Alaska Natives at the Time of the Invasions: A Cultural Profile Project

Draft 3

Do not quote or copy without permission from Mike Gaffney or from Ray Barnhardt at the Alaska Native Knowledge Network, University of Alaska-Fairbanks. Mike Gaffney suggests that one read the Teacher's Manual Preview first to get a good idea about the purpose and design of this secondary school textbook.

Mike Gaffney

Chapter 11
But What About The Written Record?

How reliable is the written record? Unfortunately there are many cases where all that is available to us is an outsider’s written record of Native life in traditional times. In many cases we do not have Native oral backup to this documented history. Therefore we do not have a way to externally confirm the accuracy of that documentation. We don’t always have available oral historical legacies as found in Tiger Burch’s research on Northwest Alaska. Or as found in Adeline Peter-Raboff’s work on interior Athabaskan history. Or as found in the work of Nora and Dick Dauenhauer and Lydia Black on the battles of Sitka in1802 and1804. Indeed, much of the time we have no choice but to rely on observations recorded by outsiders.

Burch has alerted us to the fact that there are those who continue to question the reliability of any Native oral historical legacy. If it was not written down during the historical period being studied, the skeptics feel it is highly suspect. But can’t we turn the reliability question around and ask: How much confidence can I have in the reliability of the written historical record on Native life in traditional times?

First of all – and here’s that word again – what contemporaneous written records exist of Native traditional times have been supplied by outsiders. Whether recorded by explorers, missionaries, soldiers, or government agents, these written observations were made by people foreign to Alaska Native cultures. Even those outsiders who proved to be keen observers of Native life were still unfamiliar with the underlying cultural rules governing Native behavior visible to them. In most cases they did not speak the Native language. So whatever they wrote about Native values, attitudes, and motivations should not be accepted automatically as accurate and complete.

Certainly for the Russian period in Native history, much of the historical material scholars and educators rely upon has been filtered through various English translations of Russian accounts of Native life. We know that languages differ in vocabulary, grammatical rules, and sound patterns. But more important, language directly reflect aspects of culture and therefore shapes the worldview of its speakers. This is why language and culture are considered to be so closely interconnected. This is why people who are bilingual say that many ideas and stories of one language do not translate well into another language. This is why those people who are truly fluent in two languages are those who are best able “to think” in both languages.

So we can never be absolutely confident that the translated written record we read today is exactly what the original Russian-speaking observers of Native life meant by their words. Of course the same question of confidence arises when dealing with Native oral histories translated into English or into any other language.

What about outsider observations originally written in English by the Americans or the British? In this case we don’t have a translation problem. But we must remember that much of this material has been edited to fit different book publishing objectives, including the publishing of school textbooks such as the one you are reading right now. Most of us read books and other materials on Native American /Alaska Native histories (secondary sources) which carefully select passages from the written observations of outsiders (primary sources) to make a particular point. Certain other passages may be selected because they give an otherwise dry description of a historical event a more dramatic up-close-and-personal flavor.

Here, for example, we have carefully selected passages from Burch’s work to illustrate how the study of Native oral history is absolutely necessary if we hope to have a more complete understanding of Alaska’s history. Clearly we have very specific reasons for using the passages we select. But if your knowledge of his work comes only from the selections made here, then how can you be sure you are getting full and accurate coverage of all he has to say on the subject? Actually, you can’t be sure.

Suppose, for example, at the end of the works we have extensively quoted, Burch says something like: “Even after all the oral history I learned, I have concluded that the written record furnished by outsiders is still the most reliable account of Alaska Native history.” Please be assured that he comes to no such conclusion. Indeed he is adamantly opposed to just this viewpoint. But unless you read his works yourself, you can never be totally sure. For peace of mind, however, let’s quote exactly what he does say about the attitude of many Alaska scholars toward the study of Native oral histories:

Despite my embarrassment and frustration for having committed them , I have been confessing my errors [of not taking Native oral history seriously] for some time now in the hope that others may benefit from my experience. So far, I regret to report, this effort has been something of a failure. Most of my colleagues still do not believe what Natives have to say about their own histories. "Narrative history," "oral history," "memory culture" — these phrases commonly are used as pejorative by many representatives of the social science disciplines in Alaska.

Several scholars have actually boasted to me that they do not believe what Native elders have told them: the archaeologists do not believe anything that is not manifested in stone tools or middens [refuse or trash]; the historians do not believe anything that was not written down on paper by a …[contemporaneous]… observer; and the ethnographers do not believe anything they have not seen with their own eyes. [Ethnography = a branch of anthropology which describes different ethnic and cultural groups.]

Burch also brings up an interesting point on the use of Native oral histories as external confirmation – as oral backup – to the written record. He notes that:

Ironically, but perhaps appropriately, many Natives do not believe archeological, historical, or ethnographic accounts of traditional Native life — when made by Euro-Americans — unless they are corroborated by the oral testimony of elders. In this, the negative impact of preconceived ideas on the learning process comes full circle.

There is still another problem with the written record of Native traditional times. We have made the point that all of these outside observers were foreign to Native cultures. Not surprisingly, many of them were quite ethnocentric, often using such terms as “savages” and “uncivilized” to describe their impressions of Natives and Native life. This raises a very important question – can we still find value in written primary source material even when it contains insulting ethnocentric language?

Ethnocentrism and the written record – some examples. Let’s look at several examples of ethnocentrism in the written historical record. The purpose is to confront this offensive language and see if we can still find value in the information this record provides on Alaska Native life in traditional times.

From late 1842 through 1844, the Russian naval Lieutenant, L. A. Zagoskin, led a expedition which traveled throughout the Native territories of the Yukon and Kuskokwim river valleys of Alaska. The original purpose of the expedition was to scout the changing routes of interior Natives in their trade with the Chukchi people across the Bering Strait. Although he reported extensively on aspects of Native commerce, Zagoskin’s interests in Native Alaska were much broader. He carefully studied all Native settlements he came upon, describing their demographics, customs, and cultural products. He also recorded geographic features such as navigable rivers and tributaries along with portage sites for going from one part a river system to another. He also did geology by collecting mineral samples from different areas.¹

Throughout his travels, Zogoskin kept a detailed journal of his observations and thoughts. This travel journal has provided today’s scholars with a wealth of information on Native life in the Yukon and Kuskokwim river valleys in the mid-1840s. Not so long after, Russia would sell its discovery interests in Native Alaska to the United States.

Russian interests in Native Alaska. Please note that we do not say Russia sold Alaska to the United States. Instead we say Russia sold to the United States its discovery interests in Native Alaska. To understand the difference we must go back to our federal Indian law discussion of the Marshall Trilogy in Chapter Five.

The United States and Russia negotiated the 1867 Alaska Treaty of Purchase according to the doctrine of discovery. At the time Russia was recognized by European nations as the “discoverer” of Alaska. As such, she had a discoverer’s exclusive right to establish political, economic, and cultural relationships with the indigenous Alaska Native tribes. The key word is exclusive, which means that international law prohibited other nations from forming any kind of relationship with Alaska tribes without Russia’s permission. Only Russia could bargain with Natives for their lands and resources.

But what about Native rights under the Doctrine of discovery? Recall that Chief Justice John Marshall developed the legal principal of aboriginal title by applying the discovery doctrine to what he saw as the unique relationship of Indian tribes to an expanding American Republic. Marshall said that the Rule’s main purpose was to protect the discovering nation’s claim to new territory against all other European powers. Most important, his written opinion made it clear that while “discovery” may have extinguished a tribe’s clear ownership of land, it did not extinguish aboriginal title – a tribe’s right to use and occupy their lands until extinguished by treaty or some other act of Congress.

After considerable research, the Court of Claims in the 1959 Tlingit and Haida land claims case concluded that a) Russia never had any treaty or agreement with an Alaska tribe which extinguished Native aboriginal title, and b) nor had the United States extinguished aboriginal title in Alaska. As we know, an explicit statement of extinguishment did not occur until Congress passed ANCSA in 1971.

According to American law, therefore, the Doctrine of discovery gave Russia only one recognized international right – the exclusive right to deal with Alaska tribes without interference from other foreign powers. It did not recognize Russian ownership of any Alaska lands. Again, Russia could only have taken legal possession of Native lands by entering into treaties or other kinds of land cession agreements with tribes. Of course Russia never did.

As pointed out in an earlier chapter, there were only a few areas where Russia established anything close to real political authority. At best, she could claim some form of dominion over the Aleutians, Kodiak, the Pribilof Islands, and Sitka in Southeast Alaska. Where the Russians were able to maintain regular trade relations with Native tribes, these relations never included any form of political control over Native people. The Yup’ik, Tanaina, Allutiiq, eastern interior Athapaskan tribes, Haida, and the Tlingit beyond Sitka neither felt nor submitted to Russian colonial authority. With very few exceptions, Alaska Native tribal sovereignty – both legally and practically – was in full force throughout Russia’s 126 years on Alaska soil.

So what exactly did the United States purchase from Russia in 1867? According to American law, the only thing the United States could purchase from Russia was her international right to exclusively deal with Alaska Native tribes. The United States did not purchase Alaska lands because Russia had no right to sell lands still possessed by Native tribes. No official extinguishment of Native land title took place during the Russian presence in Native Alaska. Although ignored by Congress until 1971, this had been American legal doctrine for almost 150 years.

Back to Zagoskin and ethnocentrism. Among scholars who have used Zagoskin’s writings as a primary source for their own research are Tiger Burch and the Gwich’in Athabaskan historian, Adeline Peter-Raboff. Here is a sample of the kind of ethnocentric statements they found when reading Zagoskin’ journal:

It is a mistake to judge the character of the natives by their first reaction to strangers from another country. their good qualities and their faults cannot possibly be compared to the good and bad qualities of enlightened Christian people. The savage, as the man made in the image and likeness of God, is good; the savage, as a man who has fallen from grace, is evil. But both his virtue and his evil are childlike. (pp. 106-07)

And when reporting on the impact of the late 1830s smallpox epidemic on several Norton Sound villages, Zagoskin says:

What became of the people? The Natives say they died of smallpox and this story was confirmed by the old timers at the fort [St. Michaels]. The infection sent to them by Providence [God] was great, but the blessing that resulted was likewise great, as all those who are left are Christian. (p. 100)

When describing Native religion and shamanism, he says:

One cannot demand that a savage attain immediately the highest reverence for the one true God, that at the first utterance of God’s word he drop all of his superstitutions, beliefs and customs which are incompatible with the spirit of Christianity. But to love God is within the savage’s power. (p. 121)

And when describing Koyukon Athabaskan warfare, he says:

Their system of fighting also is based on the surprise attack and for this reason bravery or daring in a savage cannot in any way be compared to the true meaning of courage, based on scorn of death in the service of home, fatherland, or Tsar. [Tsar or Czar = King of all Russia and her possessions.] (p. 247)

Obviously Zagoskin’s ethnocentrism is revealed by his constant comparison of Native beliefs and actions to his own Christian-European value system. And of course he finds Natives deficient and directly in need of spiritual uplifting by a so-called civilized nation such as Czarist Russia. In these selected passages from his journal, we have highlighted his use of savage, certainly an insulting term in any language. But when compared to our next example, Zagoskin’s occasional use of that offensive term seems almost mild.

Before agreeing in 1867 to purchase Imperial Russia’s interests in Native Alaska, the American State Department asked for a complete description of Russian settlements and possessions and the status of Russian relations with Alaska Native tribes. The Russians responded with what is a very important document in Alaska Native civic history. It is called the Kostlivtzov Memorandum after Sergei Kostlivtzov, an Czarist official who carried out the last fact-finding mission to Alaska on behalf of the Russian government.

The Kostlivtzov Memorandum is an important historical document because it contains clear Russian admission that outside of the Aleutians, Kodiak, coastal southwest Alaska, and Sitka, the Russian presence in Native Alaska was minimal or non-existent. Reporting on interior Alaska, for example, here is what S. Kostlivtzov tells the American government:

The Russian American Company hardly ever penetrated into the interior of the continent, and owing to the wild character of its inhabitants never established there any settlements; only for trading purposes, small factories called redoubts and "odinotshkas," were established along the coast, preferably near the bays and mouths of large rivers…

From all, what we said, It clearly appears that in this region no attempts were ever made, and no necessity ever occurred to introduce any system of land ownership; the country occupied by savages is too vast; they use to camp in certain fit places, generally marked by mountains, rivers, and streams, each having its name, but no fixed boundaries whatever, and their migrations are guided by wild instinct and unbounded will. All this region has neither past nor present, and it may be confidently said of the future, that it is far and impenetrable. Every attempt at civilizing that country will stumble against unconquerable obstacles: the complete absence of local topography, the wild character of the savages, and no less wild character of nature; but, above all, the rigor and inconsistency of climate.

Every attempt at civilizing that country will stumble against unconquerable obstacles; the complete absence of land topography, the wild character of the savages, and less character of nature; but, above all, the rigor and inconsistency of climate.²

With the Kostlivtzov Memorandum Russian freely admits she had no presence in, let alone attempted to exercise any dominion over large areas of Native Alaska. This short passage also reveals the nature of Russian ethnocentrism of those days. At one place in the memorandum Kostlivtzov manages to use savage seven times on just one page!

Fairness to L. A. Zagoskin. Let’s make sure we are completely fair to Zagoskin. Unlike Kostlivtzov and many other European and American observers of Native life during that era, Zagoskin most often uses “Native” or “inhabitant” when referring to Native people. His use of savage seems confined to describing their spiritual life or their warfare techniques. In a moment, we will explore the European origins and meaning of savage.

By all accounts, L. A. Zagoskin possessed high ideals and a courageous spirit. In the 1850s, for example, Russia was undergoing great social upheaval. It suffered a humiliating defeat in the Crimean War during which Zagoskin was elected by his fellow aristocrats to lead an army regiment. To escape the tyranny of a centuries-old Russian feudal system and the yoke of serfdom, many peasant farmers (serfs) joined the army.

At war’s end, many serfs refused to return to the land. This sparked a nationwide movement to emancipate the serfs, thereby demolishing a mainstay of the Russian feudal system. Despite furious opposition from other nobles, Zagoskin wrote many articles supporting emancipation. Because he already had attained national fame for his exploration of Alaska, his articles were widely read and discussed. They certainly contributed to the official abolition of Russian Serfdom in 1861. As an influential noble who had supported emancipation, Zagoskin was appointed to the position of “arbiter of peace” from 1862 to 1864.

When discussing traditional Native law and order later in Chapter Twelve, we will refer to the role of the peacemaker among some Native American tribes. This position is usually held by a well respected elder or chief who is called upon to settle disputes between families or individuals before other members of the tribe or clan are drawn into the conflict or the dispute becomes violent. Like, for example, a Navajo peacemaker, Zagoskin’s new position of arbiter of the peace required him to meet with former serfs and landed nobles to reconcile conflicts between them.

A most important question. Do we consider Zagoskin’s travel journal a reliable primary source on traditional Native life to be studied carefully? Or do we dismiss his work because we are offended by his ethnocentric views and believe it makes unreliable many of his observations?

Before answering this two-part question, remember that Zagoskin is the only source – written or oral – we have on early Native life in some of the areas he visited. Also keep in mind the external confirmation element of our reliability test. As mentioned earlier, scholars have extensively used Zagoskin’s journal as external confirmation of Native oral history. They do so because Zagoskin was a keen observer of all that was around him and provided well written descriptions of Native lives and environments. Here, for example, is his description of Native dog sledding on the Alaska coast:

Among the North American tribes, the art of travel with dogs is in its infancy; they have no lead dogs, no trained teams, and they never sit on the sled. Among the coastal [Alaska] natives the dogs are harnessed to the stanchions, the man goes ahead with a towline, the woman helps by pushing the sled from behind, and children over 7 follow on snowshoes, as they make their trips over a windswept tundra or the ice. For lightness the runners are lined with walrus or mammoth ivory. The general structure as been adequately described by (others), but there are many specific details that are different. For example, instead of the usual straight stanchions, they fasten curved ones made of evergreen stump (root) wood to the runners. The forward ends of the runners are lashed to narrow poles, which run the length of the sled and are tied to the stanchions, so that these will not slip. In order to support the upper part of the sled, slender sticks of equal length are placed on the runners in the spaces between the stanchions… (p. 117)

It would be difficult indeed to find a more precise and detailed account of coastal Native dog sledding as it was practiced in the 1840s. So if we follow the lead of Burch and Peter-Raboff, we must push aside the ethnocentric language and select those observations which fit our purpose and which, in our best judgment, seem to meet reasonable standards of reliability. For instance, is there any good reason why ethnocentrism should color Zagoskin’s description of dog sledding?

But what about his discussion of something directly associated with Native values such as religious ceremonies? What we must do in such a case is carefully distinguish between interpretation and description. His interpretation or analysis of shamanic rituals, for example, may be tainted by ethnocentrism. But his description of the rituals themselves – of what people wore and what they did and where they did it – may be quite accurate.

The term “savage.” Russian, European, and American observers of Native life during those times often used the term savage when referring to Native people. We even find it in our Declaration of Independence. One of the grievances listed by the writer of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, refers to the Royal Proclamation of 1763 which became British law and policy in North America at the close of the French and Indian War. It established a well defined boundary between American colonies on the eastside of the Appalachian Mountains and Indian tribal territory to the west, mainly in the Ohio Valley.

The British hoped the Royal Proclamation would keep Ohio Valley Indian tribes from seeking commercial and political relationships with other European powers. The Proclamation ordered a halt to white settler westward expansion and recognized the sovereign right of those tribes to deal with white violators caught on their lands according to their own laws. A British law prohibiting settler encroachment on their lands had long been requested by these tribes. The Royal Proclamation was, to say the least, hugely unpopular within the American colonies. Here is the language Jefferson used to express this grievance in the Declaration of Independence:

He [ King George] … has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants [settlers] of our frontiers , the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. [Emphasis ours.]

So what about this European idea of the savage? What are its origins and what images of Native Americans did Europeans hold when using it? In his well researched book, The White Man’s Indian, Robert Berkhofer Jr. addresses just these questions:

Sixteenth Century Frenchmen, Italians, and Englishmen generally employed a variant of the Latin silvaticus, meaning a forest inhabitant or man of the woods, for the Indian as the earlier spellings of saulvage, salvatico, and savage show so well in each of the respective languages…The original image behind this terminology probably derives from the ancient one associated with the “wild man,” or wilder Mann in Germany. According to medieval legend and art, the wild man was a hairy, naked, club-wielding child of nature who existed halfway between humanity and animalism. Lacking civilized knowledge or will, he lived a life of bestial self-fulfillment, directed by instinct, and ignorant of God and morality. Isolated from other humans in woods, caves, and clefts, he hunted animals or gathered plants for his food. [p. 13]

Before thinking this offensive ethnocentric term has gone quietly into the historical night, consider this Associated Press story from Oregon in 2005:

For most of a century, a caricature [a cartoon-style depiction] of an American Indian has represented the Enterprise high School Savages in this town in Oregon’s remote northeast corner. No more.

The school board has voted to approve the student body’s request to have the nickname changed to the Outlaws, ending eight years of wrangling…

Superintendent Brad Royse said he was pleased with the students’ decision. “I am very proud of our kids, and proud to be their superintendent,” Royse said. “It’s amazing that sometimes kids have the fortitude to go ahead and tread” where adults won’t… [5 May, 2005]

Another sports nickname found offensive by many is “Redskins.” To support its continued use, the Washington Redskins professional football team makes three points –a long sports tradition associated with the nickname, some surveys showing that many Native Americans do not take offense, and that no malice is intended by its use. Exactly where and when the term Redskins came into existence and how it was used is uncertain. It is claimed by some to have originated in colonial times as a term to distinguish Indian scalps (redskins) taken for bounty from the skins of animals brought to trading posts at the same time.³

If we apply our own reliability test to the available historical data, we will have difficulty reaching a reasonable level of confidence in the scalping for money thesis. The primary source data is simply too murky at this time. But whatever its origin, today many find it to be a racial slur. Indeed, if we agree with the Washington Redskins football team, then it should be okay for us to replace “Indian” with “Redskin” everywhere in this book. Of course we will do no such thing, and we surely know why.

There has been some good news as well. In September, 2007, the Associated Press reported that the U. S. Board of Geographic Names recently approved removing the word “squaw” from eight place-names in northern Idaho, three of which were on the Coeur d’Alene Indian reservation. Although the origin of the word is uncertain, the tribe asked for the name changes because, “squaw” has historically been used as a racial insult against Indian women. Apparently it also shows up as a derogatory term in several Indian languages.

Does Zagoskin’s journal have value? Absolutely! In many cases it is the only written documentation we have on Native life back in those days and in those places. It can, moreover, provide important external confirmation for whatever Native oral accounts are available to us. If we were to dismiss all outsider reports of traditional Native life containing ethnocentric comments, there may not be much left for us to use. The trick is to separate biased interpretations from what is still good information. To, so to speak, separate the eatable herring roe from the sea plants on which it is entangled.

And let’s not forget that even for us supposedly sophisticated modern people who ought to know better, many times ethnocentric feelings are hard to shake off. So perhaps we shouldn’t feel too superior when reading Zagoskin and others. The wise person does not say, “Oh, I can never have such ethnocentric biases!” Instead, the wise person says, “Since I have been born and raised within a specific culture and society, I can easily develop biases and stereotypes of other cultures and societies. Therefore I must be constantly on guard against such careless, often harmful thinking.”

Contact and conflict: oral history and a Native perspective. The works of Tiger Burch and other scholars using Native oral histories tell us about significant events of the past when there were no foreign eyes and ears to report on these events. But what about those early contact situations resulting in conflict between Natives and invaders? Now we have outsiders present and writing about Native behavior based on what they saw and heard. Now we have the outsider’s interpretation of what Native interests and motivations may explain the actions they took as events unfolded during the conflict.

But what about the Native view on why they behaved as they did? Because emotions run high and can easily color personal judgments during times of armed conflict, we can’t rely on only one side to provide the information we need to fully understand what happened. What we also need is a “Native perspective” which can be found in only one place – Native oral histories.

By way of example, let’s take a look at two accounts of armed conflict between Alaska Natives and Russians. The first is provided by L. A. Zagoskin. He has a short section in his journal on a battle at Fort St. Michael between attacking Iñupiaq from Sledge Island and defending Russians and Creoles. [Creole = a person of mixed Native and Russian ancestry.] Here we must rely completely on Zagoskin interpretation of events. We have no Iñupiaq oral backup to his description of the battle and why the Iñupiaq attacked the fort. Here is his account:

The fort [St. Michael] had its time of trial and glory for the Russian name. The American native traders known to us under the general name of Azyagmyut [Iñupiaq from Sledge Island], seeing their influence weakened year by year after the arrival of the Russians at Norton Sound, an area in which from time immemorial they had themselves collected a heavy tribute in furs, determined to destroy the fort. [Think of “tribute” as a form of tax, in this case a tax paid in furs.] They arrived at Cape Stephens in 10 skin boats under the guise of seeking barter, and set up a watch with the help of the natives, whom they intimidated, to discover when the force at the post should be divided to carry out the various tasks.

An occasion soon presented itself. Nine of the Company men were sent in a longboat to collect wood. They were not expecting to be set upon, but had with them, as prescribed by regulations, their weapons, ball cartridges, and small shot for geese. On the 10th of August with a contrary wind the boat with the collected floatage was halted in the strait between Stuart Island and St. Michael Island. The Azyagmyut decided to destroy this handful of people first and then to turn their attention to the fort. But Providence [God] had decreed otherwise.

When the attack came, one Company man was left on the field but seven who were wounded owed their lives to the valiant behavior of the Arkhangelsk citizen Kurepanov. Intelligent, and of great physical strength, he realized in the heat of the fighting that the only salvation lay in dragging the enemy's skin boat into the water. This skin boat was the only one used to deliver the pick of the Azyagmyut young men while the rest, some two hundred in number, were hiding behind the coastal hills. When the circle of attackers fell back before our guns, Kurepanov cried, "After me, boys, and may God help us!," and alone shoved the skin boat into the water. The rest followed him closely, and the skin boat was pushed off. The savages shouted when they saw this desperate action, and let fly a cloud of arrows. But it was too late: the defenders heeled the boat over and the walrus hide deflected the bone points. The paddles, which fell out from the inside of the boat, were used to get to a safe distance. Three men soon fainted from loss of blood. They all supposed the fort had been destroyed, and Kurepanov took it upon himself to reconnoiter its condition; about midnight he arrived at the gates. All possible help was immediately given to the injured, and they all recovered. The fort was saved, and from that time on the Azyagmyut have never dared show their faces on the southern shore of Norton Sound.⁴

Time and again, Zagoskin proves to be a sharp observer of many things. So we can have confidence in his description of the physical events of the conflict. But how much confidence can we have in his interpretation of Iñupiaq reasons for attacking Fort St. Michael at that time and in that way? He may be right that they viewed the Russians as a threat to their established trading activities in the region. And he may be right that the Iñupiaq “intimidated” those Natives working at the fort into gathering intelligence on the fort’s defenses. But without an Iñupiaq account of what happened and why, how truly confident can we be that these observations are correct?

It is also fairly clear that Zagoskin had a patriotic reason for telling this story. He starts with words about the Fort’s “trial and glory for the Russian name.” He certainly highlights the intelligence and bravery of Kurepanov, the obvious Russian hero of the story. And he ends with “the fort was saved, and from that time on the Azyagmyut have never dared show their faces on the southern shore of Norton Sound.” This emotional Russian perspective of the battle makes it even more unsettling that we don’t have an Iñupiaq perspective. If we had such a perspective, maybe we would find that the Iñupiaq attacked for other reasons. And we might even learn that they had heroes of their own.

Now let’s look at another armed conflict. This time it is Koyukon Athabaskans and Russians at the 1851 battle of Nulato. Unlike the Fort St. Michael battle, here we have an oral record giving us a Native perspective on the conflict. We will see that this Native perspective differs from the outsider perspective. Equally important, we will see how oral accounts of the battle can enrich a cultural profile of Koyukon Athabaskans.

The 1851 Nulato battle. Suppose you are doing a cultural profile of Koyukon Athabaskans. For the section on worldview you wish to examine their spiritual beliefs and the role of shamans. Certainly you should study Richard K. Nelson’s book, Make Prayers to the Raven, perhaps even showing to the class parts of the PBS video series based on his book. Richard Nelson learned a great deal from Koyukon elders and superbly describes the values, myths, and rituals of the traditional Koyukon worldview.⁵

But is there a way to show how these elements of worldview actually worked in the real life of the Koyukon in traditional times? Is there a way to show how these beliefs inspired human action, sometimes even violent action? Is there a way to show the true power of Koyukon shamans and how they exercised their power? In short, is there a way to breathe real life into the descriptions and explanations so expertly provided by Richard Nelson. Thanks to Miranda Wright, the answer to these questions is yes.

Miranda Wright’s Masters thesis on the Nulato battle of 1851 is an excellent example of how Native oral history does two things. First, it offers a Native perspective on an early armed conflict to be compared with that provided by outsiders. Secondly, it breathes life into a major Native historical event by identifying real people and the villages, families, or clans involved in the conflict. We even learn the names of the participants and their ancestral connection to families living today. The work of the Dauenhauers and Lydia Black on the 1802 and 1804 battles of Sitka is also an excellent example of how Native oral history can provide a Native perspective on an early conflict with invaders. In the case of the Sitka battles, we have a variety of perspectives – Russian, British, and of course Tlingit.⁶

Miranda’s uses local oral history to present a Native perspective on why the Koyukon tribes of the Koyukuk River attacked Russian and Native trading settlements at Nulato. Her work explains how the attack on the Russians was but one incident in an ongoing power struggle between three Shamans to correct spiritual and social disharmonies within their tribes. In contrast to most historical accounts of the battle, Miranda’s use of oral history suggests that the Russian presence at Nulato was but one of several factors triggering the conflict. In fact, the main target was a nearby Native trading settlement which actually suffered the greatest losses. These attacks at Nulato were led by shamans and became known in Koyukon oral tradition as the “last great Indian war,” which is the title of Miranda’s thesis.

If we look at several passages from her thesis, we can see how the use of Native oral history pumped real life into what we know of the Nulato attacks and what we know about the traditional Koyukon worldview. Here are the passages:

One winter night in 1851, a Russian trading post on the Lower Yukon River in western Alaska, was attacked by the Koyukon Indians. During the raid, Lieutenant John Barnard, a British officer and participant in the search for the Franklin expedition was mortally wounded and the Russian post manager, Vasillii Deriabin, was killed. [Recall our previous note on the Franklin expedition.]

Other personnel at the post were successful in warding off the Athabaskan warriors. The events which occurred that night were described by early British and American explorers as an attack by the Koyukon Indians on the Russian American Company...[R]eferences to this conflict are most often based on William H. Dall’s report, Alaska and Its Resources (1870) or Hubert Bancroft’s History of Alaska 1730-1885 (1886)... Dall’s version is based largely on hearsay, and Bancroft’s is derivative [ Note that much of our cultural profile work is also derivative because it is derived from information provided by other sources]. Nevertheless DalI’s statement, that the hostilities were sparked by Lt. Barnard’s disregard for protocol in summoning the chief of the Koyukuk River, has been repeated in the majority of published accounts. The journal of Dr. Edward Adams, kept from 1850-1851,... a British surgeon who like Barnard was part of Collinson’s detachment searching for Franklin, provides the only primary account of this hostility which became known as the Nulato Massacre. Adams’ narrative provides his own observations made in the massacre’s aftermath and an analysis of the eye-witness reports. His journal offers a wealth of detail which accords well with Native oral traditions, but until recently his data were not discussed in the literature.

However there is little or no discussion about the massacred Native population who had assembled for trading and winter feasting at Noolaaghedoh, a settlement approximately one-half mile west of the Russian post. The earliest and best [oral] narratives which mention the Native victims were recorded by Julius Jetté, S. J., a Roman Catholic priest who lived in the area from 1898-1927. Jetté was fluent in the local language and recorded two versions of the conflict – one from a man who escaped and another from an individual whose mil’aa (mother’s brother) participated as a warrior...

I analyzed information recorded by Adams and Jetté then proceeded to review a number of audio tapes recorded in the Koyukon language and housed at the University of Alaska’s Rasmuson Library oral history collections. These tapes contain information on the massacre unavailable in other sources. The [internal Native] view contained in these oral narratives support Jetté’s conclusion that the Nulato conflict was an internecine war. [Internecine = conflict within a closely related group, in this case among Koyukon tribes]. However, these tapes reveal much about Koyukon ideology and what the Nulato Massacre was really about. [ideology = a belief system which forms the basis of a policy or program.]

According to these oral accounts, the attack at Noolaaghedoh was part of a ‘shaman war’ which involved three regional deyenenh, spiritual intermediaries or shamans in modern terminology... My inquiries addressed to elders from Kaltag and Nulato have produced the name of the [Kaltag] deyenenh [the target of the Noolaaghedoh/Nulato massacre], the location of his burial place and insights into beliefs associated with his spiritual strength, as well as numerous details and Native interpretations of the Nulato Massacre. From these discussions it became apparent that the ideology of the Koyukon, intricately entwined in all aspects of their life, was an important, perhaps paramount, feature which structured the conflict...discussed in local tradition as the “Last Great Indian War”

From an [outsider] point of view, the conflict of 1851 was a response to foreign invasion, social dislocation due to epidemics, and economic stress. From the [internal] Koyukon point of view … it was a power struggle of three regional deyenenh, in an attempt to restore social and cosmic order [in accord with the Koyukon worldview]. (Wright, 1995, pp. 8 – 11 & p. 54)

These are only several passages from Miranda’s work. But it is clear that if we read her entire thesis, we will have vivid images of the major Native participants including their names. And we will even have genealogical connections to present day Koyukon people. We will, moreover, understand how Koyukon beliefs significantly influenced the violent events at Nulato in 1851. Certainly this information would contribute to a cultural profile of Koyukon Athabaskans because it gives us greater insight into their worldview and the power of shamans in traditional times.

Miranda Wright and the Reliability Test. Following in the footsteps of Tiger Burch, Miranda’s research design and methods are very much in line with our Native historical research test of:

Internal Consistency + External Confirmation = Greater Reliability.

To refresh our memory, let’s quickly summarize the reliability test here. We attain the greatest confidence in the reliability of historical information when a) we have available to us both an oral and a written record; b) when various oral and written accounts of the same historical event or time period are internally consistent; and c) when the oral and written record reinforce each others’ accounts, thus providing external confirmation. Now let’s see how Miranda’s work fits the equation.

First of all, she was able to research both a written record and an oral record. She found that both supported the historical connection she makes between the Nulato attacks and an ongoing power struggle among shamans. The oral accounts, for example, indicate that such spiritual conflicts required that a shaman be killed in a precise manner. In the written record she found external confirmation. The autopsy report of Edward Adams, the British doctor on the scene, confirms that one shaman was killed in just such a manner. Miranda also notes that in other ways Adam’s journal “offers a wealth of detail which accords well with Native oral traditions.” Therefore, given a) the availability of both oral and written accounts of the Nulato attacks, and b) the extent to which these accounts support each other, she feels confident that her historical analysis is correct.

Secondly, she contends that the attacks cannot be properly understood unless placed within the context of the Koyukon worldview of that time. She finds evidence for this contention in the writings of Father Jules Jetté who resided in Koyukon territory at the turn of the 20th Century when memories of the 1851 attacks were still fresh in the minds of elders. Jetté spoke Koyukon Athabaskan and was an avid observer and recorder of Koyukon life, all of which increases one’s confidence in his accounts of Native life in that region. Most important for Miranda’s thesis, his writings include oral accounts he collected from elders on the Nulato attacks and the social and spiritual situation at that time in Koyukon history.

In our earlier discussion of the two kinds of oral history, we said “oral historical legacy” should be considered secondary source material because it is a history orally passed down through the generations, hence through many retellings of that history. But we also made the point that the other kind of oral history – living oral history – should be considered primary source material. This is because it is still living participants of a historic event or time period who are speaking of their experiences. The fact is that Father Jetté was collecting living oral history because it came from still living witnesses of the 1851 Nulato attacks and the aftermath of those attacks. That is, he had access to primary source material. Although not collected by her, this primary source material further boosts Miranda’s confidence. And, finally, the internal consistency of the oral accounts collected by Father Jetté adds still more confidence that the historical evidence supports the conclusions she draws from her research .

Oral history and the Cultural Profile – the things we can learn. We have only briefly sketched what Miranda Wright’s research on the oral history of the Nulato battle revealed about the Koyukon traditional worldview and the historic role of Koyukon shamans. But let’s also remember all that Burch learned once he started taking Iñupiaq oral history seriously. Among other things, he learned that the various Iñupiaq groups of Northwest Alaska could best be described as small nations vigorously defending their territories. He learned about historic battles and battle tactics. He developed a new perspective on Iñupiaq – Athabaskan relations while learning about the mysterious presence far into traditional Iñupiaq country of a hostile Athabaskan group, the Di’haii Gwich’in.

Whether it is Iñupiaq history or Koyukon history or the history of any other Alaska Native group, we now have compelling reasons to collect oral histories. We also have a research model for including both the oral and written records in our study of early Native history. Adeline Peter Raboff, Bill Schneider, Miranda Wright, Tiger Burch, and other scholars who have helped construct this research model may appreciate this short quotation:

Time does not march; it swirls and leaps. Time is a dancer, not a soldier.

[From: Sena Jeter Naslund’s Ahab’s Wife or, the Star-Gazer],⁷

Using historical materials: the bottom line. To successfully complete the Cultural Profile Project, you will consult research materials which provide both an “insider historical view” and an “outsider historical view.” The insider view comes from documented Native oral history as used by Tiger Burch, Miranda Wright and others. Also look for reports from elders conferences in your region. And certainly it can come directly from discussions you have with local elders known for their historical knowledge. The outsider view comes from written sources such as books and other documents containing descriptions of traditional life recorded by early visitors to Native communities.

Throughout the last several chapters we have emphasized four points when studying the historical record necessary to complete the Cultural Profile assignment. They are:

• Much of the information required to complete your assignment will come from both oral and written documentation.
• Unless you have direct access to Native oral historians, you will be using oral accounts found in someone else’s research, much in the manner we have used the works of Burch and Wright to accomplish our purposes here.
• No matter the source of the historical information – whether written or oral, whether collected by you or by someone else – make every effort to apply the reliability test. Always look for internal consistency and external confirmation of the information you wish to use.
• Finally, the best of all research situations is when both an oral record and a written record is available and they confirm each other’s account.

But the real bottom line is your own judgment. Often sources of the information you need will not perfectly meet the rather strict standards of the reliability test. In such situations, it is your personal judgment that determines whether you use the information or not. If you feel reasonably confident about a piece of historical information after giving it serious thought, don’t hesitate to use it. You can even mention your level of confidence in the information – e.g., high, medium, low. Or perhaps give it a grade – A, B, C…

What we should be thinking about – key study questions:

What are some reliability problems with the written record on Native life in traditional times?

While the observations of outsiders may contain ethnocentric statements, we can still find value in this written documentation by distinguishing between “description” and “interpretation.” What does this mean?

Why do we say that according to a strict interpretation of American law, the United States did not purchase Native lands from Russia when signing the 1867 Alaska Treaty?

Why is it important to have a Native oral account of early Native – non-Native conflicts?

Why does Miranda Wright’s work on the Nulato battle pass our reliability test with high marks?

Table of Contents | Chapter 12