|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Alaska Natives at the Time of the Invasions: A Cultural Profile Project Draft 3 Do not quote or copy without permission from Mike Gaffney or from Ray Barnhardt at the Alaska Native Knowledge Network, University of Alaska-Fairbanks.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 4
(Environmental
Adaptation) This chapter gets you started on the Cultural Profile of your selected Native group. Here you are provided with an instructional guide for profiling elements of the Ecological Zone. These elements are repeated above for your convenience. The chapters to come on Settlements and Land Use, Social Organization, Worldview, and Cultural Products offer similar instructional guidance for completing your project. You will find, however, that this and the remaining chapters offer much more than a simple guide. As said before, we want to pay close attention to the concepts we use to organize our thinking about Native societies in traditional times. What exactly do we mean, for example, when we use concepts like environmental adaptation or land-use patterns or social stratification or governance or shamanism? Describing elements of an ecological zone is quite straight forward. It is an easy assignment. The climate, topography and so forth are much the same today as they were in traditional times. It needs mentioning, however, that today’s climate appears to be undergoing significant change. As climate changes, so also will topography, flora, and fauna. It presents new environmental conditions to which humans must adapt. Retreating arctic sea ice and its impact on Eskimo whaling is an example. For our purposes let’s assume elements of the ecological zone as we know it today still resembles that of ancient times. The big picture. The first thing to notice about the Cultural Profile Outline found at the beginning of Chapter One and partly reproduced at the top of this chapter is the line of arrows ↓↓ pointing down from Ecological Zone to Settlements and Land Use (Chapter Seven), Social Organization (Chapter Twelve), and Cultural products (Chapter Fourteen). The arrows are intended to highlight the idea that the unique features of an ecological zone set the parameters, the outer limits of what environmental adaptations were possible for the subsistence-based Native societies occupying that zone. Again, the amount and kind of subsistence and material resources available in the zone largely determined what that Native society looked like demographically, socially, and technologically. The Aleuts, for example, could do things within their maritime island environment that Interior Athabaskans could not do within their landlocked sub-Arctic environment. Of course interior Athabaskans could do things the Aleuts could not do. Now let’s take a little time here to paint the broadest possible picture of the relationship between Alaska’s different ecological zones and the social organization of Native groups inhabiting these zones. Look at a map of Alaska which shows the Alaska Range. Mt. McKinley (Denali) is the best known topographic feature of this mountain range which stretches across Alaska from east to west. Now draw or imagine a line along the top of the Alaska range. South of that line – south of the Alaska range – we find ecological zones and traditional Native social organizations very different from we find north of the Alaska range. The South. Easy access to abundant marine resources in the oceans and rivers south of the Alaska range allowed larger, more permanently settled Native populations to inhabit these ecological zones. It is true that in important ways the southern Alaskan ecological zones of the Aleut and the Tlingits were different. Yet both zones yielded a steady supply, even surpluses, of subsistence marine resources. This capability of producing surpluses meant three things. First, an ecological zone rich in resources obviously supports a larger number of people than a zone not so rich or where resources are often scarce. Furthermore, these larger groups lived in more permanent and densely populated settlements along waterways and by the sea. By “densely populated” we mean a large concentration of people within an given area. There are, for example, many more people living within each square mile of New York City than people living within each square mile of Fairbanks, Alaska. Along with this permanence and density, southern Native settlements were located along rivers and ocean fronts. It is not much of an exaggeration to say that their subsistence food lay just outside their front door. And since they lived in a temperate maritime climate, they had easy access to abundant subsistence marine resources throughout the year. Unlike many northern Native societies, they did not have to spend days on a hunting or fishing expedition just to meet the basic dietary needs of their families. Secondly, the combination of all these facts — large, permanent, densely populated settlements with abundant resources — required a more elaborate social organization to regulate tribal affairs. Certainly we will find more and larger government departments and neighborhood institutions such as churches and schools in New York than in Fairbanks. Another prominent feature of the more complex southern Native societies was their hierarchical social structure. A hierarchical or ranked society exists when there is an unequal distribution of wealth, power, and social status among segments of the population. When we ask about the structure and distribution of wealth, power, and social status, we are asking about a society’s social stratification – that is, its system of social ranking. The social stratification of southern Native societies was mainly based on the hereditary ranking of families and clans. This meant that the social status of the family and clan into which a person was born largely determined what social and economic advantages were available to that person, both as a child and later as an adult. General speaking, these ranked societies consisted of prosperous clans (or aristocracy) at the top of the social pyramid, with commoners occupying the middle and lower reaches of society. In all southern Native hierarchical societies, the lowest social rank or class was occupied by slaves obtained through war and trade.1 And thirdly, because of very accessible and abundant resources, not everyone had to be involved in the subsistence food quest all the time. This meant that certain individuals possessing special talents could devote a major portion of their day to activities other than subsistence hunting and gathering. Consequently there arose specialists in such important areas as medicine, arts and crafts, spiritual leadership, political organization, and in the conduct of war and commerce. If the knowledge and skills of a particularly talented person became highly valued, he or she could concentrate time and energy on that specialty while their subsistence needs were provided for by their household group, their clan, or even through payment by others within the larger community. Figure
5 Among the Tlingit, for example, the most basic social unit at the local level was the household group. It consisted of men of the same matrilineal line and their families living together in very large wooden plank-and-beam houses. Sometimes these “longhouses” were as large as 40 x 60 feet (a full-size basketball court measures 50 x 84 feet). The head of the household group usually did not physically participate in subsistence activities. He had instead a full time job as the political and ceremonial leader of the household and as their chief historian and educator. If their skills were especially prized, individuals could gain wealth and privilege ordinarily reserved for those of a higher hereditary rank. The possibility of upward social mobility through demonstrated expertise in a valued specialty was certainly important to slaves. It was one way they could rise above their wretched social rank and avoid a life of despair and the possibility of being sacrificed at a potlatch. In a word, there existed a more elaborate division of labor based on occupational specialization than we find in northern Native societies. The North. With some exceptions, the often seasonally marginal subsistence resources of the ecological zones north of the Alaska Range – particularly for interior Athabaskans – meant smaller, more mobile Native populations spread over large areas. In contrast to the south, there was far less permanence and density of settlements. The exceptions were some Central Yup’ik areas around Bristol Bay and in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta. In fact, the Central Yup’ik region has been described as a “transitional zone” between north and south because it has ecological features found in both.2 Another exception was the Point Hope region of Northwest Alaska in the early 1800s. At that time the area’s subsistence resources, mainly marine mammals and fish, sustained a large settlement area estimated at 1,000 people.3 Furthermore, the social stratification of northern Native societies was more egalitarian in structure. Unlike the social hierarchies of the south, there was no easily identifiable ranked social order where power and privilege differed significantly among classes of people. Normally birth into a particular family was not the chief factor determining a person’s opportunities in life and future adult social standing. The northern societies offered a more level socio-economic playing field to all members of the group. Unlike the southern hierarchical society, individual effort and merit were more likely to determine a person’s social status. The institution of slavery, moreover, did not exist north of the Alaska Range. Because everyone was always involved in some part of the harvesting and preparation of subsistence foods and material products, less time was available to develop the kind of occupational specialization that occurred in the south. This does not mean there was no specialization or no development of specialized knowledge in the north. Every Native group had to develop the necessary science and technology to successfully meet the demands of their unique environments. Not surprisingly, expertise in weather forecasting and in animal behavior were well developed areas of traditional Native science throughout Alaska. Examples of Native technologies included the construction of sea worthy hunting craft such as the kayak and umiak, various hunting tools and weaponry, protective battle vests, weather resistant housing, dog sleds and snowshoes. We will have a fuller discussion of Native applied science and technology when we discuss Cultural Products in Chapter Fourteen. Social stratification: beware of false dichotomies. We have said that social stratification refers to the structure of wealth, power, and social rank in society. We have discussed two seemingly opposite forms of traditional Native social stratification — the southern hierarchical societies versus the northern egalitarian societies. In so doing, however, we must be careful not to create a false dichotomy by implying that these are two quite separate and distinct systems of social stratification. The word “dichotomy” means the separation of a thing or idea into two opposite parts. A dichotomy is an either-or proposition — it is either this thing or that thing. It is either apples or oranges. So what is the problem? The problem is that there is no such thing as a purely hierarchical society or purely egalitarian society, either in modern times or traditional times. What we have are human societies which are more – sometimes much more – hierarchical than egalitarian and vice versa. And when we talk about the more or less of something, we are talking about variables. A variable is a thing or condition always subject to change because it is constantly influenced by other factors. Variables are not absolute and permanent things. In the real world, social stratification is very much a variable because any society can have a mix of hierarchical and egalitarian elements. As much as its members may wish or claim, no society is completely egalitarian. Some form of social ranking is always present. Some individuals or families or groups in society have more power and resources than others.
In their study of reindeer herding and social change among the Iñupiaq of the northern Seward Peninsula, the late Linda Ellanna and her co-author, George Sherrod, emphasize this important social fact. Their study even includes a chapter entitled “The Myth of the Egalitarian Society” in which they detail how wealth and power were never distributed evenly. Nor did the Iñupiaq expect to live in a purely egalitarian community. There were always some who were more clever and more ambitious than others. There were always some families who prospered more than other families and passed these advantages on to later generations. Ellanna and Sherrod make this interesting observation on control of vital subsistence technologies and key hunting and fishing sites:
Figure 6 In the South, the occupational specialization of the hierarchical societies of the Tlingit and Haida did allow for the egalitarian element of upward social mobility. No matter the status of one’s family or clan, an individual could achieve a higher social rank based on demonstrated merit – based on proven ability and accomplishment in an occupation or skill valued by the society. The social stratification of a society, moreover, can be changed by historic events such as internal revolts and revolutions or by external forces such as invasion and occupation by a foreign power. In 1886, for example, a federal court ruled that the 13th amendment of the United States Constitution prohibiting slavery also applied to Alaska Native tribes regardless of what inherent tribal sovereignty they may otherwise possess. Obviously this legal ruling significantly changed Tlingit society by removing a major social and economic stratum — slaves —from their traditional hierarchical structure.5
So we must learn to think in terms of more or less hierarchy or egalitarianism, not in terms of either – or , not in terms of either a completely hierarchical or a completely egalitarian society. Some argue, for example, that despite its ideal values of equality and the rule of law, the social stratification of American capitalist society falls somewhere between hierarchical and egalitarian because it has characteristics of both social structures. So beware of false dichotomies. Understand that we use the dichotomy of hierarchy versus egalitarian only as a starting point, only as framework for thinking about the kinds of social stratification that may exist. If you are doing a cultural profile of a northern Native society, do not hesitate to look hard for elements of social ranking. Likewise, if you are researching a southern Native society, look hard for elements of egalitarianism such as social mobility. Look for ways individuals could rise above or fall below the social rank of their birth. A false dichotomy in modern times. A good example of a widely used dichotomy misrepresenting Alaska Native life today is traditional versus modern. One harmful example of this unfortunate dichotomy arose in the 1970s when the Bowhead whale was declared an endangered species and many people in other parts of the world said Eskimo whaling should be completely stopped. They argued that Eskimo whaling was no longer a “traditional” subsistence activity because Umialiks (whaling captains) and their crews use modern hunting gear such as harpoon bombs and modern transportation devices such as outboard motors. They further argued that the nine Alaska Eskimo whaling communities now have many modern conveniences such as electricity and access to store-brought foods as well as other consumer goods. Therefore these Iñupiaq and Siberian Yupik whaling communities lead modern lives and can no longer claim a cultural or economic need for subsistence whaling. Of course these outsiders knew little about the vital role whaling has always played within the subsistence culture and economy of Eskimo whaling communities. What they did not understand or chose to ignore is described by the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC):
Outside pressure on Alaska Eskimo whaling communities intensified in 1977 when the International Whaling Commission (IWC) imposed a complete ban on Eskimo whaling. The IWC ban was in response to scientific reports that the bowhead whale population had fallen to a total of 2,000, maybe even as low as 600. Not long after, the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) was organized. Its members were Umialiks representing the nine whaling villages and they quickly went into action. They disputed these numbers, arguing that they were much too low, and that such an unnecessary ban did considerable harm to the health and culture of their whaling villages. They were only successful in getting the IWC to shift from a complete whaling ban to a small quota of allowable whale strikes. The key word here is “strikes.” Obviously “to strike” a whale does not guarantee that you will ultimately land that whale. A whale may survive the strike and escape, which means you have used up one of your allotted strikes and achieved no benefit. If they were to abide by this international rule yet meet their subsistence needs, Eskimo whaling crews had but one option — to use the most modern and effective equipment in order to close the gap between whales struck and whales actually harvested. This increased use of modern devices gave still more ammunition to all those outsiders pressing for a end to all whaling, including that done by subsistence-based indigenous communities throughout the Arctic. And many of these people were members of large, well organized, and powerful environmental and animal rights groups. The political pressure was immense and the Eskimo whalers were trapped in the dilemma of “damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” If they didn’t use modern equipment, they could not close the strike – harvest gap. On the other hand, if they did use the latest equipment, then they were labeled “modern” and judged to have no essential ties to the cultural traditions and nutritional benefits of whaling.
The dichotomy is proven false. After a series of confrontations with federal officials, the AEWC reached an agreement with The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal agency responsible for managing whale protection. In 1981, NOAA delegated to the Umialiks of the AEWC management authority over Eskimo whaling. This allowed the AEWC to manage the hunt without the presence of federal agents in whaling communities. Today it is the Umialiks who supervise whale hunting in the nine whaling communities and report to NOAA. Using traditional Eskimo knowledge of whale behavior along with modern scientific technology, there are now much better methods for estimating the population of bowheads. As a result, the ICC reported in 1992 that the population level of bowheads was increasing and no longer a cause for concern. This has helped the whalers secure increased quotas based on the subsistence needs of the whaling villages. In cooperation with NOAA, a Whaling Weapons Improvement Program was organized in an effort to increase the safety and reliability of whaling weapons and equipment. One example is the development of a float equipped with a radio transmitter to find whales in fog and rough water.8 After years of political strife and cultural distress, it is now understood that thinking based on the traditional – modern dichotomy greatly distorts the realities of Eskimo whaling cultures. The dichotomy was also found to be a major obstacle to resolving the international issue of how to maintain healthy bowhead whale populations. By using traditional Eskimo knowledge of whale behavior along with modern marine science, this ancient culture of the Arctic and the whale population on which it depends has a much better chance of survival. A North–South summary. We can compose a brief outline to summarize the contrast between the north and the south. The symbol ↓ means “results in.”
Special features of the Ecological Zone. Some features of the ecological zone may require special attention. These are features which “set up” the significance of certain elements of Social Organization and Cultural products later in your Cultural Profile. The fauna [animal life] of any Native group’s ecological zone is probably the most obvious set-up element because people’s lives were almost totally organized around subsistence hunting and fishing. A clear description of the zone’s fish and game resources therefore sets up what you later say about how the group organized its hunting and gathering and what materials were necessary for success. But there may be other set up features of the ecological zone also requiring special attention. If you choose to profile the coastal Iñupiaq, for example, you will describe the usual topographical features of mountains, valleys, and rivers. Of course you will do this for whatever Native group you are profiling. But for the coastal Iñupiaq, an equally significant but often overlooked topographical feature of their ecological zone is sea ice. Think about the relationship between sea ice and Iñupiaq life. Does not much of the coastal Iñupiaq’s subsistence activities – from seal hunting to whaling – depend on sea ice conditions? If so, then the social and technological adaptations made by the Iñupiaq to different sea ice conditions were absolutely crucial for establishing a way of life that went beyond mere survival. Therefore a more detailed picture of sea ice and its seasonal changes is necessary to set up your later descriptions of coastal Iñupiaq social organization and cultural products. A quick summary. The first thing your Cultural Profile must do is describe the ecological zone within which your selected Native group made the necessary adaptations over time. Later you will go below the line of arrows to Social Organization and Cultural products to describe how the Native group made these necessary adaptations. Environmental adaptation is the concept tying together all these elements. And again, we mean by this concept the process by which a subsistence society socially organizes itself and develops the technology and science to effectively harvest the resources of its ecological zone. Obviously a Native group had to develop the right hunting and fishing technologies to survive within a particular ecological zone. What may not be so obvious, however, is that Native groups first had to socially organize themselves in ways that a) effectively harvested subsistence resources, and b) distributed them among its members according to the values and traditions of the group. Finally note that already we are discussing different ways Native societies were organized. Even with the Social Organization section of the Cultural Profile eight chapters away, we are already using terms like social stratification, hierarchical societies, egalitarian societies. Why? Because significant features of social life in traditional times were strongly influenced by the nature of the environment. Indeed, it was imperative that Native groups socially organized themselves in ways that best took advantage of the opportunities and avoided the dangers of their ecological zone.
|
||||||||||||||||
