive en masseuntil the last stage of development of the archipelago by the Russian Ameri-can Company in 1828—68. Although Russia had made numerous attempts tocolonize the Kurile Islands during the eighteenth century, we cannot saywhether those attempts were successful because the settlements that sprangup on Shumshu and Urup did not last long and failed to have an importantinfluence on the dissemination of Russian culture in that region. The politicalopposition of Japan, severe climatic conditions, and the genocide of the na-tives, the Ainu, left the resource-rich Kurile Islands a deserted and underde-veloped territory until the mid-1820s.

That was when the Russian American Company, beset by difficulties,decided to try to develop the archipelago by instituting a sea otter hunt withthe help of Aleut and Ainu.

We have direct evidence that the first group of hunters was sent to UrupIsland in 1828 on board the brig Baikal under the command of midshipmanA. K. Etolin. This group consisted of 49 Aleut men and women from Novo-Arkhangel'sk who came from Alitokskii, Ugakskii, Chiniatskii (Kodiak Is-land), Afognakskii (Afognak Island), Koshinginskii (Unalashka Island), andother settlements, together with 13 Russian manufacturers. Sysoi Slobod-chikov, who earlier served in Ozerskii redout (fortress), was appointed Etolin'sassistant.

On behalf of M. I. Chistiakov, chief governor of the colonies, K. T.Khlebnikov provided instructions for the Kurile detachment. Logs, bricks,boards and planks, cannons, various tools, and a food supply for two yearswere brought by the brig to build a settlement and a fortress. The Russiansbegan to build barracks with stoves, windows, skylights and a separate roomfor the hunting captain. The Aleut were lodged in turf-covered huts built ofboards. After settling, they began prospecting, and a successful sea otter huntwas held. In August 1828, Slobodchikov died suddenly, and Mylnikov as-sumed the duties of hunting captain {baidarshchik) for many years. Duringthis time the Aleut were sent hunting to Urup Island, Black Brothers Islands,and Broughton Island. They hunted in double-oared baidaras (skin boats) us-ing spears, nets, and clubs. When the sea otter season was over, the Aleut

fished, hunted sea lions, and shot sea birds to replenish their food supply. Inwinter they hunted foxes with the help of primitive traps.

In the spring of 1829 Mylnikov sowed wheat, barley, and vegetables. Inthe summer the brig Chkhagov, under the command of lieutenant P. D. Lipin-skii, came to Urup, bringing 24 more Aleut and nine baidaras, and took awaypelts.

In 1831 the Central Board of the Russian American Company decided toform the Kurile Department and to set up a central settlement in ShumshuIsland. For this purpose the Okhotsk office sent 12 Russians and Aleut toBroughton Bay under the leadership of F. Startsev to build a trading stationthere. In the spring of 1832, Wrangel, the governor of the Russian colonies inAmerica, sent to Shumshu a boat specifically built for the Kurile department,the Unalashka, which was under the command of Ensign D. I. Orlov. Theship brought P. Epifanov, the new chief of the Department, and a group ofAleut. Orlov and Epifanov were to determine if the harbor on Simushir wassuitable for a central settlement or whether such a settlement should be trans-ferred to Urup Island (this proved unnecessary). By that time, there were 60Aleut men and seven Aleut women on the Kurile Islands. Beginning in 1833,Epifanov was ordered to train 20 men every year to replace those living on theislands. The Kodiak office was ordered to send the same number of hunters tothe Kuriles. Preference was given to volunteers—young married Aleut (withwives but no infants), and debtors of the company, who were thereby given achance to quickly pay off their debts to the company.

At the request of the Central Board, the Irkutsk church consulate at-tached the Kurile Island to the parish of the Akhtinsk Nikolaevsk church. In1839 the Russian American Company concluded a treaty with the Hudson BayCompany for the delivery of goods; soon the island received large quantities ofcheap clothes, footwear, decorations, tableware, weapons, and other materials.

Subsequently, the Aleut hunted not only at Urup, Simushir, and SeverniiChirpoi, but also on Shumshu, Paramushir, and Ketoi islands. By the 1840sthe population of sea otters was greatly reduced, and many Russians left theislands. But the Aleut stayed, surviving the calamities of the 1854-55Crimean War as it affected the North Pacific, and remained on the island evenafter the Russian American Company had been liquidated.

At the time that the Aleuts and Koniag came to the Kuriles, they hadalready lived and worked alongside the Russians for about 60 years. During

340 VALERII O. SHUBIN

this time their way of life changed considerably. Where they were once freeindependent people, they were now enslaved by the company. They quicklybecame acquainted with infectious diseases, acquired some bad habits fromthe Russians, and began to forget their native language and tribal gods. Onthe other hand, many of them appreciated the advantages they had gained inthe way of the Russian cuisine, clothes, footwear, and other amenities.

ARCHEOLOGY

Published and archival sources contain no information about the material andspiritual culture of the Aleut population of the Kurile Islands and are there-fore of only secondary significance for ethnographical research. For this reason,since 1978 the Sakhalin Regional Museum has been conducting archeologicalwork on Russian American Company sites on Urup, Simushir, SeverniiChirpoi, and Shumshu. Kurilorossia, located in Aleutka Bay on Urup Island(figure 20-1), is one of the most explored settlements. Here workers have ex-cavated almost 4,000 square meters of the cultural layer and have found morethan 10,000 objects pertaining to both the material and spiritual culture ofthe aboriginal Ainu, as well as the Russian and Aleut inhabitants of the is-land. These finds consist of the following categories:

Dwellings and household constructions', surface and semisubterraneandwellings, including yurts, booths, barabaras (sod houses), a forge, awarehouse, butchering areas, stoves for baking bread, and hearths (fig-ure 20-2 shows a pit dwelling).

Tools and instruments: remains of steel stock, firearms, arrowheads andspearheads, bone and metal harpoons, fragments of flintlock guns, bul-lets, caseshot, buckshot, corks from vessels for keeping powder, differ-ent kinds of knives, fishing hooks, metal hooks for hanging carcasses ofkilled animals, scrapers (made of stone, glass, or metal) for food pro-cessing, lead stamps with the Russian American Company monogramfor sealing sacks with pelts, and carpenter's, fitter's and blacksmith'stools.

Boat parts: parts of sailing ships and baidaras (umiaks), ship nails, frag-ments of hull covering, elements of running and standing rigging.

FIGURE 20-1. Aleutka Bay, Urup Island. (Photograph by Shubin team)

FIGURE 20-2. Aleut pit dwelling on Urup Island. (Photograph by Shubin team)

342

VALERII O. SHUBIN

fragments of haidarka (kayak) covers, rowlocks, rings and other materi-als.

Domestic wares: ceramics, faience and porcelain, glass and metal plates,and dishes produced both locally and abroad.

Domestic furnishings: details of dwelling and household interiors, objects ofeveryday life, windows and door partings, mica for windows, candle-sticks, parts of oil-lamps, remains of barrels, trunks and chests forkeeping provisions, spoons, forks, scissors, thimbles, and a whip.

Personal paraphernalia: the remains of clothes, footgear, buttons, needles,copper and silver rings, coins, a purse, and pipes.

The fact that these items were found both among the Russian and Aleut-ian population, reflects a highly eclectic material and spiritual culture (see fig-ures 20-3, 20-4). This is also seen in the construction of Aleutian dwellings,which contained stoves, plank beds, flooring, firearms, Russian Orthodoxcrosses, and figures of the Koniag household deity.

Similar finds were made in a small excavation of a settlement inBroughton Bay on Simushir Island, where, as on Urup, excavations yieldedmasonry, hearths, metal instruments of production and tools, a coin, button,and an Orthodox cross. Beneath this stratigraphic layer were the remains of aneolithic culture with ropelike ornamented ceramics. Of special interest is animage of a woman's head made of soft stone.

In Peschanaia Bay off Severnii Chirpoi Island, we found 44 foundationpits of semisubterranean houses and assumed that at least some of them hadbeen occupied by Aleut in the nineteenth century.

We made only a few finds when investigating Russian American Compa-ny settlements in Baikovo Bay and at Betobi Lake on Shumshu Island. Heremost of the late cultural layer had been destroyed by previous digging.

These archeological finds establish the existence of an eclectic culture ofsea hunters on the Kurile Islands that included elements of Russian, Aleut,and Ainu culture. The excavations confirm Roza G. Liapunova's view that theRussian American Company was striving to preserve traditional Aleut man-agement, because it considered this the most efficient and reliable method ofdoing business. The material culture of these Aleut did not undergo drasticchanges, and only a few innovations and improvements were adopted fromRussian culture. The skin haidarka and its traditional hunting equipment

FIGURE 20-3. Archeological finds of eclectic style from the Aleut cultures of theKurile Islands, i. Figurine. 2-4. Crosses. 5-7. Rings. 8—16. Buttons. 17. Pipe bowl.18. Bone artifact. 19, 20. Ornament. 21. Russian coin. 22. Beads. (Drawing by Shubin

Laboratory staff, Sakhalin)

344 VALERII O. SHUBIN

7 8 9

Figure 20-4. Artifacts of Aleut traditional culture, Urup Island, i. Dart socket-piece. 2—9. Harpoon points. 10. Sheathed knife. 11, 12. Handles. 13. Spoon. 14—16.Finger rests. 17. Unknown. 18. Fragment of fire board. (Drawing by Shubin Laboratory staff,

Sakhalin)

Aleut in the Kurile Islands: 1820—i8yo 345

remained central to the economy. But under the influence of the Russians, theAleut abandoned semisubterranean dwellings and added stoves, windows, andside entrances. Sometimes many-roomed houses and baths were built on theKuriles and Kodiak Island. Unlike the population on the Aleutian Islands andon Kodiak, the Kurile Aleut probably began to buy clothes, footwear, andother everyday items made in Europe.

Other archeological finds included about a dozen Russian Orthodox pec-toral crosses, whereas pagan cult objects were only rarely uncovered. We haveonly one figure of a Koniag god made of bone. This suggests that Christianityplayed an important role in the Kuriles, as is noted also in the archival andpublished sources.

In conclusion, between 1828 and 1877 there existed on the Kurile Is-lands a unique culture amalgamating elements of Russian, Aleut, Eskimo,and Ainu culture. By the mid-1870s the prerequisites for the formation of anew ethnic community and for the formation of a single Kurile culture hadbeen achieved. But in 1875, by order of a St. Petersburg agreement, Russiaturned the Kurile Islands over to Japan, an event that cut short their develop-ment and later resulted in the destruction of the population of the central andnorthern island of the archipelago.

ZOIA P. SOKOLOVA

THIS CHAPTER DEALS WITH ASPECTS OF the ethnic development ofthe peoples of the Pacific Coast of the former USSR (now a Russian stateagain)—namely, the Chukchi, Koryak, Eskimo, Itelmen, and Aleut. The in-formation presented here is drawn from the AU-Union Censuses of 1959,1970, and 1979. These peoples live primarily in two autonomous areas(Okrug), the Chukchi Area in Magadan Province, and the Koryak Area inKamchatka Province. Over 80 percent of the Chukchi and about 85 percentof the Eskimo population live in the Chukchi Autonomous Area, while about72 percent of the Koryak, close to 9 percent of the Chukchi, and 73 percent ofthe Itelmen population live in the Koryak Autonomous Area. The Aleut livein the Kamchatka Province, 67 percent in areas of their traditional residenceon the Commander Islands, and the rest on the Kamchatka Peninsula.Chukotka and Kamchatka are also populated by the Chuvantsi and Even peo-ples (table 2i-i).

These peoples make up a total population in excess of 25,000. From 1959to 1979, their total number increased by more than 22 percent, after declining19 percent by 1959. The greatest increase was recorded among the Eskimo andAleut. Although from 1897 to 1926 the Eskimo population decreased by 4.3

347

CU

ON

C

U

o

ON

o

oo

00

+

+

1—1

+

+

+

+

o

ON

o

O

o

1—1

O

q_

m

us

rO

1—1

I—1

\rs

.—1

rsi

^ 9 . .

cn r-^

.—1 .—^ I +

+ + +

m 00 o

|\ 00 <—I '—I

CN 00 o o rn

ITN "vf 1^

rTi I T—I ^

C

u

00 ^ VO O O

»/-\ O <^ fN Cn

1—I 1—I (Ni >—I

I I I + I

t

ONON

00

^ \6

00 ON ' r^jI O fN \0^ ^ ^

CM

C

U

+

rTi m O O i/^O ON

+ I

+

ON

-—I ^ ir\ 00

rr^ vrs O

rr> rg m iTN

r-^ v^^

04

w

ON

OhO

o

o

O

\0 00

00 >r\ 1^

S ^2 I 5 < s2

^ c c y —.

•C C 3

Pi

05

I

ON

349

percent, and by 16.6 percent in 1959, it increased by 17 percent by 1970 andby 36.3 percent by 1979. Among the Aleut, a 39 percent decrease occurred inthe period before 1926, whereas increases of 22 percent, 4.8 percent, and 35.8percent were registered in 1959, 1970, and 1979, respectively.

By 1926 the number of Chukchi had also decreased by 4.7 percent,whereas the Koryak population had grown by 1.3 percent, while the Itelmenincreased by 50 percent. Between 1926 and 1959 all these groups decreasedin number: the Chukchi by 4.8 percent, Koryak by 15.4 percent, and Itelmenby 73.6 percent. By 1970 their numbers increased almost evenly, by 15.4 per-cent, 19.1 percent, and 17.3 percent, respectively, while their growth between1970 and 1979 was relatively insignificant (3.0 percent, 5.2 percent, and 5.3percent, respectively).

On the whole, the growth rate among the population of this area be-tween 1959 and 1970 was i percent higher, and, by 1979, 1.55 percent high-er than among all the other peoples of the North (Gurvich 1987:101, table i).The population decline recorded up to 1959 can be explained by a series offactors, including the hardship of the war years, poor medical services, anddifficult life conditions. At the same time, the sharp drop registered for thisperiod among the Itelmen (73.6 percent) can be explained by certain ethnicprocesses, in particular by russification.

- By contrast, the 22 percent population growth of the Aleut can be ex-plained by special policies adopted in the 1920s and the 1930s to revitalizethis nearly extinct people. (In 1923 the population figure counted 364 lessmembers than in 1897.) These policies included the development of agricul-tural activities, fishing, and sea mammal hunting (Liapunova 1987:197—99).

A marked population increase was also recorded after the adoption andimplementation of the Resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU andof the Council of Ministers of the USSR No. 300 of March 16, 1957 (Sokolo-va 1971:81—83). This resolution aimed at promoting the development of thetraditional economy, housing, and medical assistance, and improving the lifeconditions of the peoples of the North. During the 20 years between 1959and 1979, the Eskimo population increased 35 percent; the Aleut, 29.7 per-cent; the Koryak, 25 percent; the Itelmen 23.5 percent; and the Chukchi, 19percent. However, after 1970 the rate of growth again fell (see table 2 i-i).Be-tween 1959 and 1970, the total increase for the native population of theRussian Northeast was 17 percent, averaging 1.5 percent a year, while in theperiod from 1970 to 1979 the increase amounted to less than 5 percent, with

an annual growth rate of 0.5 percent. In 1979 only the Eskimo and the Aleutregistered a high population growth, which was two times higher than in1970 for the former and almost seven times higher for the latter. Meanwhile,the Chukchi, the Koryak, and Itelmen experienced a fivefold, fourfold, andmore than threefold decrease, respectively. There are several reasons for thisdecline: first, a decreasing birth rate, coupled with a rather high mortalityrate (Pika 1987:48—49); second, the assimilation of a part of the native popu-lation, as a result of mixed marriages with the newcomers, and in the case ofthe Eskimo, with the Chukchi as well (Gurvich and Fainberg 1964; Gurvich1985:156; Simchenko and Lebedev 1985:158—74); and third, in the case ofthe Eskimo, changes in the system of marital and reproductive relations(Krupnik 1987:90, 103, 107).

If we compare the data on birth, mortality, and natural growth rates ofthese peoples with the average data for the country, we find that these trendsare quite positive (Anonymous 1986). In 1986 only the Aleut had a birthratelower than the country's average, while all the other peoples' birthrates were1.5 to 2 times higher. Some mortality figures below the country's averagewere recorded in 1986 among the Eskimo, the Itelmen, and the Aleut, whileamong the other peoples these figures were the same, or a little above average.The natural growth rate for all the peoples of the Russian Northeast are there-fore higher than the country's average, even two to three times higher in thecase of the Chukchi, the Koryak, and the Eskimo.

The mixed-marriage trend has accelerated the process of ethnic mixingof the peoples of the Russian Northeast. These occur between Siberian nativesof different groups, and between Siberian natives and newcomers, primarilyRussians, Ukrainians, and Byelorussians. Lately, Tatar-Koryak, Tatar-Chukchi,Korean-Koryak, Chuvash-Chukchi, Jewish-Chukchi, and Bashkir-Eskimofamilies have emerged as well. There are also numerous Eskimo-Chukchi,Chukchi-Chuvan, Yukaghi-Kamchadal, Chukchi-Koryak, and Koryak-Itel-men families. According to the data of the late 1970s and early 1980s, insome villages and large settlements of both districts, the mixed families ofthat period ranged from 7 to 25 percent and 33 to 66 percent of all families,respectively (Gurvich 1985; Simchenko and Lebedev 1985).

Birthrates also declined in large part because the young male reindeer-breeders (up to 40—50 percent) are nomadic and remain single while theyoung women, who are brought up in the settlements' boarding schools, arenot willing to live in the tundra. Another direct consequence of this is agrowing number of single women. In the middle and late 1970s, however, the

traditional family structure appeared to be growing stronger among the Eski-mo and some Chukchi and Koryak.^ According to I. I. Krupnik, this was dueto the fact that the generation born before 1930, although its reproductiveyears were over, had begun acting as "the bearers" of the traditional model ofmarital-family relations—which was characterized by monoethnic families in-volving all the marriageable age group, high birth rates, and stable family ties(Krupnik 1985:108).

The ethnic processes among the peoples of the Soviet Pacific Coast(growing rates of mixed marriages, assimilation with other peoples, and lossof the mother tongue and culture), intensified in the 1950s and 1960s and ac-celerated during the 1970s and 1980s. These processes were mainly a result ofthe migration of mixed populations from small traditional settlements, theinflux of nonnatives to the Soviet Northeast, and movement of some Chukchi,Koryak, Eskimo, Itelmen, and Aleut families to cities and urban-type settle-ments. These trends are reflected in tables 21-2 and 21-3.

Table 21-2 shows a decrease in native population in the autonomous ar-eas between 1959 and 1979. The decline averaged 10 percent over this period(the figure for all the peoples of the North being 6 percent), although in 1979the two areas had more native Siberians than any of the other northern areas ofthe country (75.4 against 73.8 percent).

- The urban population also increased, although at a lower rate than the

TABLE 21-2. Peoples of the Northern Pacific Coast Living in AutonomousDistricts (percentage of their total population)

Group

1959

1970

±

1979

±

Chukchi

85.0

81.0

-A.Q

80.6

-0.4

Koryak

81.0

78.7

-2.3

71.8

-6.9

Eskimo

95.0

87.8

-7.2

84.6

-3.2

Itelmen

81.0

74.5

-6.5

73.0

-1.5

Aleut^

77.0

67.0

-10.0

Average

85.5

79.8

-5.7

75.4

-4A

Average for all "peoples

of the North"

80.0

76.4

-3.6

73.8

-2.6

a. Aleut are counted in the region in which they traditionally live.

TABLE 21-3. Urban Population (percent)

Group

1959

1970

±

1979

±

Chukchi

8.0

17.6

+9.6

14.4

-3.2

Koryak

5.5

21.0

+ 15.5

28.2

+ 7.2

Eskimo

29.5

27.5

-2.0

22.0

-5.5

Itelmen

13.0

23.0

+ 10.0

28.8

+ 5.8

Aleut

17.0

22.5

+ 5.5

35.7

+ 13.2

Average

14.6

22.8

+ 8.2

25.8

+ 3.0

Average for all "peoples

of the North"

10.0

17.5

+ 7.5

22.8

+ 5.3

urban population of any of the other peoples of the North. Between 1959 and1979, this rate increased in the Northeast by 56.6 percent, and it more thandoubled for the North as a whole. On the average, however, the share of urbanpopulation here was higher in 1979 (25.8 percent) than in the North as awhole (22.8 percent) (Collective Work I988:tabie 8). The greatest increase inthe urban population was recorded from 1959 to 1970 (8.2 percent), mainlyamong the Koryak, Itelmen, and Chukchi, and to a lesser extent among theEskimo and Aleut. The urban Eskimo and Chukchi population is decliningfor reasons unknown, a finding that requires special investigation.

Table 21-4 shows the dynamics of how ethnic languages stop beingmother tongues. On the whole, the rate of this loss among the peoples of theRussian Northeast was 10 percent higher than among the other peoples of theNorth between 1959 and 1970 (56—57 percent against 66.8 percent); be-tween 1970 and 1979, it was 11.5 percent higher (50.2 percent against 61.7percent). Aleut and Itelmen are most affected by this process: in 1979, amongthe former, only 17.8 percent indicated Aleut language as their mothertongue, and the Itelmen, 24.4 percent. Among the Chukchi, Koryak, and Es-kimo peoples this index is three times higher: 78.2, 69.0, and 60.7 percent,respectively. At the same time, bilingualism (knowledge of a mother tongueand of the Russian language) has been spreading over a broad area (CollectiveWork i987:chap. 5).

To summarize, the ethnic development of the peoples of the PacificCoast of the former Soviet Union has involved very complex processes. The

TABLE 21-4. Conservation of Mother Tongue (percent)

Group

1959

1970

±

1979

±

Chukchi

87.5

82.6

-5.1

78.2

-4.4

Koryak

87.0

81.0

-6.0

69.0

-12.0

Eskimo

63.0

60.0

-3.0

60.7

+0.7

Itelmen

32.0

35.7

+ 3.7

24.4

-11.3

Aleut

16.0

21.8

+ 5.8

17.8

-4.0

Average

57.1

56.2

-0.9

50.2

-6.0

Average for all "peoples

of the North"

66.8

66.3

-0.5

61.7

-4.8

main trends are an overall stabilizing of the population size, with some slow-ing down of the growth rate for the decade 1970—79; continued mixing of thenative peoples among themselves and in combination with newcomers as a re-sult of a growing number of mixed marriages and assimilation; the growth ofthe urban population and changes in its social and professional structure(Gurvich 1985); the loss of some traits of their ethnic culture as a result of thediminishing number of people involved in the traditional economy and themovement to larger settlements (Gurvich 1973, 1977; Krupnik 1987); and,last but not least, the spreading of bilingualism as well as the loss of the na-tive mother tongues.

Many of these processes are more or less irreversible. Yet it would seemimportant and useful to implement measures to slow them down in order to re-tain as much as possible the distinctive features of these ethnic groups (ethnos),particularly their mother tongues and native cultures. Such a policy would re-quire, first, a guarantee of support for traditional forms of economy, relatedpatterns of settlement, and ways of life; second, adequate training for youngpeople to enable them to become reindeer-breeders, fishermen, and hunters;third, school programs to meet the needs of traditional hunting and fishingeconomies, which would include instruction in mother tongues both at schooland in other children's institutions and would require more teachers, method-ological programs, and textbooks; and last, programs to develop native intel-lectual culture, such as art festivals, exhibitions of decorative and applied art,contests of knowledge of the mother tongue and native folklore, and others.

354 ZOIA p. SOKOLOVA

NOTES

I. From the 773 Chukchi families they surveyed, the researchers recorded 122(15.8 percent) mono-parental families (Smichenko and Lebedev 1985:160, table i).

REFERENCESAnonymous

1973 Itogi Vsesoiuznoiperepisi naseleniia 1970 g. (Results of the All-Union1970 population census). Moscow. Vol. 4.

1984 Chislennost' i sostav naseleniia SSSR. Po dannym Vsesoiuznoi perepisi 1979goda (Number and composition of the population of the USSR, afterthe AU-Union 1979 census). Moscow: Financy i Statistika.

1986 Narodnoe Khoziaistvo S.S.S.R. v 198^ g. (National Economy of the USSRin 1985). Moscow: Ts.S.U.

Gurvich, I. S.

1973 Etnokul'turnoe razvitie beregovykh chukchei i aziatskikh eskimosov(Ethno-cultural development of the coastal Chukchi and Asiatic Eski-mo). Sovetskaia Etnografiia 5. ^

1977 Etnokul'turnye protsessy u narodov Severa i Dal'nego Vostoka (Ethno-cultural processes among the peoples of the North and the Far East).Rasy i narody 7 (Races and Peoples 7).

1985 Nekotorye cherry sovremennogo etnicheskogo razvitiia chukchei i ko-riakov (izmenenie v etnicheskoi i sotsial'no-professional'noi strukture).(Features of contemporary ethnic development of the Chukchi and Ko-ryak [changes in the ethnic and socio-professional structure}). In Et-nokulturnye protsessy u narodov Sibiri i Severa (Ethno-cultural processesamong the peoples of Siberia and the North). Moscow: Nauka.

Gurvich, I. S. (ed.)

1987 Etnicheskoe razvitie narodnostei Severa v sovetskii period (Ethnic develop-ment of the peoples of the North during the Soviet period). Moscow:Nauka.

1988 Etnokul'turnoe razvitie narodnostei Severa v usloviiakh nauchno-tekhnichesko-go progressa na perspektivu do 200^ g. (Kontseptsiia razvitiia) (Ethnocultur-al development of the peoples of the North under the scientific andtechnological era for the period up to the year 2005 [Developmentmodel}). Moscow.

Recent Ethnic Processes of the Russian Pacific Coast

355

Gurvich, I. S., and L. A. Fainberg

1964 Reply to Hughes. C//rr^«^ A;z//?ro/?o/£igj/6(1):59—60.

Krupnik, I. I.

1987 Demograficheskoe razvitie aziatskikh eskimosov v 1970-e gody (os-novnye tendentsii i etnosotsial'nye usloviia) (Demographic develop-ment of the Asiatic Eskimo in the 1970s (main trends and ethno-socialconditions). In Regional'nye problemy sotsial'no-demograficheskogo razvitiia(Regional problems of socio-demographic development). Moscow.

Liapunova, R. G.

1987 Aleuty: Ocherki etnicheskoi istorii. (The Aleuts. Essays in ethnic history).Leningrad: Nauka.

Pika, A. I.

1987 Demograficheskaia politika v raionakh prozhivaniia narodov

Severa (Demographic policy in the areas populated by the peoples ofthe North: problems and prospects). In Regional'nye problemy sotsial'no-demograficheskogo razvitiia (Regional problems of socio-demographic de-velopment). Moscow.

Simchenko, lu. B., and Lebedev, V. V.

1985 Smeshannye braki u iuzhnykh i vostochnykh chukchei. (Mixed mar-riages among the Southern and Eastern Chukchi). In Etnokul'turnyeprotsessy u narodov Sibiri i Severa (Ethno-cultural processes among thepeoples of Siberia and the North). Moscow: Nauka.

Sokolova, Z. P.

1971 Postanovleniia partii i pravitel'stva o razvitii khoziaistva i kul'tury nar-odov Krainego Severa (iuridicheskie akty 1935—1968) (Decisions of theparty and government on the development of the economy and cultureof the peoples of the Far North [legal acts of 1935-1968}). In Osushch-estvlenie leninskoi natsional'noi politiki u narodov Krainego Severa (Realiza-tion of the Leninist national policy among the peoples of the FarNorth). Moscow: Nauka.

Terletskii, P. E.

1932 Naselenie Krainego Severa (po dannymperepisi 10)26—2'] gg.) Population ofthe Far North (based on the 1926-27 Census). Leningrad.

Historical Background and Modern# Trends in Native—RussianBilingualism among SiberianNative Peoples

SERGEI A. ARUTIUNOV ANDVLADIMIR I. VASIL'EV

THE RECENT ETHNOLINGUISTIC PATTERN OF development in theformer USSR has been marked by two interdependent trends: the greater useof native languages and the spreading of Russian as a language of interethniccommunication. Both trends are inherent in the social structure of what usedto be the USSR. Their history has been outlined in a number of philosophical,historical and ethno-sociological works (e.g., Guboglo 1984).

This chapter reviews the local manifestations of these trends among theminorities of Northern Siberia, or "small peoples of the North." According tothe 1979 census, there are 26 northern minorities, the largest one being theNenets (29,900 persons), followed by the Evenk (27,300), then the Khanty(20,900), and the Chukchi (14,000). The smallest in number are the Nganas-san (867 persons), the Aleut (546), and, last, the Negidal (504) (Anonymous1984:72-73).

The history of the development of native languages and of the establish-ment of native—Russian bilingualism can be divided into two stages. The firststage began immediately after the October Revolution and the end of the Civ-il War. It was marked by efforts to awaken the political activity of the nativepopulation, to help them overcome their social and economic backwardness.

357

358

SERGEI A. ARUTIUNOV AND VLADIMIR I. VASIL'EV

The traditional occupations of the "peoples of the North," from the KolaPeninsula to the Bering Strait, were fishing, trapping, wild reindeer hunting,reindeer breeding, and sea mammal hunting (whales, walrus, seals). A goodnumber of groups were completely nomadic, the rest seminomadic, living inseasonal sedentary settlements at the fishing or hunting grounds. The literacyrate was 16.8 percent among the sedentary population and 1.9 percent amongnomads, according to the authors' calculations, after Terletskii (1932:28).

Under these circumstances, the first task of the new government was toorganize some elected bodies for self-administration. Therefore, a special gov-ernment organization was created in 1924 within the Presidium of the Cen-tral Executive Committee of the USSR. This was the Committee for the Ad-vancement of the Peoples of the Northern Periphery of the RSFSR, known asthe Committee of the North. Later, in 1929—30, autonomous areas {okrug)were formed within the provinces {oblasf) inhabited by the native popula-tions, in keeping with Lenin's idea that oppression of ethnic groups couldonly be ended by creating autonomous areas (Lenin n.d.:i48).

Local and A.rea Soviets (councils) facilitated the reconstruction of thehunting economy, and organized cooperative units among the native Siberianpopulation, initially at the level of basic production teams and companion-ships. By 1934 there were 210 companionships and 221 basic teams in theNorth, and about 45 percent of the native population worked in cooperatives.By 1940 about 85 percent of the households were members of productionteams and collective farms (Anonymous 1980:80, table 2; 87, table 4).

The everyday life of the Siberian natives also changed considerably.Everywhere in the taiga and the tundra new villages were built. They werethe centers of the collective farms and bases of production, with new apart-ments for families of hunters and fishermen. In these new villages buildingswere also erected for economic, administrative, and cultural purposes, withpriority being given to schools, kindergartens, and workers' clubs. In 1930,there were 123 schools in the North, 62 of them with dormitories. In 1934the number of native schools in the North exceeded 300, and they housed11,000 children, or 60 percent of the total number of children of school agein the area (Uvachan 1971:171; Meliakov 1982:39). Considerable effort wasmade to reduce illiteracy among the adult population, and by 1937, 65 per-cent of the adults of the small peoples of the North were literate (Anonymous1980:30, 108).

In the 1930s a great deal of effort went into providing northern Ian-

guages with a suitable writing system. Alphabets were compiled for the 14largest populations (Nenets, Evenk, Khanty, Mansi, Chukchi, Koryak, Even,and others), and textbooks were published for the primary school in these lan-guages. Various centers also began publishing newspapers and broadcastingon the radio in the same languages.

In 1926, at the Leningrad Oriental Institute, the Faculty of the Northwas created, later reorganized into the Institute of the Peoples of the North.In the early 1930s, it was attended by 195 students from 19 Siberian nation-alities. By 1939, there were about 1,200 students from the native cultures ofthe North in various colleges and universities (Anonymous 1980:29, 100).

Linguistically, the northern population, in the terminology of the Sovietethno-sociologist M. N. Guboglo, was at that period generally monolingualand prebilingual; in other words, they could not speak Russian at all, or wereable to speak it only with difficulty (Guboglo 1984:125). The form of Russianspoken at that time by most northern groups was rather different from the lit-erary standard. It was a language deeply saturated with local and dialectalforms, archaic lexics, and full of adstratum idioms borrowed from variousnorthern languages and dialects.

After World War II, the massive development of industry and a trans-portation network began in the North, especially in the 1960s and 1970s.This was due to the discovery of rich gas and oil fields and extensive miningin various parts of the Arctic region, and to the growth of timber and fishingenterprises. This expanded exploitation of natural resources drew migrants tothe North, which in turn led to the rapid growth of modern cities. In manyArctic and Subarctic areas new urban-type villages were built, and in an as-tonishingly short time many of them grew into cities. All this was accompa-nied by the enhancement of primary industries aimed at establishing largegovernment-owned reindeer-breeding and hunting collectives (the sovkhozts).

This extensive industrial and farming development of Northern Siberiacaused a massive flow north of ethnically heterogeneous immigrants from Eu-ropean Russia (Moscow, Leningrad, Bashkiria, Tataria, etc.) and from South-ern Siberia. According to the 1970 Soviet census, there were representatives of60 ethnic groups in the autonomous areas of Tiumen Province alone(Chemakin 1974:111, 115).

These economic and demographic changes in the North were accompa-nied by considerable reforms in the domain of culture and everyday life-style.Governmental decrees, issued in March and July 1957, provided for supple-

360 SERGEI A. ARUTIUNOV AND VLADIMIR I. VASIL'EV

mentary measures "towards a complete elimination of illiteracy among thepopulations of the North, extension of the network of schools and dormitoriesfor their children, and realization of a polytechnical education in the schoolsaccording to the needs of local economy" (Anonymous 1958:695).

The number of Siberian native children living in boarding schools, in-cluding the supply of food, clothing, and shoes—all entirely subsidized bythe state—increased. Complete government support for students in dormito-ries was extended to all children of school age, irrespective of where their par-ents lived. All expenses for the transportation of children to the schools fromthe beginning of the school year and back home for vacations were also cov-ered by government organizations (calculated after Anonymous 1973;1984:10-11).

As a result of this complex of economical, demographic, and culturalmeasures, the linguistic situation in the North changed considerably. The1960s and 1970s can be described as a new stage in the native—Russian bilin-gualism of the Siberian natives. The Union Census of 1970 shows that 42.6percent of the native population considered Russian a second language. Thebasic form of bilingualism had become a complete bilingualism, that is, a rel-atively free command of Russian, or an incomplete bilingualism (certain diffi-culties accompanying a generally sufficient fluency in Russian). Monolingual-ism and prebilingualism were pushed to the second plan and could beobserved mainly among the oldest generation.

At present the third stage of the native—Russian bilingualism can be ob-served in the North. It is connected with a continuous intensive growth ofpopulation of the autonomous districts due to immigration. By 1979 the pop-ulation of the Khanty-Mansi Area was more than 570,000, compared with271,000 in 1970. The Yamalo-Nenets Area had 158,800 people in 1979,compared with 80,000 in 1970. The corresponding numbers for the NenetsArea were 47,000 and 39,000, for the Taimyr Area 45,000 and 38,000, forthe Koryak Area 35,000 and 31,000, and for the Chukchi Area 140,000 and101,000, as calculated by the authors, after the 1970 and 1979 censuses(Anonymous 1973:68, 79, 92, 102, 123, 124; 1984:10, 11).

The flow of migrants affected not only the industrial regions and urban-ized locations but also the village economy. At present the nonnatives consti-tute the majority of the population in all areas. There are very few large vil-lages in the North where native families live isolated from the families ofmigrants. In all basic respects (housing, clothing, food, transportation), the

material culture of Siberian natives is becoming more and more similar to thematerial culture of Russians and other migrants to Arctic and Subarctic re-gions.

Mixed marriages between young men and women of Northern groupswith Russian, Ukrainian, Tatar, and other immigrant groups have becomecommon. The number of such marriages has grown considerably in the pastdecade or two. At present the working population among northern groups iscomposed basically of people who study in local schools with dormitories andwho are able not only to speak, but also to think in Russian (they are post-bilingual, in M. N. Guboglo's terminology). According to the census of 1979,54.0 percent of the persons in northern ethnic groups have full command ofRussian, and 28.6 percent consider Russian their mother tongue (see Anony-mous 1984:72). Among the Khanty, 52.8 percent of the people are fluent inRussian; among the Koryak, 60.7 percent; among Chukchi, 61.2 percent;among Nenets, 64.2 percent; among Nganassans, 71.3 percent; among Dol-gans, 72.9 percent, and so on (Anonymous 1984:72—73).

The process by which the peoples of the North have adopted Russian asa spoken language is a spontaneous one and is closely connected with thechanges in their way of life. We must agree with Siberian linguists N. R. andS. B. Yakushkin, who write (lakushkin and lakushkina 1984:121):

The speakers of languages with more restricted possibilities in the socialcommunication . . . tend gradually and unconsciously to utilize more andmore frequently that language from among several languages known tothem, which is more appropriate for a communication in all spheres of hu-man activity.

Today in the most remote parts of the tundra, one may occasionally meet peo-ple who do not understand Russian. In the largest villages, however, a shift toRussian monolingualism can be observed among the younger generations.But in the teams and working groups of reindeer-breeders, hunters, and fish-ermen, the native language is normally spoken. The reason behind this, as ex-plained to us by the director of the local school in the Kolguev Island in theArkhangel Province, F. N. Ardeev, who is a Nenets himself, is that the lexicalbase of the Nenets language is not sufficient for sophisticated communicationabout world politics or the achievements in modern science and technology.On the other hand, a command of the local language is indispensable for suc-cessful work in reindeer-breeding, hunting, or a fishing economy. Many terms

362

SERGEI A. ARUTIUNOV AND VLADIMIR I. VASIL'EV

and notions, concerning peculiar and vitally important features of taiga ecolo-gy (such as details of landscape, snow cover, species of animals and plants andvariations in their behavior) are completely absent in the Russian language.According to the well-known expert on the ethnic relations in the North, Dr.V. N. Uvachan (an Evenk himself), the Evenk language has a stock of "morethan 20 various terms designating the color, sex, and age of the reindeer, andmore than 12 terms describing the state of snow cover affecting successfulhunting" (Uvachan 1977:28).

According to the 1979 census, 61.7 percent of the native population ofthe North still uses the native tongue. This index is 60.7 percent among Es-kimo, 67.8 among Khanty, 69.0 percent among Koryak, and 78.2 percentamong Chukchi. The highest level in the command of native language is ob-served among the Nenets (81.8 percent) and the Dolgan (90 percent) (authors'figures, after anonymous, 1984:72—73). According to the ethnosociologist L.M. Drobizheva, these and similar figures, along with the ethnic affiliationcensus, "reflect ethnic identity awareness, and represent its real indicators"(Drobizheva 1986:82-83).

At the present stage of the development of Native—Russian bilingualismin the North, it has become more and more important to maintain the lin-guistic continuity between the oldest and the youngest generations. This wasunderlined in the statement issued by the Central Committee of the CPSUand the Soviet of Ministers of the USSR in February 1980, entitled "Measuresfor Further Economic and Social Development in the Areas Inhabited by thePeoples of the North." This statement recommends that the government

continue linguistic studies and sociological studies on the problems of thedevelopment of writing in the languages of the peoples of the North ... toensure elaboration of school programs, and publication of textbooks and dic-tionaries for general schools, teachers' colleges and institutes, and of illustra-tive materials and methodological instructions for preschool institutions.{Pravda, 26 February 1980)

It is also important, as the well-known Chukchi author luri Rytkheu (1985)writes, "to activate teaching the native language in school in close connectionwith real life—the natural environment—so that the reindeer-breeder of thefuture may know the terminology of tundra economy to the same extent ashis father and grandfather did."

At present, the taiga and tundra supply such valuable goods as furs ofwild and farm-raised fur animals, reindeer meat, fish, and other things. No

Trends in Native—Russian Bilingualism 363

one can better manage these important branches of economy—which todayengage 30 to 40 percent of the total native population—than the native in-habitants themselves (Gurvich 1986:157).

Northern Siberia is a diverse land. It encompasses oil fields and huntinggrounds, modern buildings and nomadic tents, kindergartens and schools,workers clubs and shops, and camps for temporary stops of transient reindeer-breeders. For successful hunting, fishing, and reindeer-breeding, the peoplesof the North need to preserve the professional skills embodied in the experi-ence of older generations, but this cannot be done without the command ofthe native language. The transmission of such traditions between the old andyoung generations is inextricably linked to the continuity of language.

REFERENCESAnonymous

1958 Direktivy KPSS i Sovetskogo pravitel'stva po khoziaistvennym voprosam (Thedirectives of the CPSU and the Soviet Government on economic is-sues). Moscow.

1969 Sistematicheskoe sobranie zakonov RSFSR, Ukazov Prezidiuma VerkhovnogoSoveta RSFSR i reshenii Pravitelstva RSFSR (A systematic collection ofthe Laws of the RSFSR, decrees of the Presidium of the Supreme Sovietof the RSFSR, and decisions of the Government of the RSFSR).Moscow. Vol. 12.

1973 Itogi Vsesoiuznoi perepisi nase/eniia igyo g. (Results of the All-Union1970 population census). Moscow. Vol. 4.

1980 Partiinye organizatsii Sovetskogo Severa (1920—19^9) (Organizations of the[Communist] Party in the Soviet North, 1920—1959)- Tomsk. Vol. i.

1984 Chislennost' i sostav naseleniia SSSR. Po dannym Vsesoiuznoi perepisi 1979goda (Number and composition of the population of the USSR, afterthe All-Union 1979 census). Moscow: Financy i Statistika.

Chemakin, A. la.

1974 Osvoenie Obskogo Severa i izmenenie obraza zhizni malykh narodov(The development of the Northern Ob region and the change in theway of life of the "small Peoples of the North"). Istoria SSSR 2.

Drobizheva, L. M.

1986 Izmenenie etnokul'tumykh orentatsii i samosoznaniia u narodov SSSRV protsesse sotsialno-kul'turnykh preobrazovanii (The change in ethno-

364

SERGEI A. ARUTIUNOV AND VLADIMIR I. VASIL'EV

cultural orientation and self-identity among the peoples of the USSRin the processus of socio-cultural transformation). In Etnicheskie protsessyV SSSR i SShA (Ethnic processes in the USSR and the USA). Moscow.

Guboglo, M. N.

1984 Sovremennye etnoiazykovye protsessy v SSSR (Contemporary ethno-linguis-tic processes in the USSR). Moscow: Nauka.

Gurvich, I. S.

1986 Sokhranenie etnichnosti u narodnostei Severa SSSR (The preservationof ethnic identity among the ethnic groups of the North of the USSR).In Etnicheskie protsessy v SSSR i SShA (Ethnic processes in the USSR andthe USA). Moscow.

lakushkin, N. R., and S. B. lakushkina

1984 K utochneniiu poniatiia "iazykovoi kontakt" (Redefining the conceptof "linguistic contact"). In Metodologicheskie i filosofskieproblemy iazykoz-naniia i literaturovedeniia (Methodological and philosophical questionsof linguistics and literary criticism). Novosibirsk.

Lenin, V. I.

n.d. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Complete works). Vol. 24.

Meliakov, N. I.

1982 Formirovanie pedagogicheskikh kadrov dlia shkol Krainego Severa

(The education of teachers for northern schools). In Letopis' Severa. Vol.10. Moscow.

Rytkheu, lu. S.

1985 Avral na ulitse Beringa (Emergency work in Bering Street). Literatur-naia Gazeta, 11 December, vol. 50/5064.

Terletskii, P. E.

1932 Naselenie Krainego Severa (Population of the Far North). Leningrad.Uvachan, V. N.

1971 Put' narodov Severa k sotsializmu (The peoples of the North's path tosocialism). Moscow.

1977 Narody Severa v usloviiakh razvitogo sotsializma (The peoples of the Northin the era of developed socialism). Krasnoiarsk.

23.

Crossroads ? A Twentieth-CenturyHistory of Contacts across theBering Strait

MICHAEL KRAUSS

THE SINGLE WORD "CROSSROADS?" FOLLOWED by a question markeffectively conveys the entire point of this chapter, given the proper tone ofvoice. The notion I wish to explore is the flow of traffic, as denoted by theEnglish word "crossroads"—but lost in the Russian translation "styk"—thebasic idea of a place busy with traffic back and forth, and the extent to whichit applies to our century. During the periods covered by most of the "Cross-roads" exhibition, the Bering Strait may indeed have been such a crossroadsfor indigenous peoples. Over the past two centuries, however, two great pow-ers of European origin have increasingly dominated the area, although thedensity of its European population is still very low. These two superpowersmet here, face-to-face, or rather back-to-back. It is such a low-pressure pointthat as arch-enemies during the cold war we practically ignored each otherhere. A brief history and update of these strange relations follows.^

For the purposes of this discussion, I am referring primarily to theBering Strait area and to St. Lawrence Island and facing Chukotka, in particu-lar. I do not consider the Aleutian-Commander arc at all, for twentieth-centu-ry contact has been virtually nil there. A glance at a map (figure 23-1) of thisarea shows why the modern Eskimo language configuration makes the St.

365

366

MICHAEL KRAUSS

Lawrence Island—Chukotkan connection more important than the Diomedeone. Note that four different Eskimo languages are spoken in this area—oneof the Inupiaq branch and three of the Yupik. Originally, Alaskan Yupik wasno doubt connected to Siberian Yupik through Seward Peninsula. NaukanskiSiberian Yupik on East Cape is still linguistically intermediate betweenAlaskan Yupik and Chaplinski—St. Lawrence Island (or "Central") SiberianYupik. Old Sirenikski, now remembered by only two women of Sireniki intheir 70s, was yet another language, a relic of probably the earliest wave ofYupik in Chukotka. In recent centuries, Inupiaq replaced Yupik on SewardPeninsula, thus breaking the American-Siberian Yupik chain and creating amajor language barrier between Big Diomede and Naukan.^

By far the closest kinship during this century has existed between St.Lawrence Island and the facing Chaplinski area of Chukotka, with virtuallyidentical speech that can only be the result of steady and close communica-tion. The population of St. Lawrence Island bottomed out at 274 at the turnof the century, but has now recovered and has moved past 1,000, which ismore than the number of Chaplinski Eskimo on the Siberian side. Aboriginal-ly, St. Lawrence Island was, of course, an appendage to Asia, but because itwas included in Alaska at the 1867 purchase, it is now the major native Alas-ka—Siberian link.

The recent history of the area can be divided into three periods:1900—24, the American period; 1924—48, positive Soviet-American relations;1948-88, the cold war barrier.

Chukotka at the turn of the century, though nominally under tsaristrule, was in effect under American influence and control, particularly its com-merce, whereas Seward Peninsula had a large gold-boom population. Chukot-ka had nothing of the kind. The nearest permanent Russian administrativeoutpost was at Anadyr, 400 miles to the southwest. Such government as therewas literally conceded the area to American traders, many based in Nome,who may have numbered as many as 200. They sold cheap goods, especiallyliquor, to Eskimo and Chukchi for good furs and ivory, still a basic industry atNome. Literature on both sides characterizes many of these traders as "preda-tors" {khishchniki). The "bad old days" of American Chukotka are not forgot-ten. It is interesting to note that in Alaska loanwords in the native languagesare from Russian, whereas in Siberian Yupik such words are English: for ex-ample, Alaskan Yupik miilaq (soap), Siberian suupa\ Alaskan mukaaq (flour),Siberian evlawa; Alaskan kuluvak (cow), Siberian kaakw\ Alaskan kuuskaq (cat).

FIGURE 23-1. Native languages and population movements at the crossroads. (Maps

by Marcia Bakry, Smithsonian Institution)

Siberian kiti\ Alaskan cass aq (clock, watch), Siberian kellaagek, waasek\ orSiberian ivenruutek (outboard motor) (from Evinrude); Siberian keresma (celebra-tion) (from Christmas), which I once noted applied to the sixtieth anniversaryof the October Revolution.

By 1924 a new period begins, with the full consolidation of Soviet con-trol in Chukotka, seven years after the October Revolution. There was imme-diately some curtailment of international travel: for example, that year KnudRasmussen's Thule expedition, having crossed the entire Eskimo Arctic, was

turned back at Naukan by local guards and permitted to stay only the night.Most important, however, local Eskimo visiting back and forth continued, ap-parently unimpeded. Between St. Lawrence Island and Chaplino it was a 24-hour row, best done in June—faster of course with outboard motor. On theSoviet side during this period, several more of the Eskimo villages were aban-doned or moved to the main Eskimo villages of Chaplino and Sireniki; also,new Eskimo colonies were started at Uel'kal' and Wrangel Island. In the late1920s, artels or collectives and schools were established in the main Eskimocommunities; in 1928 the important Kul'tbaza (culture base) was built atLavrentiya, as a center of acculturation for Chukchi and Eskimo; that was alsothe first permanent Russian settlement on the Chukchi Peninsula—280 yearsafter the first Russian presence there (Simon Dezhnev reached East Cape in1648). The city of Provideniya began to develop in the mid-1930s, near whathad been the Eskimo village of Ureliki at Emma Harbor, with Mister Thom-son's American trading post. Provideniya-Ureliki is now a substantial Russianport and city of 6,000 or more people, by far the largest in the area.

In 1938 the Soviet government "regularized" (recognized the legitimacyand at the same time regulated the nature oO these Eskimo visits in a memo-randum of February 7 from the Soviet Embassy to the U.S. State Department.The memorandum looks good to us now, but at the time might have been acurtailment. It allowed U.S. Eskimo to visit Chukotka, without a passport. Ifthey checked in with local Soviets or frontier guards for up to three months,they could move freely along the coast at the rate of up to 100 persons a year;the agreement permitted traditional trade, but not firearms, narcotics, liquor,printed matter, or objects of religious worship. These visits indeed continuedin both directions and are still remembered by Eskimo on both sides, at bothcontact points.

During World War II good local relations were enjoyed at another levelas well. Under the military Lend-Lease program, some 7,000 planes wereflown from the United States to the USSR for the war effort, via Fairbanks,where the University of Alaska was converted to a billet for Soviet pilots topick up the planes, fly them to Nome, thence to Uel'kal' and Anadyr, Provi-deniya-Ureliki being an alternate airstrip to Uel'kal'.

After the war, relations changed abruptly, here as elsewhere. The last St.Lawrence Island boat allowed to land at Chaplino apparently made the stop in1946, and the last group of Little Diomeders to cross over to Big Diomede,that same year, was detained there for seven weeks. The last visits from the

USSR to the United States permitted by either side occurred in August 1947.

During the spring of 1948, at exactly the same time as the Berlin block-ade and airlift were beginning, a State Department file shows considerable ac-tivity concerning the termination of these Eskimo visits. A memorandumfrom J. Edgar Hoover of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for March 22,concludes that U.S. national security concerns should outweigh the interestsof local Eskimo. Some argued for tighter supervision and restrictions on visitsof Soviet Eskimo to St. Lawrence Island and Diomede, for example, instead oftotal curtailment. This debate (June 16—17) was in any case futile in view ofthe exchange of the following terse notes, one sentence each:

The Embassy of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics presents its compli-ments to the Department of State and has the honor to communicate thatthe Soviet Government has taken a decision regarding the establishment ofa general system of protection of the Soviet state boundary on the ChukotskiPoluostrov [Chukchi Peninsula] and on the islands of Behring Strait, inwhich connection the procedural agreement regulating visits to the main-land of Siberia by American Eskimos, concluded by means of an exchange ofthe Embassy's memorandum of February 7, 1938 and the note of the De-partment of State of the United States of America of March 26, 1938,should be considered invalid as of May 29, 1948. [Initialed] A. R

The reply was as follows:

The Secretary of State presents his compliments to His Excellency the Am-bassador of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and, with reference tothe Embassy's note No. loi of May 29, 1948, has the honor to inform himthat this Government takes note of the fact that the Soviet Governmentconsiders the agreement of March 26, 1938 regularizing the temporary vis-its to the Siberian mainland of American Eskimos residing on St. Lawrenceand Little Diomede Island invalid as of May 29, 1948.

This diplomacy in effect closed the frontier for exactly 40 years.

The first Soviet move to secure the separation was, understandably, theevacuation of Big Diomede to Naukan, in the summer of 1948. Of the 20 orso persons still living there who were to be evacuated, only six (a single fami-ly) were Big Diomeders, the rest being Naukantsy who had moved out there,most of the Big Diomeders having already moved to Little Diomede. Of thesesix, one may still be alive; she would be the only speaker of Inupiaq Eskimonow in the former USSR.

The next move came lo years later, in 1958, when the two major SovietEskimo points most closely exposed to contact with Alaskan Eskimo wereevacuated into fjords at some remove from such exposure. Naukan was"closed" and the population moved to three locations in St. Lawrence Bay:Lavrentiya, Pinakul', and Nunyamo. (Pinakul' was in turn closed in the1960s, and Nunyamo in the 1970s.) The largest single group of Naukantsynow lives as a small minority among the Russian and Chukchi population ofLavrentiya. Although they have had no village of their own for over 30 yearsand number fewer than 400—a minority of a minority—the Naukantsy stillmaintain their identity as an articulate and creative people. As for Chaplino,it, too, was moved to New Chaplino in 1958, near the head of Tkachen Bay, asite connected by road to the city of Provideniya. Sireniki, the only other ma-jor Chaplinski-speaking community, remained in its traditional location, al-ready less exposed to contact, the only one of the three not moved. (Note thatUelen, the largest Chukchi community on East Cape, also remains in its tra-ditional location, perhaps because it lacks the ethnic ties.)

During the 40-year period of the cold war, there may have been someU.S.—Soviet Eskimo contact, but this certainly was rare and minimal, somecases perhaps engineered by intelligence services, shadowy and hardly docu-mented. I do not know why the major evacuations were made in 1958 andnot earlier or later. If there was any contact between 1948 and 1958, therecertainly was less in 1958—88. After 1958, Soviet Eskimo were also subject tomuch more assimilatory pressure, all living in communities that were largelyRussian and Chukchi. The generation under 25 years of age no longer speaksEskimo. On this side the same is true of the Diomeders, but not of the St.Lawrence Islanders, almost all of whom still speak Yupik and can thereforeeasily communicate with Chaplinski-speakers on the other side, a point defi-nitely downplayed in the Soviet literature, which has only emphasized thatconditions for comparable indigenous populations were better on the Sovietside.

In the 1970s those on St. Lawrence Island and Diomede became interest-ed in resuming contact with Soviet kin. This move was related to the detenteof the period, which afforded us contact with Soviet counterparts at the acade-mic level, and to activity from the University of Alaska supporting the devel-opment of native language programs in the island schools. Certainly, this in-terest was shared by Soviet Eskimo, who also doubtless found the renewedinternational attention to the possibility of renewed contacts encouraging and

beneficial, among other things in the resumption of Eskimo language pro-grams in their schools (though by then the children no longer knew the lan-guage there).

More specifically, in the early 1970s I initiated contacts with leading So-viet Eskimo language specialists; the academics E. Rubtsova, G. Men-ovshchikov, N. Emel'yanova, and writers (Jon example, V. Anal'kvasak), allnow deceased; and by the mid-1970s with the new generation of academicspecialists, the linguist Nikolai Vakhtin, and ethnographers Mikhail Chlenovand Igor Krupnik. In the period 1969—72 I had been involved in designing aroman alphabet orthography for St. Lawrence Island Yupik and in developinga bilingual education program and literature in the language for the islandschools. This came during a period in which there was no use of the languageallowed in the Soviet schools. Through Vakhtin, Krupnik, and Chlenov, wesoon also developed a chain of communication and transmission of this litera-ture between St. Lawrence Islanders and Soviet Eskimo. I was also able to ob-tain copies or microfilms of the considerable Soviet Eskimo school literature(of 1931—59) and to furnish copies of this to the island schools. In 1977 thefirst contacts by correspondence in Yupik began between island educationalleaders and writers such as Vera Oovi Kaneshiro, Adelinda Womkon Badten,Jenny Alowa, and their Soviet counterparts, Lyudmila Aynganga and ZoyaNenlumkina. These indirect contacts helped build consciousness of each oth-er's changing situation, continued existence, and desire to reestablish directcontact between the Eskimo of St. Lawrence Island and Chukotka.

I myself made trips to Leningrad in 1976 and Moscow-Leningrad in1979 for these purposes. In 1979, at the home of Mikhail Chlenov, I had myfirst opportunity to meet a Soviet Eskimo, Ol'ga Mukha, and the chance toteach her to read her language in the St. Lawrence Island orthography, using asa text a volume we had published at the Alaska Native Language Center of ac-counts of St. Lawrence Islanders' traditional visits to Chukotka {Pangeghtellghet1976) and which, we understand, became popular reading material in Chu-kotka.

I continue to focus here on this Eskimo connection as a central issue inthe much broader interest also developing for contacts across the "Ice Cur-tain" between Alaska and the Soviet Far East in general—both because of myown personal interest in it (indeed, that is why I am here today), and becauseI do believe that the human concern and sympathy for the right of these sepa-rated Eskimo communities to reestablish their ties played a powerful central

role in the success of the movement for reopening the crossroads.

In this connection, I had an interesting meeting in 1978 with Ambas-sador Anatolii Dobrynin in Washington. Dobrynin was interested in this is-sue, having himself visited Nome in 1975. I pointed out the strange situationthat whereas the two Cold War arch enemies had large parts of their budgetpointed at each other in the form of nuclear warheads over the Atlantic andEurope, right where the two superpowers actually met, we were not even sureexactly where the boundary was, and had only a few guards with binocularsand rifles. Why not then celebrate our peaceful neighborliness by allowing theEskimo to visit back and forth again as in the past, by renewing in some formthe agreement of 1938? Dobrynin agreed these visits would be good for bothsides, but unfortunately, Soviet policy required that relations between ourcountries generally would have to improve before these visits would be per-mitted. He certainly was right.

Interest continued to intensify during the early 1980s, in spite of a peri-od of poor U.S.-Soviet relations, which no doubt delayed the results.

In recent years, the development of contacts, at first very indirect, hasrapidly escalated in extent and directness. In late 1985 I had an opportunity tomeet with some Soviet Eskimo cultural leaders Lyudmila Aynganga (Chaplin-ski writer and educator) and Antonina Verbitskaya (Naukanski broadcaster),at the home of Mikhail Chlenov in Moscow. In may 1986, a Canadian Depart-ment of Indian Affairs delegation visited Sireniki. In July 1986 A Nukanskidance troupe performed at the Aasivik festival in Greenland: that fall anAlaskan group of performers under the leadership of Dixie Belcher, which in-cluded St. Lawrence Islanders, traveled to the USSR and met Soviet Eskimostudents in Leningrad, the first direct St. Lawrence Islander—Chapliniki con-tact in many years, however roundabout geographically. In the spring of 1987Governor Steve Cowper began a campaign to open broader contacts.

The first permitted crossing of the border was made in the summer of1987 by a swimmer, the American Lynne Coxe, who swam from Little to BigDiomede. She was accompanied by some Diomeders in a boat, who metNaukantsy who had come to Big Diomede for the occasion. To converse, theyhad to speak through Citizens' Band radio back to Little Diomede to engageas translator the one old man there who still understood Naukansi. Then inSeptember 1987 the American marine research vessel Surveyor was allowed tocross the line to spend a day in port at Provideniya. About this time Nomebusinessman Jim Stimpfle intensified efforts to establish contact. In January

1988 Soviet spokesman Gennadi Gerasimov encouraged businessmen in An-chorage to continue the pressure for contacts.

The summer of 1988 finally saw major contacts directly across the fron-tier, exactly 40 years after that curt exchange of notes in 1948. At the Rea-gan-Gorbachev summit in May and June of 1988, Arctic science cooperationfigured among the agreements. These included a remarkably explicit state-ment regarding native contact (Khabarovsk edition of Pravda, 3, 1988):"They [Reagan and Gorbachev] expressed support for the expansion of con-tacts between native peoples of the Soviet North and of Alaska." This state-ment could hardly have been more explicit or come from a higher level. Thiswas the result also of many long-term efforts by individuals and groups onboth sides—Eskimo, academic, and political.

At the same time, stimulated perhaps by the expansion of a Japanesefishery in the North Pacific, the United States and Soviet Union stepped upnegotiations for cooperation in this field and opened Provideniya (along withBeringovski north of Cape Navarin, and Korf, west of Alyutorski) to Ameri-can vessels engaged in joint fishery, in exchange for the lifting of restrictionson American ports to Soviet vessels.

Perhaps the most dramatic event of all, at least for me, because I was onit, was the Nome-to-Provideniya Friendship Flight on June 13—14, 1988, ofan Alaska Airlines jet with some 70 Americans on board, including Alaska'sSenator Murkowski, Governor Cowper, other officials, 20 journalists, and 17St. Lawrence Islanders. It was a beautifijl and unforgettable day. The wholetown of Provideniya was out cheering. Most emotional of all was the meetingof the St. Lawrence Islanders with the Soviet Eskimo who were in Provideniya:greeting each other for the first time in 40 years, in the language—it becamedramatically clear to all—that was the only one common to both sides.

Nevertheless, the driving force of that event, at least from the Americanside, was commercial, not cultural or scientific interests. Alaska Airlines,Nome businessmen, and cruise ship lines are negotiating with Provideniya,Magadan Province, and Moscow officials to bring boats and planes withAmerican tourists to Provideniya, especially as an added attraction for touriststo Nome, to benefit the economy on both sides. Eskimo, especially as dancers,are looked upon as an important cultural resource for this. One may hope thatthe Eskimo themselves may benefit, not only economically, but also socially,especially insofar as they may share in the opening of the frontier that has sep-arated them for so long.

In July 1988 the successful search for a lost St. Lawrence Island huntingparty went freely across the border and Soviet ships helped. In early August of1988 there were two more major contacts. The schooner Cyrano, piloted byMimi George and David Lewis, was permitted to bring 12 islanders fromGambell directly across to New Chaplino, for the first contact ever in that vil-lage, lasting five days. At the same time, a delegation of the Inuit Circumpo-lar Conference (ICC), consisting of three Greenlanders, three Canadians, andthree Alaskans (two St. Lawrence Islanders and the mayor of Diomede) trav-eled form Copenhagen to Moscow, met with officials there, and then flew toAnadyr and Provideniya, visited Sireniki for two days, and also made a briefstop at New Chaplino. The ICC group went home the long way, but with acommitment from Soviet officials to send Soviet Eskimo to the next triennialmeeting of the conference, at Sisimiut, Greenland.

The latest major event was the return visit of 26 Soviet officials, press,Eskimo (including three Yupik speakers) and Chukchi, from Provideniya (byship) to Nome and Anchorage on September 8—10, the first in this direction.Some participants report that as the ship crossed the dateline passengersclapped their hands, and someone said, "We broke the curtain."

Surely the joy is mutual, and, we may hope, not premature. Both sides,including the separated Eskimo community, have too long lived not at acrossroads but at the edge of the world. That crossroads is becoming realagain. We should feel obligated to help keep it so.

EPILOGUE

So ended the original presentation of this account. Up to that point, whichmarked the opening of the "Crossroads" exhibition (along with the crossroadsthemselves), chronicling the steps and successes one by one was relatively easy.To continue the history of the past two-and-a-half years' dramatic increase inour relations is a far more complex and vast task, which I can only do here in acursory way, for by late 1988 there was something to report for every month,by 1989 something for every week, and now there is something practicallyevery day. Here are some of the highlights of these events:

October ic)88: Soviet icebreakers help rescue famous whales caught in iceat Barrow. Governor Cowper sends delegation to establish businessties in Khabarovsk, Nakhodka, Vladivostok.

375

November ig88: Governor Kobets of Magadanskaya Oblast' and officialstake boat (for the second time) to Nome, visit Anchorage and Juneau,with business proposals.

January i^Sg: Alaska Airlines applies for Nome-Provideniya route, soonto be changed to Anchorage-Magadan.

February 1^89: First Aeroflot flight, Magadan-Anadyr'-Anchorage,bringing Dixie Belcher's musical Performers for Peace, including NewChaplino Eskimo dancers, for public performance at Anchorage ArtsCenter, and memorable private rehearsal at home of Jenny Alowa, ofSoviet and St. Lawrence Islander Eskimo dancing together, as they hadfor the first time on stage at the Provideniya Dom Kul'tury on the oc-casion of the Friendship Flight, seven months before.

March ic)8c): Aeroflot brings Bering Bridge Expedition members toAnadyr', who then ski and dogsled from Anadyr' to Kotzebue (March7—May 8). The return flight brings 100 Soviet passengers and cargofrom Mgadan for a business fair in Anchorage.

April icf8g: As the Bering Bridge Expedition nears the Diomedes, Gov-ernors Cowper and Kobets in Nome and Diomede—prevented by in-clement weather from meeting personally—establish agreement onBering Strait relations, including visa-free Eskimo travel, and rescueoperations.

These patterns continued. By the summer of 1989, the local bush carrierBering Air of Nome began frequent charter service between Nome and Provi-deniya. In July 1989 the schooner Cyrano with St. Lawrence Islanders began astay of several months in villages on Chukotka. In September 1989 the NomeElders conference included a large delegation of Chaplinski and NaukanskiEskimo who began planning with St. Lawrence Islanders for continuing cul-tural relations, at the same time that U.S. Secretary of State James Baker andSoviet Foreign Minister Edouard Shevardnadze signed agreements inWyoming including the Alaska-Chukotka accord for visa-free Eskimo travel.And in October 1989 the ethnologist Anna KertuUa began a stay of sixteenmonths in the village of Sireniki.

Also in the fall of 1989, the crucial telephone link between Gambell onSt. Lawrence Island and Provideniya was established, vastly facilitating com-

376 MICHAEL KRAUSS

munications between Alaska and the entire Soviet Far East. Governor Cowpermade an extensive tour of Chukotka and the Soviet Far East to establish firmrelations at many levels. The University of Alaska also established a much-needed office of Soviet relations.

Today, Bering Air reports it has made about 350 flights between Nomeand Provideniya, with at least 2,200 passengers, 60 percent Americans, nofreight, and no official mail. About 15 of these flights have taken St. LawrenceIslanders from Gambell to Provideniya, and 3 or 4 have taken passengers fromKotzebue to Lavrentiya.

On the Anchorage-Magadan route, Northern Air Cargo and Alaska Air-lines estimate there have been up to 65 flights carrying passengers and car-go—about 25 of these with cargo only—the rest have carried more than3,500 passengers—about half American and half Soviet. I know of at leastthree flights that have gone on to Fairbanks. They bring passengers not onlyfrom the Soviet Far East, but also from places such as Yakutsk and Novosi-birsk, and may become a major carrier of passengers from Moscow and St.Petersburg. Thus by August 1991 approximately 6,000 people had crossedthe border more easily and over a broader expanse since Lynn Coxe first swamit in 1987.

In April 1991 two more notable events took place: the internationalNome-Anadyr' dogsled race, probably to become a regular event (this race didindeed take place, but was stopped for four days at the border for visas!); andon April 13 Aeroflot carried more than 100 passengers from Anchorage toPetropavlovsk in Kamchatka for the first time, thus opening a new route.Aeroflot also began to reestablish another old connection over the Aleutian-Commander Island arc involving Alaska natives, as many of the passengerswill be Unalaskans, including some Aleut, who will meet Commander IslandAleut in Petropavlovsk. The Russian America Company established Aleut onthe Commander Islands, mostly from Atka and Attu, who have been cut offfrom each other for more than a century now, since the sale. Igor Krupnik andI met with a Commander Island Aleut leader in Leningrad in early 1990about reestablishing contact. Moses Dirks of Atka spoke in Aleut over theBering phone connection to one of the few remaining old Aleut speakersamong the Aleut of the Commander Islands in August 1990, breaking over acentury of silence. The Commander Island Aleut are eager to contact theirAmerican kin as the Eskimo have, and their reunion will also play a centralrole in the events now feverishly being planned for this summer and fall be-

tween the Aleut-Pribilovs, Commanders, and Kamchatka, to celebrate thetwo hundred and fiftieth anniversary of Bering's 1741 voyage.

At the writing of this account in August 1991, air traffic between Alas-ka and the Russian Far East is up to about 300 passengers a week for May-June and more than 700 per week are expected for June-September, so that bythe end of the summer well over 10,000 passengers will have crossed the bor-der. There has been charter traffic between Anchorage and Anadyr', Anchor-age and Magadan, Anchorage and Provideniya, and Anchorage and Kha-barovsk about five times a week (freight and passengers), but Aeroflot has nowscheduled weekly service for Khabarovsk-Anchorage (-San Francisco). And, asof June 16, Alaska Airlines has been flying three times a week between An-chorage, Magadan, and Khabarovsk.

For all of this traffic, there is still no direct mail service (although provi-sions for mail contracts have been made for these flights), because internation-al mail must still be funneled through Moscow.

Travel is still hampered by paperwork and the need for visas (except forEskimo and Aleut), and the absence of consular facilities in Alaska and theRussian Far East, which there is talk of developing.

In addition to the expanding Eskimo (and Aleut relations), the tourismand business traffic, there is also significant movement of people as a result ofthe establishment of sister-city relations, now including Kotzebue-Lavrentiya,Shishmaref-Uelen, Nome-Provideniya, Gambell-New Chaplino, Savoonga-Sireniki, Fairbanks-Yakutsk, Bethel-Anadyr', Anchorage-Magadan, Kenai-Okha (Sakhalin), Unalaska-Petropavlovsk, Juneau-Vladivostok, which haveeach had at least one exchange of visiting delegations.

The Eskimo (and Aleut) connection has played a central role not only inthe past history of Beringia but also in the present reopening of Russian-U.S.relations in the area.^ These relations now involve much of Alaska and the en-tire Russian Far East.

This movement is the beginning of a vast reorientation of OldWorld—New World relations for us. For 500 years now, since Columbus, thesehave centered across the Atlantic Ocean. Beringia has been known to imperialpowers for precisely the last half of that period only. Named after the "Russ-ian Columbus" (indeed, a minor Columbus!), Beringia has remained but a re-mote backwater for world empire. The events of 1866—67 made Beringia evenmore remote, as the first successful laying of the Atlantic cable put an end toplans to establish West-East telegraph connections via Alaska-Chukotka the

378

MICHAEL KRAUSS

very year of the sale of Alaska to a new empire with which it was not evencontiguous. The U.S.-Soviet Cold War, fought predominantly over the At-lantic and Europe, further defined this Beringian backwater as the frozen edgeof the world—a world again become a flat surface, with Alaska at the oppositeends, though on a clear day visible from both sides, yet socially and politicallyforbidden monsters—for 40 years.

During these 40 years, Alaska and Chukotka became quite used to eachbeing the remotest end of the world, and to the economic and cultural supplylines that oriented Alaska entirely southeastward to the "Lower 48" andChukotka southwestward to the Soviet "mainland" {matertk, in local Russian).

We seem almost to have forgotten the extreme artificiality of that situa-tion from a long-term historical and geographical point of view. Suddenly thisreopening of communication between two great empires, where they abut, hasproduced in a mere three years a virtual torrent of thousands of travelers, as Imyself, amazed, am tempted to describe it. On further reflection, however, Ithink we are quite unprepared for the radical socioeconomic reorientation thereopening of the crossroads has in store for us. The thousands of this summermay be but a trickle in comparison with the patterns of communication thatwe shall see develop by the end of this century. Of course, much depends onthe success of the economy of the Russian Federation, degrees of autonomy inthe former Soviet Far East, and the quality and continued improvement of re-lations with U.S. Alaska, subjects that I leave to optimistic speculation andhope.

At the same time, I must insist that it is none too soon to warn of the se-vere danger to nature and society in the crossroads region that this opening ofmodern traffic will surely bring. The fragile ecosystem of the area must beprotected from what could be rapid devastation. The idea of a Beringian in-ternational park has been in the air since about 1971 and certainly needs closeconsideration. The same increased threat now hangs over the future of the na-tive societies of the region. Environmental harm, demographic and culturalpressure of growing American and Russian populations and industries, espe-cially the pressure of overwhelming tourism, could easily be more damagingto the future of the remaining indigenous cultures and languages than aclosed crossroads has been.

Can we reorient our thinking quickly enough to keep up with this radi-cal change in our world? Are we prepared to live as wisely with an open cross-roads as with a closed one?

Crossroads? A Twentieth-Century History of Contacts

379

NOTES

1. This account of the history of the Beringian crossroads during the twentiethcentury was first presented in September 1988 at the opening of the "Crossroads" exhi-bition in Washington, D.C. As it happened, that event symbolically marked a dramat-ic moment in the history of the crossroads itself—namely, the reopening of a real flowof traffic, the fall of an Ice Curtain without gates, more impenetrable than the BerlinWall, which fell 14 months later. So much happened between the opening of the exhi-bition in 1988 and the April 1991 Anchorage openings of the crossroads that I consid-er it vital to append an update to the original account, which follows herewith, itselfwith minor changes and corrections.

2. Of course, this was routinely penetrated by bilingualism. Now, however, thereis no one in the United States who can speak Naukanski, and virtually no one inChukotka who can speak Inupiaq.

3. July 1991 saw an important further strengthening of this Eskimo contact inthe resumption of traditional travel, by open boat, first in mid-month by Chukchi andEskimo of the Northern area, in five boats from Uelen to Little Diomede, thence toShishmaref and Kotzebue; and at the end of the month by Sireniki Eskimo, in fourboats, with some difficulty, to Gambell. The resumption of this independent travel, bytheir own means (instead of airplane) dangerously late in the season (safest in June),over seas that no one could remember navigating for more than 40 years, says muchabout the people's will and the strength of their relationships.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES

3 9088 00765 2720

1

Ijljj ■

1

1