Social Transition in the North

Working Papers

Volume 1, Number 3

Ethnographic Summary: The Aleutian-Pribilsf Islands Region

Lydia T. Black

May, 1993

Social Research Institute 6133 Kensington Drive Anchorage, Alaska 99504 Ethnographic Summary: The Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region

Lydia T. Black

May, 1993

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. DPP-9213137. Any opinions, finding, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. THE ALEUTIAN-PRIBILOF ISLANDS REGION

Table of Contents

I . Ethnohistory ...... 1 I.A. Human Ecology and Subsistence Resources in the Aleutian Region ..... 1 I.B. The Indigenous Societies: Language, Polities. and Cultural Subdivisions . 23 I.B.1. Language and Dialects ...... 24 I.B.2. Polities ...... 30 I.B.3. Cultural Subdivisions ...... 33 I.C. Social Structure, Local Community, and Social Dynamics ...... 38 I.C.1. Dwelling Type and Social Groupings ...... 38 I.C.2. Social Differentiation and Ranking ...... 40 I.C.3. Warfare ...... 40 I.C.4. Leadership ...... 43 I.D. Beliefs and Values ...... 46 I.D.1. Precontact Rituals ...... 46 I.D.2. Orthodox Christianity ...... 48 I.F. Economics ...... 49 I.F.1. Traditional Economics ...... 49 I.F.2. Introduction to the Market Economy ...... 49 I.F.3. Changes during the American Period ...... 51

I1. Family and Kinship ...... 53 1I.A. Traditional Period ...... 54 1I.B. Period of Disruption ...... 57 1I.C. Period of Consolidation ...... 60 1I.D. Recent Developments ...... 64

I11 . Human Population and Pathology ...... 66 1II.A. Population and Population Dynamics ...... 68 1II.B. Diseases and Pathology ...... 74

IV. Citizenship ...... 87

References Cited ...... 91

Maps and Figures

Map 1. Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region ...... 2 Figure 1. Eskimo-Aleut Linguistic Typology ...... 27 < I. ETHNOHISTORY

IA Human Ecology and Subsistence Resources in the Aleutian Region

The term Aleutian Region refers to the habitat of the Unangan (Aleut) speakers.

In pre-contact times this area encompassed, from east to west, the Shumagin Islands to the south of the Alaska Peninsula, the area of the Alaska Peninsula west of Port Moller, and all the islands of the Aleutian Archipelago, including the Near Islands in the west. In post-contact time, two Bering Sea island groups, the Pribilof Islands in the United States, and the Commandor Islands (Komandorskie ostrova) in Russia were settled by Aleuts and are incorporated today in the Aleutian Region. Map 1 depicts the study area and identifies sample communities.

In discussing the ecological setting of the Aleutian Region, it is necessary to stress the factors which are crucial to understanding the populations' adaptation: the island habitat, the complex topography of the land formations, the sea conditions, and the concomitant weather characteristics. All of these factors are linked to tectonic and volcanic activity, ancient and ~n-~oin~.'

The Aleutian region occupies the greater portion of the Aleutian Archipelago, a largely Quaternary volcanic arc (also called Commandor-Aleutian arc) (Gershanovich

1967:35). The arc, as a whole, extends for about 2,500 km, encompassing in the east the southern edge of the Alaskan mainland and in the west the Commandor Islands. It was formed as the result of subduction of the Pacific tectonic plate underneath the North

1 For the effects of earthquakes and tsunamis on contemporary population see National Research Council, Division of Earth Sciences (1971a and 1971b).

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 1 Bering Sea

PACIFIC OCEAN

.... ' Neutluu, Eat Borough -Aleut Carporrtlon sample commun,t,ea

ALEUTIAN-PRIBILOF ISLANDS REGION

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 2 American plate. In the east, from the vicinity of Unalaska, the arc is built on continental crust, in the west on oceanic crust (Kienle and Nye 1990:9-10; see also Carr et al. 1971, and Morris 1971). It is one of the world's most active zones of tectonic activity and volcanism. Earthquakes of magnitude 7.7 are not unusual (Davies et al. 1981). The

Pribilof Islands are also of volcanic origin, but belong to a different volcanic system. The basaltic volcanism found here is associated with broad tectonic extension in the back arc region (Kienle and Nye 1990). The latter encompasses the ancient Beringia which includes the islands of the Bering Sea shelf, the Seward Peninsula, and the Bering Sea coast of western Alaska (Kienle and Nye 1990). Both St. Paul and St. George Islands, as well as the nearby smaller islands, are a monogenetic volcano field. No historic volcanic eruptions are recorded here.

The segment of the arc west of Alaska Peninsula, the Aleutian archipelago, forms an island chain which separates the Pacific Ocean and the Bering Sea. The waters of these seas mingle through inter-island straits, or as they are called in the literature, inter- island passes. Within the archipelago, several island groups are distinguished: 1) the

Near Islands, comprising Attu, Agattu and Semichi composed of three low and geologically linked islands, the largest of which is Shemya; 2) the Rat Islands comprising six large and a number of small islands between Amchitka Pass in the east and Murray submarine canyon in the west; 3) the Andreanof Islands or central Aleutians, between

Amchitka Pass in the west and Seguam Pass in the east; 4) the Four Mountains islands, comprising five small stratovolcanoes; 5) an unnamed group of three volcanic islands in the waters west of Four Mountains, Yunaska, Arnukhta, and Seguam are sometimes

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 3 grouped with the Four Mountains islands; 6) the Fox Islands, or as tern^ Aleutians, from Samalga Island in the west, eastward including Unimak Island in the east.3

Unimak Island is separated from the Alaska Peninsula by Isanotski Strait (False Pass); 7) within the Fox Islands, the Krenitzin Islands group, comprising Akun, Akutan, Tigalda and Avatanok (and a number of small islands used proto-historically as hunting grounds) is distinguished.

The topography, both subaerial and submarine, was shaped by ancient, tectonic and volcanic activities and is being reshaped by modern volcanism and tectonism.

Topographic changes affect local currents, and thus have an effect on local resource distribution. These were important factors in shaping prehistoric human settlement patterns and in the shifting of human habitat.

The history of island building in the Aleutian arc is relevant to the understanding of the ecological setting in general and also of microenvironments and human settlement locations. A brief summary is therefore in order.

Specialists distinguish three major episodes of arc formation: the early to middle

Eocene, when the bulk of the Aleutian Ridge was formed on which the Quaternary volcanoes of the oceanic part of the arc are perched; the Oligocene and Miocene, when volcanism combined with erosional and marine sedimentation processes contributed to the build-up of the island land masses forming the "middle tier" of the rocks; and the

Pliocene and Quaternary, which produced the Quaternary volcanic chain which is even

In old sources, the name Fox Islands [in Russian ostmLis'il will be found. Today, the term "EasternAleutian islands" is in use.

In some early Russian sources, the Four Mountains islands are included in the Fox Islands.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 4 now developing near the northern edge of the submerged summit platform (Kienle and

Nye 1990). It should be noted that the now submerged Aleutian Ridge platform was levelled flat in past glaciations.

The Commandor and Near Islands are a product of ancient volcanism; today there are no active volcanoes in these islands though they are affected by modern

earthquake activity and tsunamis (see Corbett 1991:20-21 for a good summary and

literature citations). The Shumagin Islands in the east also have no active volcanoes,

though their topography, like the rest of the Aleutian Island chain, reflects ancient volcanic activity and they are also affected by modern tectonic activity associated with

subduction. They are in a "tectonically unstable environment" (Winslow and Johnson

1989; Davies et al. 1981). The Shurnagin Islands are subject to earthquakes and

tsunamis and ashfalls primarily from the volcanic eruptions on the Alaska Peninsula and

the Eastern Aleutian Islands.

The Aleutian arc as a whole contains 80 known Quaternary volcanoes, of which at

least 44 have been historically active (out of 54 in the USA), beginning with Buldir

Island in the west, located between the Near and Rat Islands groups and ending at Mt.

Spur and Hayes volcanoes in the east, near Anchorage (Kienle and Nye 1990).

It is essential, in discussing micro-environments in relation to human settlement,

to distinguish between the geologically much older and generally larger islands on the

Pacific side of the Aleutian arc, and the significantly younger geological formations and

volcanoes on the Bering Sea side. This applies especially to the volcanic cones (actually

tops of giant submarine volcanoes) in the Aleutians proper, such as Buldir,

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 5 Semisopochnoi, Great Sitkin, Seguam, Amukhta, the Four Mountains Island group and a number of others. By and large, these islands of recent volcanic origin were poorly suited for human settlement. The character of the steep rocky shore lines offers very few, if any, areas suitable for landing, especially for skin watercraft. Areas suitable for settlement locations are also few: these islands lack fish streams and sometimes even fresh water sources. Early historical evidence suggests that the majority of these islands were seldom used by humans. When fresh water sources were available, some were utilized as hunting grounds (temporary occupation of Buldir, Amukhta, Seguam, for example). Other islands served as relatively short-lived occupational sites of small splinter groups, which hived off from larger human units elsewhere, following, or to avoid, conflict (Great Sitkin in the middle of the 18th century). A few islands were permanently settled by relatively small human groups because of the local availability of a special resource. This may have been the case on Chuginadak Island in the Four

Mountains islands where sea otters were most abundant. The Four Mountains islands could have also served as a last-resort refuge settlement area for human groups under pressure by others. On the other hand, settlements in this area may have been border outposts of a larger polity to the west. Some very active volcanoes, such as Yunaska, appear to have been uninhabited and seldom utilized by humans.

The island building activity is an ongoing geologic process and several of the smaller islands are of recent, proto-historic (Kasatochi, Amak) and, in at least one case,

of historic (Bogoslof) origin. The interior of the islands is generally mountainous, though

there are some relatively low lying islands, such as Semichi or Amchitka in the Rat

- -

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 6 Islands. Amchitka is low in the east, but in the middle it is a flat table land with rolling tundra. Toward the northwest it becomes hilly and there are low peaks of about 1200 feet elevation (which is low by Aleutian standards).

In general, the terrain away from the coasts throughout the archipelago is rough, cliffy and steep. There are many ravines, and often vertical cliffs bar a traveller's way.

Snowfields are common and are criss-crossed with crevasses. Aleuts did travel overland in order to reach an area when travel by sea was not feasible for one reason or another, but overland trails are few. On many islands the high mountains are covered by ice and snow fields that never melt. Glacier or glacier tongues may come down to about 2000 feet and the snowline to 3000 to 4000 feet (data for Unalaska after Drewes et al. 1961, see also Martinson 1973:lS). The interior of most Aleutian islands may be safely characterized as inhospitable and was not utilized as human habitat. It did, however, provide some technological resources: sulphur from the volcanoes for fire making, minerals used as pigments, which were highly prized (as colors had ritual and symbolic significance), obsidian for weapons, slate for utensils, possibly amber4 for ritual use in the form of beads.

The coasts are for the most part exposed. Much of the coastline cannot support human habitat, especially so on the Pacific side of large eastern islands, where tectonic uplift and erosion combine to form dangerous rock-bound shore lines, open to tsunamis generated anywhere in the Pacific Ocean but generally in the Aleutian arc. As old

Though the Aleutians at present are treeless, in former geological ages there were trees. Petrified tree finds are documented for Atka and Unga and Popof Island in the Shumagins. In both areas, coal is also found. Veniaminov reported that amber was found in a cliff on Umnak.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 7 Aleuts express it, on Unalaska for example, the Pacific side is good for a short visit, but

one does not choose to live there. The coasts of the older, larger islands, such as

Unalaska, are deeply cut by fjords, but "broad valleys and flat places are scarce" and

"...topography is very rough" (Martinson 1973:14). Offshore reefs, submerged, semi-

submerged and subaerial offshore rocks [in Russian kekury] are grave navigational

hazards.

As stated above, the Aleutian island arc (over 200 km wide) separates the Bering

Sea from the Pacific Ocean. On the Pacific side, it is parallelled by the Aleutian Trench,

3,400 km long, extending from the Kurile-Kamchatka trench eastward to the Gulf of

Alaska (Kienle and Nye 1990), varying in depth from 2,400 fathoms in the east to 4,000

fathoms in the west (United States Department of Commerce, Coast and Geodetic

Survey 1964, cited forthwith as United States Coast Pilot no. 9). On the north of the arc,

the Bering Sea is, in contrast, relatively shallow with a gradient from east to west, where

the depth of the sea increases. The waters of the two seas, the cold ones of the Bering

Sea and the warmer ones of the Pacific Ocean, mix through and along the inter-island

passes in complex and varied patterns dependent on the sea and wind currents. The

dominant direction of water flow throughout the archipelago is to the north, from the

Pacific into the Bering Sea, but there are also local countercurrents (see Corbett 1991:26

and US Coast Pilot no. 9, pp. 164-165 for the discussion of the complexity of local

currents and their variation). Most of the inter-island passes are shallow, "effectively

blocking the flow of intermediate and deep waters between the oceans" (Corbett

1991:26). For this reason most of the water is carried through the deepest channels such

+ Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof lslands Region Ethnography, Page 8 as Commandor, Near and Arnchitka Passes in the west, and Samalga Pass, for example, in the east. This flow, and the upwelling currents which account for the abundance of marine life in the Aleutian area, are generated by the complex North Pacific circulation system. This system is dominated by the Subarctic Current formed off Honshu Island,

Japan, by the cold Oyashio current flowing south and the warm north flowing Kuroshio

(Japanese) current (see Corbett 1991:24, 25 and Figure 3; and Favorite et al. 1974).

Understanding of the major current system is essential not only in discussion of its role in the ecology, but also in discussion of the region's population history. Were the

Aleuts, indeed, isolated in the island chain for several millennia, as Laughlin avers in a number of publications, or did they have intermittent contact with Asians? The latter hypothesis finds support in the fact that in the 18th and 19th centuries Russians observed numerous Japanese wrecks, carried by the currents to various points in the Aleutian

Chain, and in some instances disabled vessels came to land carrying relatively large groups of survivors. There is also evidence for other than Russian contact by sea.

Already at first contact, in 1741, off Adak, Aleuts came out to the Russian navy vessel and demanded, by gesture, knives in return for water. The use of drift iron by Aleuts is amply documented in early Russian primary sources. One of the early observers, writing prior to 1767, states explicitly that Aleuts preferred iron from Japanese wrecks as

Japanese nails were longer and broader than Russian ones. On Attu, at first contact in

1747, Russians reported an Aleut account of seaborne visitors whose description leaves no doubt of their oriental origin. Two bronze embossed discs with inscriptions were collected on Attu in the 18th century. Moreover, at least two early skippers reported in I

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 9 the 1760's in the Eastern Aleutians the presence of two European wrecks (the number of masts and construction methods were the key features in identification; Japanese vessels were single masted). If there was such contact, no matter how sporadic, genetic input and changes in the disease pool prior to Russian intrusion in the second half of the 18th century must be taken into consideration.

Local conditions must be taken into account when considering subsistence resources and procurement. The Subarctic current affected the formation of local currents and micro-currents. For example, availability and distribution of an essential technological resource on these treeless islands, driftwood, was dependent on these currents. Without wood, Aleut technology could not have been developed or maintained. Unfortunately, to my knowledge no study has been conducted on the local availability of wood species and quantities.

Local currents shifted with the winds, varied with the seasons, or changed in several-year cycles (Corbett 1991:24; U.S. Coast Pilot no. 9:164). Tectonic and volcanic activity could affect local currents in the short- and long term (Black 1981). The local currents, winds, and tides combine in generating very dangerous rip tides (in Russian m),especially in inter-island passes, generally to the southward on the ebb, and northward on the flood (U.S. Coast Pilot no. 9:164). They also influence offshore sea conditions. As Corbett points out (1991:26) "Strong tides meeting resistance near shoals, headlands and offshore islets" also generate rip tides, and "choppy water, standing waves, and whirlpools characterize these areas during the flood and ebb tides". According to the United States Coast Pilot "...nearly all the beaches in the Aleutian Islands present

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 10 natural obstacles to landing. The shores are generally precipitous; the breakers are heavy and in many cases the approaches are filled with jagged rocks ... Sand beaches are rare; usually being found only at the heads of bays; and in no case does a beach extend more than 50 yards inland from the high-water line" (no. 9:164, charts 8802, 9102). All

of these factors were of concern to the Aleuts in their subsistence activities. The men

learned early to "read" the water, the clouds, and the wind and assimilate information

that was indispensable for su~val.It follows that investigators must take these

conditions into account when assessing the carrying capacity, resource availability, and

procurement capabilities of microhabitats.

Aleutian climate is maritime. Summers are cool and wet, winters are relatively

mild, but snowfalls can be heavy (from 28 to 77 inches). Temperatures may range from

5°F to 80°F, January-February being the coldest months, August usually the warmest but

because of the incessant wind and moisture in the air one seldom can do without warm

clothing and raingear.

Heavy precipitation (averaging about 50 inches per year) combines with frequent

dense fogs. High winds are constant, cyclonic storms of hurricane force are frequent (for

analysis of sea level cyclones, or The Aleutian Low, see Martinson 197155-60).

Williwaws, katabatic winds generated on mountain slopes, are another sudden and

serious hazard (United States Coast Pilot no. 9). The high winds, fog (especially in

summer), rain, in winter often sleet, and snow are all linked to the cold and warm

current interaction in the sea. Clear days are extremely rare. Father Ioann Veniaminov

(now St. Innocent) spent a decade in the Eastern Aleutians from 1824 to 1834, and was

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 11 the first, as far as we know, to keep a weather record. He noted that at Unalaska on the average there were 150 rainy days and 140 heavily overcast ones "in which the sun is not seen and not even the sky" (Veniaminov 1984: 485). For Cold Bay, Alaska Peninsula 14 clear days, 60 partly cloudy, and 292 cloudy days were recorded in 1968 (U.S.

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Senice Report 1968:l). It should be noted that Aleuts hunted sea otters only when the sea was calm and the days preferably sunny. However, the weather, according to United States Coast Pilot (no.9, p. 165) is

"extremely local" (varying within distances of 20 miles or less) but generally is far better on the northern shore which also has much less fog. Indeed, at contact most of the

Aleut settlements were located on the Bering Sea side. The inference is inescapable that weather conditions, in addition to topography, were a factor influencing choice of habitation.

The weather affected the Aleuts very much, indeed. As Corbett notes, "High or sudden winds and fog were of immediate importance to the Aleuts. Prolonged periods of bad weather could leave hunters landbound, leading to hunger and even starvation"

(1991:22). Hunters caught in a severe storm at sea faced grave peril, and many were lost at sea. Food procurement could be, and often was, interrupted. As an old Aleut from

Nikolski once said: "There is a difference between a seal in the sea and the seal on my

kitchen table."

As a rule, Aleutian waters are icefree year around, and thus Aleuts had access to

marine resources (weather permitting) at all seasons. In some years, however,

temperatures dropped and shore ice formed, especially at heads of bays. Martinson,

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 12 who spent over a year in the field studying the cultural ecology of the Makushin Bay area on Unalaska Island, notes that winter ice was not uncommon " . . . in protected bays where rivers empty fresh water into salt water" and he estimated the ice thickness he observed to be four to five inches (1973:81). Veniaminov also noted occasional shore ice formation. Ice formation in any given winter may significantly affect procurement capabilities of the local group. In particular, sea otter distribution is adversely affected by shore ice. On the other hand, colder water temperatures and advance of the ice from the northern regions southward may bring walrus into the areas where they are normally not present (Fay 1982:7-29; Burns 1993).

Although there were significant cultural and linguistic differences between various Aleut groups, the mode of subsistence varied little from one end of the Aleut habitat to the other due to general similarities among environmental conditions. All

Aleut groups depended for survival on the sea. Sea mammals provided food (meat, blubber and oil) and technological materials. The most reliable source was the sea lion, found throughout the entire Aleutian region. Harbor seals were also found everywhere and were used primarily for food. Sea otter, abundant in most areas, provided skins for women's clothing and bedding. It is not clear if sea otter flesh was used for food.

Informants maintain that sea otter meat was not eaten as such an act would have been akin to cannibalism: according to Aleut belief, sea otters are transformed humans. It is, however, reasonable to propose that sea otter meat was eaten in times of famine.

All three animal species were available year round. Fur seals are available seasonally. In pre-contact times they were available only in the Eastern Aleutians,

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof lslands Region Ethnography, Page 13 predominantly at and to the west of Unalaska Island during the spring and fall migrations to and from their breeding grounds in the Pribilof Islands. They were taken in small quantities, pelagically. The fur seal skins were used, along with sea otter skins, for women's clothing and the meat was eaten.

After contact, first Russians, and then resettled groups of Aleuts who worked for the Russian American Company, conducted fur seal harvests for commercial purposes at the rookeries (breeding grounds) in the Pribilof and Commandor Islands. Here the animals were clubbed to death on shore. In the second quarter of the 19th century conservation practices were developed and only non-breeding males 3 to 5 years of age were harvested. The life cycle of a fur seal was first described in detail by the Aleut manager of the Pribilof operation of the Russian American Company, Kas'ian

Shaiashnikov. His work was published in 1853 by the Imperial Academy of Sciences in a volume dealing with the fauna of Russian Empire (Simashko 1853).

Walrus, utilized by the Aleuts throughout the chain (as is evident from walrus ivory finds in archaeological sites), were available for most of the year only on the

Bering Sea shores of the Alaska Peninsula and small offshore islands, especially Amak, and near the Pribilof Islands. Only rarely were walrus available in significant numbers

(more than occasional individuals) at the southwestern end of the Alaska Peninsula, on

Unimak Island (Veniaminov 1984:109) or even in the Shumagin Islands and in the

Comrnandors. Individual animals occasionally visit other areas of the chain. Sightings have been reported for Unalaska and Atka in the Andreanof Islands (Fay 1982:8-21).

Baleen and toothed whales of several species are found in the Aleutian region:

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 14 blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus); fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus); right whale

(Eubaelena glacialis); sperm whale (Physeter catodon [macrocephalus]); sei whale

(Balaenaoptera borealis); gray whale (Eschirichtius robustus) at the extreme eastern end of the chain; humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae); minke whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata); and three species of beaked whales (Berardius bairdi, Ziphius cavirostris,

Mesoplodon stejnegeri). Aleuts had terms for eight, including the sperm whale. Only the oil of the last named whale species was used in oil lamps. Ambergris was collected from drift sperm whales for the Russian American Company. Aleuts also had a term for the belukha (Delphinaptenrs leucas), though at present its range does not include the

Aleutian waters west of Alaska Peninsula. Two species of dolphin were also named. It is not clear if Aleuts took dolphins (porpoises) in pre-contact times. Dolphins were not taken in historic times. Sharks were known but not used. Killer whales were not hunted.

Drift whales were used throughout the chain, but active hunting had a restricted distribution in Krenitzin Islands, Illiuliuk and Beaver Inlet villages on Unalaska Island, and some hunting by certain individuals may possibly have occurred on Umnak and

Unimak Islands. It is surmised that whales were hunted by the Shurnagin Islanders prior to the destructive 1788 tsunami. It is also possible that Four Mountains islands inhabitants were whalers at the time of contact. Whaling was not practiced at contact in the central Aleutians, and in the Near Islands the inhabitants did not whale and were reported to fear the whales. In the Eastern Aleutians whaling was probably introduced from the Kodiak area, and in 1828 the Russian American Company settled two Kodiak

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 15 Island whalers at Atka to teach the Aleuts this "useful craft" (Black 1982; Black 1984;

Black 1987).

Fish, some ocean species but most importantly the salmon taken in the bays and

in the streams leading to the spawning lakes, were staple resources for the Aleuts. In

the Northern Pacific there are over one hundred fish species of which Aleuts utilized a

considerable number. In pre-contact times Pacific halibut (Hippoglossus stenolepis), cod

(Gadus sp.), and Atka Mackerel (Hexagrarnrnos stellen, in Russian terpug) were taken

, most often (mentioned in all early Russian sources for all areas of the chain).' In

historic times, flounder, sculpin, pogy (Shade 1949:33) and Dolly Varden (field notes)

were taken. Herring played a minor part in Aleut subsistence (Ransom 1946:612-613;

Shade ms.). Veniarninov (1984:37-38) lists 30 fish species named in Aleut besides the

five Pacific salmon species (see below). This suggests that these fish were utilized in

pre-contact times. Salmon were the most important and predictable resources. Three of

the five Pacific species occur throughout the Aleutian Region: sockeye or red salmon

(Oncorhynchus nerka, krasnaia ryba in Russian sources); pink or humpback salmon

(Oncorhynchus gorbusha, Russian gorbusha); coho or silver salmon (Oncorhynchus

kisutch, Russian kizhuch). The fourth, chum or dog salmon (Oncorhynchus keta, Russian

keta or semga, in early sources khaiko) apparently has a discontinuous distribution. The

fifth, king salmon (Oncorhynchus tschwaytscha, Russian chavycha) appears only in the

easternmost Aleutian Passes and is very rare in the waters off Unalaska (Veniaminov

' Nomenclature is that of the National Marine Fisheiies Service, after Browning 1974. It differs from Latin nomenclature employed by Martinson (1973).

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 16 1984). Fish resources distribution in micro-environments are subject to "A wide range of complex variables, including water temperature, salinity, depth, and type of ocean bottom" and fish populations fluctuate periodically (Corbett 1991:37-40). There are also

fluctuations due to volcanic and tectonic activities. Ashfalls especially can adversely

affect salmon runs (Black 1981). The fluctuation in cod fish populations is reflected in

the Aleut name for that fish: "the fish that stops" (field data).

The tidal zone and shore reefs are rich in invertebrates. Here, Aleuts used

octopi, mussels, limpets, clams and sea urchins. The tidal zone was exploited intensively

primarily in the periods of food shortages, though sea urchins and blue (and black)

mussels were considered a delicacy (Shade ms.; Ransom 1946). However, red tides

(which contaminate shell fish and cause fish poisoning) occurred and several outbreaks

have been recorded in recent times (a severe one in 1946).

Crabs, though known to the Aleuts, were not eaten in pre-contact times because

they were believed to feed on the bodies of drowned humans (field data).

Several species of sea weed were used as food condiment and kelp was used as

technological material. In post-contact times, kelp was used as a fertilizer of vegetable

gardens, a practice introduced by the Russians.

Terrestrial fauna was scarce throughout the chain. A variety of rodents

(lemmings, field mice, and voles), not utilized by humans, were present on many islands

since pre-contact times. Rats, now abundant throughout the region, were introduced in

the Western Aleutians on Hawadax (modern Rat Island) when a Japanese vessel was

wrecked there in the late 18th century. Ground squirrels (Spermophilw undulatw

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 17 ablusus [Osgood]) are also an introduced species brought from mainland Alaska or

Kodiak Archipelago by fox farmers as fodder for foxes.

Foxes (Vulpes sp., red, cross, silver, and black) were present at contact in the

Eastern Aleutians from Umnak on. Not every variety occurred on each island, except, according to Veniaminov (1984:123), on the island of Sanak. It is not clear if foxes were present at contact in the Four Mountains islands. In post contact times, Polar foxes

(Alopus lagopus) were introduced in 1750 from the Cornmandors to the Near islands as a market crop to be harvested by the Russian merchant-skipper Andrean Toltykh for whom the Andreanof Islands are named. Beginning with the second quarter of the 19th century, Polar and other foxes were introduced in the central Aleutians and on some of the Rat Islands by the Russian American Company as a crop animal (one species or variety per island). Following the transfer of the territory to the United States in 1867

(and subsequent to the rapid decline in the sea otter industry), fox farming became a lucrative economic enterprise and foxes continued to be introduced and re-introduced on small islands throughout the Chain which were leased to fox trappers. Beginning in the

1960's, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a program of fox eradication in order to enhance bird populations. It is my understanding that this program is continuing at present.

Other terrestrial fauna is (and was) present on Unimak Island and in the

Shumagins. Unimak land fauna is the same as that of western Alaska Peninsula. In addition to rodents (including ground squirrels), it consisted of brown bear, wolves, wolverines, foxes, mink, land otters, hares, and caribou. In the Shumagins there are

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 18 ground squirrels, land otters, mink, foxes of several varieties, and, in the 19th century,

caribou, especially on Unga where the Aleuts are said to have taken them in great

numbers by the drive method (Veniaminov 1984:129). The Russian sources report that

land fauna distribution was severely affected by volcanic ash following several major

eruptions, especially the caribou herds on Unga and elsewhere. It is also probable that

the 1788 tsunami, which according to Aleut tradition destroyed all villages in the

Shumagins except the Unga settlement, also adversely affected the terrestrial fauna in

this island group.

In the American period, attempts were made to introduce domestic reindeer. The

first few reindeer were landed on Amaknak Island, Unalaska Bay, in 1891. The attempt

was unsuccessful. A second attempt took place between 1912-1914 when reindeer were

reintroduced on Amaknak and introduced on Umnak, Atka, and in the Pribilofs. In no

case was reindeer herding adopted. On Amaknak the animals apparently died out.

Reindeer became feral on Atka, Umnak, and in the Pribilofs. They are occasionally

hunted for meat. Recently, round-ups for antler taking were instituted on Umnak and in

the Pribilofs. The antlers are sold in the Orient, mostly to Korea businesses.

I According to Aleut tradition reported by Veniaminov dogs were present (at least

in the eastern Aleutians) before contact, but died out during a severe famine; either

they died of hunger or were eaten by humans. Indeed, several dog remains have been

found in the course of archaeological work and dated roughly to one thousand years

before present. At the time of contact Aleuts had no domestic animals. Later, dogs

were reintroduced by the Russians, along with the dog sled of Kamchadal type. Sled

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 19 I dogs do not exist at present in the Aleutians but in the Cornrnandors they were in use

until very recently.

Avifauna is extraordinarily abundant throughout the Aleutian Region (over 180

species are recorded). A number of land, l,acustrine, and sea birds are present. The

majority are migratory, among them geese, an important food resource, but a number of

species are present year around. In the Near Islands, several Asiatic species are found

which are not present elsewhere in the chain. Avifauna (especially pelagic and aquatic

birds) was utilized extensively by the Aleuts. Skins of cormorants, puffins, murres, and

according to one early report of auks, were utilized for male clothing (and the use of

such skins may have been a prerogative of high social rank). In post-contact times, eider

skins replaced sea otter and fur seal skins for female clothing. Geese, ducks, puffin, and

occasionally gulls were eaten. Ptarmigan was the only terrestrial bird known to have

been used as food. Eggs constituted an important item in the diet. In post-contact

times, eggs were preserved, usually in fat, and stored for later consumption. This

practice, however, may have been introduced by the Russians.

Several bird species had ritual significance and their feathers (and sometimes

whole skins) were used as offerings, in ritual or to decorate ritual objects, such as

wooden headgear worn at sea, and also to decorate kayaks and male clothing. In this

category were eagles, falcons and rosy finch (the red feathers of this bird were especially

valued).

Throughout the Aleutian region, the dominant vegetation type is that of the

Alpine Tundra, though in specific locations there are expanses of Wet Tundra,

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pnbilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 20 I I Crowberry Tundra, or heath (see Hulten 1937 for the definitive analysis of Aleutian flora). Bush vegetation is found in some areas, predominantly willow and in some areas in the East (especially on Alaska Peninsula) alder, and in the Shumagins the elderberry.

Mountain ash is reported for Attu.

Edible berry bushes are found throughout the chain and all were utilized by the

Aleuts as diet supplement: crowberry (Ernpetmrn nigmrn, in Russian shiksha, occasionally voronitsa), salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, Rubus stellatus, in Russian kniazhenika), in some areas (notably in the Pribilofs) dwarf salmonberry (Rubus charnaernorus L., in Russian moroshka), raspberry and blackberry (Rubus sp.), and blueberries in variety (Vacciniurn sp., in Russian chernitsa, chernika or golubitsa).

Cranberry (Oxycoccus sp.) and wild strawberry (Arbutus) were also found in some localities. Other vegetative species used as dietary supplements were wild sorrel (Rurnen acetosa) and wild rhubarb (Rurnex fenestrsatus). Other species used as food and medicinal plants included wild parsley (Ligusticurn hulteni) and Heracleurn lanaturn (the stem and root were used; in Russian borshchi, kutagarnik, or puchki kuta~arnyeor puchki). The latter name was adopted in the Unangan language for Heracleurn sp., and sweet puchki (puchki sladkie) is probably Angelicas. Edible roots in widespread use were

Fritillaria karnchatkensis (in Russian sarana), white orchid (Platanthera sp., in Russian identified by the late Sergei Sovoroff (Suvorov) as chagitki), and ptarmigan grass

(Polygonurn bistorta, Polygonurn vivbariurn) was known in Russian as makarsha (Hudson ed. 1992). A number of plants were used medicinally, notably Steller's beach grass as an anti-scorbutic. Some uses were introduced by the Russians (such as camomile for

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 21 example) to judge by the names reported today by the Unangan speakers. In general,

Aleut pharmacopeia was very extensive. Plant use has been studied by such early researchers as Lantis on Atka in 1930's, Ransom on Umnak in the early 1940's, and most extensively by the late Theodore P. Bank I1 who identified at least 85 plants used by the

Aleuts. Much of this knowledge has been lost, but several elders at Unalaska and

Umnak identified thirty plants used either for food or as medicines (See Hudson ed.

1992: 40-57; additional plants were identified by the same informants in 1975 and 1976

according to my field data).

Plants were also used as technological materials. Grasses and sedges were used in

dwelling construction for chinking and as floor and roof coverings. Bundled dried

grasses, but particularly dried stems of Heracleum Angelica and wild parsley, were used

as fuel, especially when camping at hunting grounds. Crowberry bushes were widely

utilized as fuel (see Netsvetov 1980 for Atka, Sophie Pletnikoff [Pletnikov] in Hudson ed.

199250 for Unalaska). Mosses were used for chinking and as wicks in oil lamps.

Aconitum sp. (probably max.) was used in preparation of poison used on war and whaling

weapons. Beach rye grass (Elymm mollis) was most widely used material in basketry

manufacture. Basketry constituted one of the major aspects of Aleut household

economy. Baskets in variety provided containers for storage and transport of food stuffs;

grass mats were used as "room dividers" in communal dwellings (particularly in the

eastern Aleutians), bedding, mats in kayaks, and in the western Aleutians as shoulder

capes. In the central Aleutians, woven socks were used as liners for boots (or simply as

foot coverings). Woven mitts were also in use.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 22 The ecological knowledge of the Aleuts was superb and they utilized every possible resource which the environment provided. This knowledge and the sophisticated technology6 developed for exploitation of particular resources permitted the Aleuts to maintain themselves in environments which were potentially abundant in food, but which were locally and periodically dangerous and unstable. That there were frequent periods of famine is amply attested by the Aleut folklore and the testimony of early Russian fur hunters. One skipper explicitly states that his men were forbidden to offer food products in trade, as the Aleuts would then be motivated to raid Russian camps, but food was shared at meals with Aleut visitors and was offered to newcomers as a sign of hospitality.

I.B. The Indigenous Societies: Language, Polities,and Cultural Subdivisions

At contact, the early observers reported a number of linguistic and political boundaries within the Aleutian Region. The indigenous societies in the Aleutian Region

in pre-contact times constituted a number of named political units. Relationships across

the political boundaries were characterized by and large by mutual hostility and violent

conflicts, though in some cases, where linguistic and cultural differences were minimal, or when circumstances dictated, larger political alliances were formed. In addition to

political boundaries, there were clearly defined linguistic and cultural areas. Language

will be discussed first.

See Liapunova (1975) and Shade (1949) for best summaries on Aleut technology. Modem information is provided by the elders on Atka for the local school.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 23 I.B.1. Language and Dialects

When the Russians penetrated the Aleut Region in the 18th century, it was

recognized from the first that the language spoken by the group of men encountered in

the Shumagin Islanders was akin to Eskimoan (or Greenlandic, observation by G. W.

Steller in 1741). It is assumed in literature that these Americans (so named by the

observers aboard the Sv. Petr, commanded by Bering) were Unangan, as historically the

Shumagin Islands were occupied by an Aleut sub-group. The available evidence (the

men's dress, specifically seal skin hats, britches and boots, facial paint, etc.) suggests that

they may have been a raiding or hunting party either from the Alaska Peninsula or

Kodiak Archipelago and thus speakers of the Alutiiq language (also known in literature

as Sugpiaq or Pacific Eskimo, a branch of Alaskan Yup'ik). However, linguists have long

since established that the Aleut language is a member of the Esk-Aleut linguistic phylum.

Three main dialects have been distinguished since the days of Veniaminov who

pioneered the linguistic study of the Aleut language: the Fox or Eastern Aleut, the

Central or Atkan dialect, and the Attuan. Attuan is the most divergent of all Aleut

speech varieties.

The early fur merchant vessel skippers, foremen and tribute collectors, who

between 1745 and 1762 advanced along the island chain eastward from the Near Islands

to the Alaska Peninsula, are unanimous in describing several language boundaries. They

1 noted that the language of Near Islanders was significantly different from the speech of

the inhabitants of the central Aleutians. Moreover, several noted that while the Near

Islanders maintained that there was no mutual intelligibility between their speech and

I* 19' Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 24 that of the Rat Islanders, the Russian mariners registered similarities between the

Attuans' and Rat Islanders' speech. As late as 1828-1844, Fr. Iakov Netsvetov, whose mother was an Atkan and who served the Atkan District of the Russian American

Company (from Atka to Commandor and Kurile Islands) as the first Orthodox priest, remarked on the differences between the Atkan Aleut and that of the Rat Islanders. He also characterized the latter as distinct from Attuan. Knut Bergsland, the leading specialist in the study of Aleut language, postulates that there was indeed a Rat Island dialect, now extinct.

The Attuan dialect is today almost extinct, with possibly only two speakers

surviving. Modern Atkan speakers cannot understand Attuan. Father Netsvetov

considered Attuan and Rat Island speech to be inferior to his native Atkan. In his time, both Eastern and Central Aleut speakers considered, as they still do today, the Attuan

language to be inferior to theirs. They compared the Attuan (as they do today) to baby-

talk and cite the following legend as the reason for this: eastern raiders, not long before

the Russian arrival, exterminated the population of Near Islands. Only two little

children, brother and sister, escaped death. They managed to survive, grow to maturity,

and eventually repopulated the islands, but because they had no adult models, their

speech did not develop. Hence, Attuans to this day speak a baby-talk language (there

are several variants of this legend, with sometimes a lone woman being the sole survivor

who forgets proper speech, or a lone woman with her two babies etc.).

It should be noted that Fr. Netsvetov, along with Veniaminov, pioneered the

scholarly study of the Aleut language. His lexicon of Atkan Aleut is an outstanding

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 25 contribution to Aleut linguistics. Along with Veniarninov, Netsvetov recognized the three main Aleut language subdivisions. Modern linguists, Bergsland in Norway and

Menovshchikov, Vakhtin and Golovko in Russia, are in agreement on this basic division, though today Bergsland classifies the Unangan language into Eastern and Western branches. Atkan is spoken in the village of Atka and Atkans settled in urban centers of

Alaska. Eastern Aleut is spoken on Umnak, Unalaska, and in the Pribilofs and by some individuals from these areas settled elsewhere. There was apparently a lessening of linguistic distance over time between Eastern and Central (Atkan) Aleut. The mechanisms were probably increased inter-community intercourse, including intermarriage, especially after transfer of sovereignty to the U.S.A. in 1867. The Alaska

Commercial Company had monopolistic control over the Pribilof Islands' fur seal harvest for many years and was dominant in post-1867 sea otter trade throughout southwestern

Alaska. Atkans were brought in large numbers to hunt sea otters with firearms from

Alaska Commercial Company schooners in the eastern waters. Moreover, as the Alaska

Commercial Company did not maintain the Russian practice of maintaining outposts in distant Aleutian islands and did not provide social services as the Russians did, there was a large scale migration to other areas. Due to new economic conditions, many Atkan men hired themselves out often for several seasons as sealers in the Pribilof Islands.

Linguistically, the differences between Eastern and Central Aleut dialects now are of a relatively low level. However, the evidence of early observers on significant linguistic differences and lack of mutual intelligibility between several dialects must be taken seriously.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 26 All scholars agree that Attuan is the most divergent dialect. Menovshchikov considered that Attuan may have been closer to the Sireniki language, spoken by a group of Eskimos on the Chukchi Peninsula. The Sireniki language is now recognized as being of the same order as the Yup'ik and Iiiupiaq languages of the Esk-Aleut phylum. The relation may be presented schematically as follows in Figure 1:

Figure 1: Eskimo-Aleut Linguistic Typology +Esk-Aleut Phylum 'Eskimoan Sireniki Iiiupiaq

The picture, however, may be more complicated than the above diagram suggests.

Recently, a linguist proposed, on typological grounds, that certain peculiarities of Aleut language place it in a relationship with Eyak and Haida languages. He proposes that there existed in pre-historic times a Northern Northwest Coast Language Area which broke up possibly as recently as 1000 years ago with Tlingit and Alutiiq languages being intrusive (Leer 1991). If Leer is right, his linguistic evidence taken together with certain cultural factors suggests that a totally fresh interpretation of Aleut prehistory is in order.

Cultural differences between eastern, central, and especially western Aleut groups need to be investigated more closely. Specifically, the existence of rank and stratification in

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 27 the eastern islands and alleged egalitarian social structure in the west suggests fundamental cultural differences. Linguistic evidence, obtained in the Eastern Aleutians in 1975, supports the existence of marked social stratification: Eastern Aleut had three

social dialects: polite, ordinary, and &. The "polite" forms were used by a social

inferior speaking to social superior, "ordinary" speech was used between equals, and

"rude" when a social superior addressed a social inferior (field data).

Local differences in speech exist to this day, but differences were probably much

more pronounced in the past. Aleut speakers could tell a person's origin by the way he

or she spoke. Linguists assume that, indeed, local variation in speech is real but local

sub-dialects and sociolinguistic patterns have not been studied. It is postulated, however,

that inhabitants of the Shumagin Islands may have used a distinct sub-dialect. It is also

recognized (especially by the Aleuts themselves) that in the Pribilof Islands, St. Paul and

St. George, which were settled after contact, two distinct speech varieties have

developed. Both belong to the Eastern Aleut, but Aleut informants claim that certain

features of St. George speech make it easier for the Atkans to understand that sub-

dialect (field data).

Largely on the basis of information provided by Veniaminov, Bergsland postulates

a linguistic shift in the southern Umnak area in early historic times. It is supposed that

in pre-contact or proto-historic times a variety of Atkan was spoken on southern Umnak

and that the speech of Four Mountain Islanders was also Atkan. Pre- or proto-historic

burial practices in the Four Mountains islands and in the central Aleutians lend support

to the last mentioned hypothesis. The first hypothesis may not hold. Historical evidence

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof lslands Region Ethnography, Page 28 on population shifts, notably the official census conducted in 1790192 by officers of the

BillingsISarychev expedition of Russian Imperial Navy, suggests a somewhat different picture. At the time of the census, there was at least one small village of refugees from the Four Mountains islands on Umnak and in another village a group of such refugees settled among the local inhabitants. Thus, Veniaminov's information obtained a quarter of a century later may not have been as accurate as the bulk of this scholar's information generally is.

In the Commandor Islands the situation is even more complicated. Sometime between 1812 and 1827, a small group of Attuans joined an even smaller number of

Russians on Bering Island. In 1828 and 1829, when the management of the American colonies by the Russian American Company was being reorganized, an outpost was established on Mednoi (Copper) Island. Additional Aleut settlers were relocated to both islands. Some came from the Company outpost on Attu where the population was small but mixed; the minority were local Aleuts, some were settlers from Rat Islands, and some were Atkans or initially residents from other Central Aleutian islands, particularly

Adak. Others were volunteers recruited mainly on Atka, but coming from Alia and

Adak also. Soon thereafter, the population sorted itself out with those who came from

Attu (apparently regardless of their ultimate origin) localized on Mednoi, and the newcomers from the central Aleutians residing on Bering Island. In 1872, 35 Attuan men and an unspecified number of households moved to the Cornmandors. To complicate the picture further, in later years some Eastern Aleuts came to the

Cornrnandors, and toward the end of the 19th century a number of Alutiiq speakers from

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 29 Kodiak Archipelago, who manned the Company outposts in the Kurile Islands until 1867, settled primarily on Bering Island.

Linguistic evidence shows, however, that although the population on both islands was mixed, on Bering the Atkan or Central Aleut dialect is dominant to this day

(recently, Atkan speakers visiting Bering Island had no difficulty whatsoever in communicating with local Aleut speakers). On Mednoi, a dialect classed as Attuan was in use until the population was relocated in the second half of the 20th century to Bering

Island and elsewhere. Though this dialect indubitably descended from ancient Attuan, it underwent a significant change, adopting some Russian grammatical forms (especially verbal forms) but retaining other Attuan speech characteristics and Attuan vocabulary.

I.B.2. Polities

The autonyms and Aleut ethnonyms designating political units of the pre-contact

Aleut population are by and large recognized to-day, though some designations vary (as they did in the past) depending on the informant's origin and allegiance. In this document, the plural Eastern Aleut terms are used. The word Aleut, contrary to the prevailing opinion firmly established in literature, was not invented by the Russians.

According to the earliest primary sources, it was the Attuan autonym. Russian skippers are very clear on this point. Moreover, they designated as Aleuts only the inhabitants of the Near Islands, calling the rest of the region's populations Americans. The term sasixnan, in reference to the Near Islanders, was used first by G. F. Miiller (Miller in

Russian sources), who was a member of Bering's expedition and scholar of history,

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 30 geography and ethnography, primarily of Siberia. He met and interviewed an Aleut dignitary from the Rat Islands, Osip Kuznetsov, who provided the first detailed information on the named political units from the Near to Fox Islands. On this basis,

Miiller compiled the first political map of the Aleutian Region in 1771 or somewhat earlier. Sasixnan then was an ethnonym applied to Near Islanders by their enemies, the

Rat islanders. It is now firmly established in the literature. The Rat Islanders and their domain was called (and is so recognized today) Oagun. The central Aleutians were designated as a unity under the term Niigun (so noted by Miiller's informant, Osip

Kuznetsov) but Atkans to this day recognize that there were two political units:

Naamigus occupying Tanaga and Delarof Islands to the west (Netsvetov in his manuscript dictionary glosses the term as "Distant Islands"), and Niihgis occupying the larger islands to the east (today some eastern informants reverse the two unit names).

According to Atkan historical tradition recorded by Bergsland on Atka from W. Dirks,

Sr. (Bergsland 1959:14), the Nii@gis ". . . killed all the men and took the women back home with them." As late as 1790 to 1791 Russians reported Tanaga as inhabited, so such an event took place well into the post-contact period. Tanaga was uninhabited by

1825.

The Four Mountains Islanders were called, according to older sources and some contemporary Eastern informants, Akuugun (var. Akuugan), while the island group was called Uniigun (Sovoroff in Hudson ed. 1992:29). Veniaminov glossed the term as

"locals", while Bergsland interprets it as "over there" or "to the side" (1959:lZ).

By 1790 to 1791 the islands were abandoned (probably after residents were defeated in

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 31 an armed conflict with the Russians and their allied Umnak Island Aleuts ca. 1766-1772) and the population (as mentioned above) was in part annihilated, in part absorbed in

Umnak villages, and a few persons or families were established on Umnak in separate settlements (Imperial Navy, 1790-92).

The political alliance that encompassed all of Umnak island and the Bering Sea coast settlements of Unalaska, including that of Volcano Bay, was called Oawalan~in.

To-day, informants include under this term all of Unalaska and Biorka (Sedanka) Island, but at contact it is probable that northern and northeastern Unalaska bays and offshore islands were controlled by the political alliance centered in the Krenitzin Islands to the east. Krenitzin islanders were called Olglgun (by some modern Eastern informants the term was Slukalingin, according to my field data). The Unimak Islanders were called

Unimgin and they apparently formed an alliance with the peoples of the Sanak Island group (modern informants also give the name Quapagin). Alaska Peninsula Aleuts, apparently allied to the Shumagin Islanders, were called Oagan Ta~amnein(and they were also called Oawaqngin by some modern informants, and by Atkans they were called

Oagiigus; see Bergsland 1959:ll). A more inclusive term for all the easterners beyond the Oawaanein was also used: Oagakugis, according to Netsvetov (ms.). Peninsula inhabitants may have constituted a political subdivision designated by some modern informants as Alagsrrin.

Intergroup and international trade were an ancient practice (confirmed

archaeologically whenever materials exotic for a given environment are found). A young

Aleut male was supposed to travel in foreign lands to be considered a real man. But the

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 32 dominant mode of intergroup interaction was armed conflict (in revenge, for booty and slaves, and even for reputation and ambition).

The armed conflicts and raids for booty and women were fierce and casualties high, resulting in alleged depopulation of some areas and a significant drop in population in others, prior to Russian intrusion. Aleut historical tradition and testimony of early

Russian observers, as well as statements by Veniaminov, the primary ethnographer of the

Aleuts, are in agreement on this point.

I.B.3. Cultural Divisions

Culturally distinct sub-areas are not as easily defined as linguistic and political divisions. No controlled comparative studies of archaeological evidence exist, with the

sole exception of the work of Allen P. McCartney who suggested, on the basis of analysis

of available archaeological inventories, a separate "Western phase" of Aleut culture.

Diagnostic features include, but are not limited to, "large barbless fishhooks, shouldered projectile points with contracting stems, and flaked semilunar knives" (Corbett 199150;

McCartney 1971). Earlier Hrdlicka noted the unusual lithic technology (Corbett

1991:49), a finding later confirmed by A. Spaulding for Agattu (Spaulding 1962). Corbett

notes that ". . . many of the Late Aleutian Trait Horizon artifacts, including mammal

bone awls, several styles of foreshaft and harpoon point, and most decorative motifs are

missing from the Near Islands." She also notes that in the Near Islands eyed rather than

notched or nippled needles were used, in contrast to the rest of the chain.7 My own

In the Eastern Aleutians, eyed needles have been uncovered in archaeological excavations. Their use precedes the use of nippled or notched needles. At Kodiak, on the other hand, at contact eyed needles were used, each woman making her own eyed needles with a

special apparatus. I

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 33 analysis of Aleut art confirms the distinctiveness of Attuan bone carvings (Black 1982).

Elsewhere (Black 1984) I pointed out most significant differences in hunting technology, mythology, religious and social organization. A few features will be summarized here.

The famous bentwood headgear used by Aleut, Alutiiq and Yup'ik sea hunters in war

and sea mammal hunting as masks (Black 1991) were absent in the Near Islands. Men,

however, wore sea otter hats, a practice they may have shared with the Rat Islanders but

which was absent elsewhere. While basketry making was a highly developed art

throughout the Aleutian Region, the Aleuts themselves recognized the superiority of

Attuan weaving and a distinctive Attuan style. The use of woven grass capes in the early

contact period is also reported only for the western Aleutians. Raingear, specifically

waterproof shirts, is called by the Russian term kamleika in the literature. That raingear

had a wide distribution throughout the Bering Sea littoral area, but Attuan kamleikas are

very distinct, both in cut and decoration, from the rain shirts used elsewhere in the chain

(Varjola et. a1 1990:166-171, fig. 238-242). Fishskin clothing was reported for Attu by at

least one early observer. Kayaks, too, differed both from the Atkan and Eastern

Aleutian types. Notably on Attu, two hatch and three hatch kayaks were used, as well as

single hatch kayaks, but the use of the latter was rare. The Attuan kayak also differed in

construction and appearance, a fact noted by Litke (Liitcke) in 1828 when he

encountered Attuans on Bering Island (English translation from the French 1987:119, but

see original Russian edition of 1834 for exact details on this question; Litke 1835). The

differences in house construction and social structure will be discussed in the section on

social characteristics (below).

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 34 Attuan burial practices also diverge from the practices reported elsewhere.

Mummification was not practiced in the Near Islands. Neither sarcophagi and umquan burials (a chamber outlined in stone or whale bone, surmounted by a small mound and surrounded by a trench opening downslope reported for Urnnak Island by Aigner and associates), nor burials in association with an occupied dwelling, nor cave burials are found. On Attu, the majority of the female skeletons (when identified) were found to have been flexed, but male skeletons are extended (Corbett 1991:71-74). Most burials are found in association with whale bones. In documented cases, scapulae were used to cover the bodies. Another apparently divergent Attuan trait is the separation of the

skull from the rest of the body. Headless skeletons and a number of separate skulls have been found. These data suggest a marked divergence in world view and religion. It

should be noted that Netsvetov stressed Attuan differences in this respect and considered

the shamanism reported for Near Islands to be have been distinct from that in the

central Aleutians. The balance of the evidence, sketchy and incomplete though it may

be, argues in favor of a separate cultural subarea in the Near Islands. The position of

the Rat Islands, extremely poorly known archaeologically, ethnographically, and

historically, is not clear.

The central Aleutians, also very poorly known archaeologically, do constitute a

cultural subarea, inasmuch as the linguistic differences, artistic styles (especially the two

documented masks; see Black 1982 for description and reproduction), and the testimony

of contemporary Atkans on differences in hunting equipment supports this view. Also

apparently unique to the central Aleutians is the method of dispute settlement by song

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 35 duel (known for the Inuit in Greenland and more problematically among the Alaskan

Ifiupiat, but not among the Yup'ik, Alutiiq, or Eastern Aleut peoples).

On the other hand, there are other somewhat enigmatic factors which point not to distinctiveness but to cultural unity with some sectors of the eastern part of the region.

Ethnographic data suggest that at some time cave burials, resembling those of the Four

Mountain Islands (see below), and artificial mummification were practiced. Laughlin also reports an inhumation burial from Kanaga which he terms ulakan (Laughlin

1980:99) which may have analogues in the East (see umauan burials).

Mummification for the AmliaIAtka and Kanaga area is attested by Lavrentii

Salamatov (Salarnatov ms.), of Aleut descent and Atkan himself, who was the Orthodox

Priest for the Atka District of Russian American Company from 1844 until his death in

1864. Salamatov also says that there is hearsay that similar practices are found in the eastern Aleutians but he knows of no factual verification. According to Salamatov, he learned (apparently in his youth) the following ". . . from the old men which I had encountered alive." Later, when he tried to obtain information in 1862 from his contemporaries, the stories were fragmentary, based on hearsay, and did not add anything to his earlier knowledge. In the old days, says Salamatov, in rather remote time before the arrival of the Russians, local Aleuts mummified bodies of important men, sometimes famous chiefs, but most of all shamans. The bodies, ". . . clad appropriately to the deceased's rank" were then placed in a dry cave, either extended or in a sitting

(flexed?) position. The Aleuts of old visited the caves, bringing offerings. A hunter could ask the asxanas (Atkan dialect, plural) to foretell his future and his luck. In that

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 36 case, he prepared himself for the visit through fasting and sexual abstinence. He

completed an ablution in a clean stream, dressed himself in his best clothing, and upon

entering the cave addressed the mummies with an incantation formula. Then he

presented his offering: black glittery paint or red ochre paint or both, or a single falcon

or hawk feather. He left, and then after an interval he returned to the cave. On this

second visit an item would appear before the mummy or mummies indicating the

hunter's future. So far no cave burials have been confirmed archaeologically for Atka,

though several chance finds are reported for Kanaga.

For the Four Mountain Islands, cave burial practices are documented

archaeologically. On this basis, a pre-contact link to the central Aleutians can be

postulated. However, a temporal framework for both areas is lacking and no settlement

sites have been excavated. No data are available on settlement patterns, settlement

structure, site locations, and dwelling type. The art (found in association with cave

burials) is distinct, differing both from Atkan and eastern Aleutian objects of aesthetic

character. This suggests a development of a distinct subculture. Dates are lacking

(except for one extended burial by Bank). Laughlin expressed the opinion that cave

burials are recent. This supposition needs verification. Until recently, all cave burials

were documented for Kagamil Island only. Within the last three years, a cave burial was

discovered on another island in Four Mountains group. The find is being analyzed but

the results are not yet published.

On Kagamil, internment practices (apparently at various times) ranged from

inhumation in extended position, in association with masks and sea otter skulls, to

I Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 37 cremation (with oil saturated whale bones used as fuel), to flexed bundle burials, flexed cradle burials, and burial platforms. Apparently, artificially mummified corpses as well as naturally mummified ones (in dry caves) were found here. Laughlin reports 234 mummies, all characterized as flexed, and intimates that bundle, cradle, and platform alwavs go together, though on Ship Rock (in the strait between Unalaska and Umnak, the only other documented instance of burial caves in the eastern Aleutians) some of the bodies were placed on the rocks. Here, some of the burials were associated with whale skulls and scapulae (Hrdlicka 1941; Laughlin 1980:99). The recovered Kagamil bodies were of both genders and various ages. No distinction is made between naturally desiccated corpses and corpses artificially mummified (Laughlin 1980; 96-103).

That the eastern Aleutians from Umnak on were culturally distinct is inferred on the basis of prehistoric and historic art styles. Prehistoric styles show affinity to Dorset and Okvik prehistoric art styles (Black 1982). However, intra-area and temporal variation is poorly understood, due to lack of dated archaeological finds. Local community and social structures of the Eastern Aleuts was also distinct and will be discussed below.

LC. Social Structure, Local Community, and Social Dynamics

I.C.1. Dwelling Type and Social Groupings

The most characteristic feature in the eastern Aleutians was, in contrast to the west where dwellings were small, the use of longhouses. This term is applied to large semi-subterranean communal houses. Recent archaeological work conducted under

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 38 general supervision of Allen P. McCartney demonstrates conclusively that longhouses antedate Russian intrusion and are proto-historic, at least in the settlement excavated

(Tachikalax -- in Russian Veselovskoe -- modern Reese Bay, on Unalaska Island).

In the west settlements were small, whereas in the east the size of the settlements was large in comparison, though there was considerable variation. The larger

settlements could boast up to four and occasionally six or more such longhouses. Each

house was capable of housing from 50-60 to 200-300 persons, according to early skippers'

reports in the 18th century. It appears that several settlements were linked, with smaller

ones being subordinate to a very large one where the leader of a political alliance

presumably had his residence.

The longhouses were, as a rule, oriented east to west, reflecting the central tenets

of Aleut ideological orientation and religious concepts. The entry to the longhouses, like

the entry into the smaller dwellings in the west, was through the roof. Large dwellings

sometimes had as many as seven or more hatches. Notched logs were used as ladder^.^

This type of entry played an important part in structuring warfare tactics.

The construction of a longhouse was linked to leadership status. Only a lineage

or clan head was entitled to start a new longhouse construction. The construction

commencement was accompanied by ritual and apparently by slave sacrifice. Interior

arrangements reflected social ranking. Inside, familial groups were disposed along the

long walls, by rank from east to west. The kin group head and his family occupied the

Afihaeological evidence demonstrates that smaller dwelling types, some with side entries and central fireplaces, were used in the eastern Aleutians at earlier period. No precise temporal framework is available, with the exception for the Chaluka site on Umnak.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 39 eastern end and the followers had the compartments along the sides, with the lowest ranking individuals occupying the western end.

Each familial compartment was separated from the others by grass mats and posts

that were hollowed out at the top so as to hold sea mammal oil burning lamps (see

Hudson ed. 192:75 for a pictorial representation of such posts by a modern informant).

Each familial compartment had additional side chambers used for sleeping or storage

quarters reached through short tunnels (with the openings above the ground floor of the

main room). Sometimes close kin were interred in such compartments. Some men had

separate storage structures for their weapons outside the main dwelling. The outside

appearance and the interior of a long house is illustrated for Unalaska 1769 by Levashev

and 1778 by Webber in classic illustrations that have been widely reproduced in the

literature.

I.C.2. Social Differentiation and Ranking

As far as social differentiation is concerned, the ethnographic data compiled 1825-

1834 by Ioann Veniaminov are very detailed and attest that at the time of Russian

contact (and subsequent conquest 1763-1766) the Aleut society was an elaborately

ranked warrior society. There were three classes: notables (from which chiefs and

chiefly elite were recruited), commoners, and slaves. Slaves were war captives and their

descendants. They were used for labor and female slaves attended high ranking women.

Slave sacrifice was practiced at burials and at sites of new dwelling construction.

I.C.3. Warfare

Aleut warfare was structured. Netsvetov's Atkan dictionary attests to military

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilol Islands Region Ethnography, Page 40 leadership ranks and elaborate structures of war parties or, as he glosses one Aleut term, armies. Veniaminov's ethnographic data are also clear on this point. There was a chain of command and in the field no disobedience to war leaders' orders was tolerated. The leader had the right of disposal over the captives taken in the raid he commanded and he distributed the booty. Disclosure of vital information to the enemy was punishable by death (one early skipper, Ivan Korovin, attests such a case for Unalaska in early 1764).

As a rule, no quarter was given in land conflicts, but in sea battles special rules were observed. Here the defeated were allowed to sail for home. Bodies of the slain enemy were buried (so as to avoid death pollution of the environment offensive to animals).

Sometimes the bodies of important enemies were dismembered (Laughlin 1990:103-104).

Ordinarily all males were killed, except very young boys. The latter, along with young women, were enslaved. Russians in the 18th century encountered Attuan captives in the central Aleutians and Kodiak Island captives in the eastern Aleutians and among the Tlingit. Slaves could be traded, willed to heirs, given away, or set free. Slave sacrifice was mentioned above. Slaves were put to death by means of strangulation or most often by crushing the neck vertebrae between two boards. In contrast, Aleuts executed for crimes which merited the death penalty were shot by execution squads composed of young men assigned to this task by the leaders. However, Veniaminov cites instances when slaves were thrown from cliffs, drowned or stabbed (1984:198). Male prisoners were often tortured. Atkan tradition recounted by Snigaroff to Bergsland states that prisoners were held fast and the skin on their foreheads was slashed (no prisoner was allowed to keep his skin intact)(Snigaroff 1979). Leg tendons could be cut.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 41 Staking out on a bed of sea urchins was a particularly unpleasant way of dealing with a

captive (field data). Netsvetov (in Veniaminov 1984:173) mentions that male prisoners

were treated especially cruelly. Torture included being tightly bound with skin thongs,

burning in a fire, or "steamed over hot rocks." Veniaminov reports that captives were

branded and mutilated (1984:208).

War weapons were knives, bow and arrow on land, and darts and lances; at sea

the spears were thrown by atl-atl. War hats (known in the literature as hunting helmets;

see Black 1990) were worn at sea. An early Russian skipper in the central Aleutians

observed that these hats shielded the warrior's face from arrows cast by the enemy;

more recently (1948) an anthropologist was told that the helmet shielded from the enemy

the warrior's eye movement (Shade, ms.). The eye, an instrument of knowledge, could

convey the person's thoughts. Skin war helmets, rod and slat armor and shields were

used.

The Aleuts preferred to attack in darkness by surprise. If the enemy was attacked

in a dwelling, firebrands were tossed through roof openings and the inhabitants were

smoked out. Most were killed as they were emerging from the hatches. An enemy

armed camp was preferably attacked by stealth and ruse. Atkan traditions relate how in

one case Unalaskan raiders were lured to a cliff by a fire lit in such a way that the

enemy thought it was an encampment on a level ground (all Unalaskans perished). In C another case, a sentry at a camp of Unalaska raiders on Uliaga Island was killed and all

the kayaks taken out by the Atkans. The enemy was then left to starve. After all were

dead, the Atkans buried the bodies on the beach to avoid the death pollution offensive

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 42 to animals. When an enemy attack was expected, or a group escaped under onslaught, the Aleuts took refuge on inaccessible "refuge" rocks. This practice was also followed in the Kodiak area. The refuge rocks were usually stocked with provisions (recently confirmed archaeologically for Kodiak by Knecht and Haakenson (Knecht 1993). When formal peace was concluded between two groups, the leaders ritually exchanged weapons and hostages.

The conflicts are believed to have been intensive and severe depopulation before the coming of the Russians is attributed in Aleut tradition recorded by Veniaminov to this circumstance. In fact, the early ethnographers, Veniaminov and Netsvetov, consider the establishment of Pax Rossia to have been one of the few benefits resulting from the

Russian intrusion.

Inter-group conflict is frequently mentioned in Aleut folklore though the causes for the outbreak of conflict are stereotypical ones, found also in Eskimoan and particularly Alaskan Yup'ik folklore: injury or insult offered to a son of a leading man, or sometimes a nephew by marriage. In some tales the child to whom the insult is being offered is described as crippled.

I.C.4. Leadership

Leadership appears to have had a dual organization. Early Russian sources often mention (from Attu to Unalaska) the headman or chief (toion in Russian) and "with him his best man" or sometimes "his second man". Veniaminov indicates that there may have been a distinction between a war leader and the civil leader. The civil leader, normally

an older man, had to have an established reputation as a war leader in his youth and for

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilol Islands Region Ethnography, Page 43 wisdom in older years. Leadership positions were ranked, as Aleut terminology indicates: Netsvetov's vocabulary contains at least three terms referring to different degrees of leadership (including a name for "main chief'). Leadership was hereditary, ideally from father to son, but in reality leadership could pass to a brother or nephew, or either brother's or sister's son (who was also daughter's husband). Status by birth had to be validated by achievement (prowess in hunting and war) and personal qualities

(wisdom, control etc.).

Leadership involved mediation and dispute settlement and organizing and leading

(age permitting) war parties. Among the Eastern Aleut, the leader or leaders, assisted by notables, formed a court of justice. In post contact times, Veniarninov reports that an

Aleut court consisted of all the elders. There was no appeal from their sentence which could include capital punishment invoked for a number of delicts. Minor offenses were punished by public shaming, ostracism, and silence. Minor interpersonal transgressions could sometimes be punished by the offending party refusing to speak with the offender.

Major individual insults called for revenge. Private revenge could escalate and become an inter-group conflict.

A leader also was in charge of division of a whale carcass (either washed ashore or killed by a whale hunter). He also assigned tasks to his men. However, he had little or even perhaps no powers of enforcement but ruled by moral suasion and personal example. Most importantly he had to be a provider. Though he acquired wealth, as

defined by the Aleut value system, he redistributed it in feasts, gifts, and in assistance to

the needy. In pre-contact time, the only obvious sign of wealth was his slaves.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 44 In the Russian period after 1799 the Aleut leadership had to adjust their actions

to the demands of the Russian American Company. The Company administration

recognized the fact that Aleut communities were ruled by their kinship elders or leaders

(toions) who were either hereditary or elected. Though the Chief Manager of the

Company "confirmed" a new toion of a local community, he almost never insisted on any

other candidate. Internally, Aleut toions retained their authority. In particular, they

settled disputes and administered justice. They also represented their communities

before the Russian American Company, the Company's district managers, and local work

crew heads [baidarshchiki, plural]. It was a system known elsewhere in colonial

situations as "indirect rule." The system of dial leadership persisted and survived into

the American period. However, the village leaders' role vis-a-vis the Euro-American

establishment diminished. The Orthodox Church provided practically the only remaining

leadership forum. Priests were very few and a number of them were Alaskan Natives.

Their parishes were vast and they visited outlying localities once a year at the best of

times. Church life was maintained by the local leadership who provided readers, choir

directors and sub-deacons. Church brotherhoods were created. These functioned to

combat the ever-increasing alcoholism problem and as a system of social security.

Brotherhoods (in later years also sisterhoods) provided help to the destitute, widows and

orphans. They also saw to the burial of indigent members of the community. All of

these functions were traditional leadership functions.

In many Aleut communities, the school teacher (assigned by the Bureau of Indian

Affairs in the earlier part of the American period) was in the position of power and

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilol Islands Region Ethnography, Page 45 I I often clashed with the traditional Aleut leadership and with the orthodox Church leaders.

The teachers were often instrumental in introducing new forms of government, such as

village councils, which were at odds with the traditional leadership pattern. Fission,

factionalism, and schism sometimes followed.

After Statehood, more formal local political institutions emerged. Village and city

councils became widespread, but in communities where there was a strong non-Aleut

element the decision making power rested with non-Aleuts. After passage of ANCSA,

this pattern began slowly to change. In some communities that were predominantly

Aleut, Aleuts dominated these institutions (as in the case of Atka). In others, such as

Sand Point and Unalaska, Aleut participation is minimal, reflecting the structure of the

registered voters' population. At present, in several regions there is a movement to

institute tribal governments under the Indian Reorganization Act: Unalaska and Unga

are cases in point. However, legal recognition of this status is difficult to achieve and

some cases are undecided (Unga for example).

I.D. Beliefs and Values

I.D.1. Precontact Rituals

We know very little about the religion of the Aleuts, though they uniformly

recognized a Creator conceived as "God of the Above." Associated with the positive

principle were the directions of the east and north, sun and daylight (incidentally, among

Aleuts it is bad manners to talk about the weather). Men were supposed to rise early to

I greet the light and to perform ritual ablutions in clean water. Fresh stream water and

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 46 salt water were distinguished. Sea water was a special agent of purification following

pollution (especially death pollution) and healing (of wounded in warfare especially).

Sometime after contact, the Russians introduced the wet steambath which became a

purification mechanism.

Aleuts conceived of a negative principle, personified in a multitude of spirits who

could cause misfortunes and special disorders. Shamans dealt with the latter by

apotropaic rituals unfortunately not described in any authoritative source. Shamans also

foretold the future, could change the weather, or invoke a storm against an enemy. The

majority were healers. Russian Old Voyagers often resorted to shamans when sick. In

1790 a shaman at Chernofski village performed a weather changing ritual for Captain

Sarychev, who also witnessed a healing ritual. In this case, illness of the female patient

was attributed to the fact that her father, a whaler, used corpse substances when hunting

whales and did not atone for it or did not undergo proper purification.

Lantis postulates the existence among the Eastern Aleuts of a whaling cult and

existence of whalers' societies, but there is no direct evidence to support such a view

(though whaling was surrounded by very complex rituals involving preparation for the

hunt, use of ritual objects and substances in the hunt, and purification following the

hunt). There were seasonal festivals to which guests from other settlements were invited.

These feasts were communal and oriented toward the kinship group. They may have

been associated with ancestor veneration. Individuals could give unscheduled feasts on

certain occasions, with masked dances and theatrical performances, singing newly

composed songs and dancing to the beat of the drums. Drums differed in size and

I Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 47 method of beating between the Near Islands, central Aleutians and the Eastern islands.

The drums were an essential and integral part of all feasts. Normally the feasts were enjoyable occasions at which people from various settlements, and even foreign visitors, could come together in friendship. Sometimes, however, they were utilized to ambush ancient enemies. The hosts took the occasion to slaughter unsuspecting guests (Laughlin

1990).

I.D.2 Orthodox Christianity

Orthodox Christianity was introduced by laymen and spread rapidly.

Intermarriage, godparenthood, and name giving were the main mechanisms for the spread of the new faith. Though individual conversions took place in the 1700's, the majority of the population became converted between 1790-1824. Specifically,

Hieromonk Makarii, member of the first ecclesiastical mission in Alaska, is credited with

Aleut conversion in 1795-1796. Parish priests were assigned to the Aleutian Region in

1824 (Veniaminov for Unalaska District) and in 1828 (Netsvetov for the Atka District of the Russian American Company). Today an overwhelming majority of Aleuts are members of the Orthodox Church. Being Orthodox constitutes a dominant marker of

Aleutness. Destruction of Orthodox churches and chapels in the course of World War I1 is considered a calamity that has fallen upon the nation. Restoration and preservation of the churches and their treasures are a major part of the program instituted after the U.S.

Government provided monetary restitution for harm suffered by the Aleuts during wartime relocation and internment. Fr. Ioann Veniaminov, now St. Innocent, is venerated in all Aleut communities, as is St. Herman of Alaska, a member of the

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 48 original 1794 ecclesiastical mission.

I.E. Economics

It is possible to discuss Aleut pre-contact economics as a unified field, ignoring micro-environmental variation. The post-contact developments, however, were not uniform throughout the region and attention must be paid to significant subarea differences, especially in the American period after 1867.

I.E.l Traditional Economics

In pre-contact times, the Aleuts were engaged primarily in subsistence pursuits.

Some goods, notably rain shirts, were produced for international trade. These were exchanged primarily with neighbors on the Alaskan mainland for land animal furs, caribou skins and hair, copper, and other exotic items. The Russians reported at the time of contact the presence of international trade and the existence of an annual trade fair on the Alaska Peninsula in the vicinity of Sutkum.

I.E.2. Introduction to the Market Economy

With the advent of the Russians, Aleuts began to hunt sea otters for barter. Later commercial trade in foxes developed in the eastern Aleutians. Russians distributed traps for this purpose. Polar foxes, and traps for harvesting them, were introduced already in the 1750's in the Near Islands.

Methods of taking sea otters also changed. Russians introduced netting of sea otters, while from the east in the vicinity of Kodiak the surround method spread very rapidly. Firearms were introduced also. Their use by the Aleuts is attested for the early

Social Trans~tionin the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 49 1760's. The Russians also introduced forging of iron and a variety of iron tools.

Smithing and other crafts such as carpentry were readily adopted. Some craft specialization began. As a consequence of education in schools established in the early

19th century in several communities, which included vocational training in navigation,

Aleut male occupational opportunities changed.

By the middle 19th century, all Aleut communities were participating in the market economy but their settlement and subsistence patterns remained intact. While under the Baranov regime of 1792-1818 there was impressment into the labor force

(predominantly of the Eastern Aleuts), after 1818 this practice ceased. As the civil status of the Aleuts was that of free peasants in Russia, service for the Company was substituted for military service. Local Aleut leadership determined who of the young men aged between 16 and 35 would be assigned to serve the Company for three years.

Only sons, or men who were sole providers for a family, were freed from service. While serving the Company, Aleuts were paid wages according to an officially determined payscale. Individuals other than those assigned to serve could enter Company employ on contract on the same basis as non-Aleut Company employees. Aleuts not in Company employ, and wishing to sell their furs, could sell only to the Russian American Company.

As the Russian American colony was short on cash, payments were often made in goods from Company stores9 Educated Aleuts could be appointed to managerial positions, as was the case of the Pribilof management to the end of the Russian regime, in Atka

On Kodiak in 1830-1835 the manager complained that he had difficulties with cash flow because local Natives were hoarding cash, presumably to spend on a trip to Sitka.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 50 District until its dissolution in 1840's, and after that also on Atka, when the son of Arnlia toion Petr Dediukhin assumed the conduct of the local office shortly before 1867.

Education of Aleuts was encouraged with this goal in mind, but it was directed that such education did not take place at the expense of traditional subsistence skills.

I.E.3. Changes during the American Period

In the American period after 1867 economic survival of the villages became possible only through intensive participation in the market economy, primarily in sea otter hunting for wages or through sale of skins to Alaska Commercial Company agents.

When a whaling station became established on Akutan, Aleuts became hired laborers at the station. They also participated in taking of whales for the whaling company. With the establishment of canneries at the end of the 19th and beginning 20th centuries, ever more Aleuts, men and then women also, entered the wage labor force. Some participated in private enterprise. On Atka in the early 20th century an attempt was made to organize a cooperative through which to sell furs. On Urnnak, Aleuts purchased a trading vessel. It was wrecked soon after the purchase. As nobody told the Aleuts about insurance, the loss was so great that the experiment could not be repeated. An attempt to establish an Aleut controlled cannery on Unalaska in the early 1900's was also aborted, largely due to machinations of American entrepreneurs, Applegate and

Goss. Aleuts were more successful in fox farming.

It has been mentioned that the Russians introduced a variety of foxes throughout the islands. In the American period, especially after 1911, fox farming became largely a province of immigrant Euro-Americans. Some Aleuts were able to maintain themselves

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof lslands Region Ethnography, Page 51 as fox farmers, but they were a tiny minority since it was difficult to obtain leases from the U.S. Government, especially after the Aleutian islands were proclaimed a wildlife reserve. With the collapse of the fur market, Aleut economic prosperity ended. The majority entered the labor market as casual temporary laborers or seasonally as cannery workers. Some were employed by the whaling company on Akutan until the whaling industry's collapse. In some Aleut settlements, before and following World War 11, a sheep industry had been introduced and Aleuts were employed on the sheep ranches.

This was the case of the Makushin village on Unalaska Island before the wartime evacuation. After repatriation, Nikolski Aleuts often were employed at the Urnnak sheep ranch or at Chernofski sheep ranch on Unalaska. In the Pribilofs the fur seal harvest provided employment, though Pribilof residents civil rights were grossly infringed.

In any case, subsistence fishing and sea mammal (seal and sea lion) hunting and egg collecting continued to be practiced. Following World War I1 dislocation

(internment in camps in southeast Alaska), economic hardships in most communities intensified. There was significant out-migration. In the Pribilofs, the two Aleut communities continued to depend on the income from the fur seal harvest, though a socially restrictive regime continued. At Nikolski and Chernofski Euro-American sheep ranchers provided limited employment. Some men hired themselves out as crew on fishing boats. Reliance on welfare became widespread.

ANCSA gave a new impetus to economic development in several communities, for example on Unalaska where Ounalashka Corporation is hard at work in an effort to create new economic opportunities. The same applies to Akutan which has become a

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof lslands Region Ethnography, Page 52 center for a fish processing industry. Atka is developing an economic base of commercial fishing. In the Shumagins the population has been concentrated at Sand

Point with commercial fishing providing the economic mainstay. In the Pribilofs, the fur seal harvest was taken over by the Aleuts following ANCSA in the 1980's, but soon thereafter the U.S. Congress did not renew the international treaty regulating fur seal harvests. The commercial harvest has been terminated. A fishing industry is being developed, but this requires harbors which the Pribilofs lack. Artificial harbors have been constructed in the last decade on both St. George and St. Paul Islands and the economic future of these communities is not at present in jeopardy. Other communities do not fare so well. Nikolski, which about twenty years ago took over the sheep ranch, was not able to achieve economic viability. The number of residents is diminishing, the school is being closed because of the insufficient number of school age children, and there is significant out-migration of able bodied adults, single or with families. Belkofski village on the Alaska Peninsula has been abandoned recently. On the Alaska Peninsula, the economic center is the town of King Cove, which grew up in the 20th century around a cannery.

Aleut Corporation, like the local village corporations established under ANCSA, is attempting to develop an economic base and investments for the benefit of regional shareholders.

11. FAMILY AND KINSHIP

This section summarizes key elements of domestic life and kinship organization in

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 53 a longitudinal manner which focuses on changes over time.

1I.A. Traditional Period

Local Aleut groups were formed on the basis of co-residence and kinship. As a rule a local settlement contained at least two or more shallow segments of different lineages. There were lineage names and lineage dress (Veniaminov 1984). Local communities ideally consisted of members of exogamous shallow patrilineages between which marriage was regulated by the sister-exchange rule. Local endogamy prevailed except for the chiefs and chiefly elite who were expected to marry outside their area to cement political alliances. The society was agnatically oriented (inheritance was from father to son).

The post-marital residence rule was for the initial period uxuri-patrilocal (at the wife's father's village), and patrilocal following the birth of a first child, or sometimes the couple moved to the groom's father's village earlier if the groom or his kinsmen insisted.

Marriage was preceded by a period of bride service. Bridewealth payments were also made by the groom or his family. Since the wife's father, due to the sister-exchange marriage rule, was also the classificatory mother's brother, his role in Aleut society was stressed. In particular, he assisted in educating his nephew who moved to the village of the prospective father-in-law in his early teens or earlier. He also helped in outfitting the young man for his first raid or trading expedition.

The marriage rule noted above was that of sister-exchange with local endogamy.

The post marital residence rule, after a relatively brief period of groom's sojourn in the settlement of his wife, was patrilocal. Marriage in pre-contact time was polygynous (see

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 54 Petrivelli, work in progress for details of kinship and marriage system analysis). Such

systems are found in many areas of the world. In such systems, polygyny and polyandry

often co-exist, as was the case with the Eastern Aleuts.

Concubinage also existed. Concubines were generally captives from war or

raiding parties. This created a so-to-speak "built in" potential for discord. Jealousy

between two females is a frequent motif in Aleut folklore. Often, a woman kills her

rival or her husband. Divorce was common. Early Russian sources indicate that Aleut

men sometimes delivered their women up in exchange for gifts or women were offered

to the guests as part of traditional hospitality.

Male homosexuality was reportedly widespread. Veniaminov attests to the

presence of transvestites and mentions that some leading men kept male concubines.

Thispactice is attested for Kodiak Island in 1790 also.

Children were desired, but according to Veniaminov, by the second quarter of the

19th century fertility of Aleut women, in comparison to Russians, was low. He notes,

however, that Aleut women married to Russians had more children than Aleut wives of

Aleut men. Veniaminov attributed this to differential nutrition practices, venereal

diseases, and to the fact that Aleut women tended to marry or enter into sexual relations

at an early age (indeed, Russians introduced a minimum marriage age of 16 for females;

whether or not this rule was observed by the Aleuts, when no church marriage took

place, is not known). Infant betrothal was practiced (Veniaminov 1984:195).

Young unmarried women were segregated in special huts during menses and

married women were segregated during childbirth. The ritual segregation at menarche

Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 55 r Social Transition in the North was prolonged and there were many restrictions on food, drink, and social contact. The practice persisted until recently and was described in 1948 by Charles E. Shade for

Umnak (Shade 1951).

Infanticide was not practiced, though for the central Aleutians Pushkarev, in a report for 1760-61, states that children were killed (Narochnitskii et al. 1989:69, doc. no.

17). In contrast, for the eastern Aleutians Veniaminov recounts a ritual of village purification performed when a woman allegedly aborted a fetus or killed an illegitimate newborn.

Marital faithfulness (observed in the breech) was valued. If a woman had a difficult delivery, it was considered evidence of unfaithfulness. Widowed persons (of either gender) were supposed to undergo complex mourning observances. They were segregated for forty days, their hair unbound and uncombed, and their joints were tied.

At the end of the mourning they had to undergo purification rites (Veniaminov 1984:7;

Laughlin 1980:104-105). Levirate was practiced and is attested for Attu for 1750's.

Incest was a delict. A child born of an incestuous union was expected to be deformed. It either grew a pair of walrus-like tusks or developed some other facial deformation. The only type of incest punishable by death was that between brother and sister (the Aleut traditional stories about the origin of sea otters is based on such an occurrence), Other potential incest situations are not discussed in available literature.

Old age was honored. The younger generation was apparently conceptualized as a replacement for the outgoing older generations. This is reflected in kinship nomenclature which pairs the second ascending and descending generations, third,

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 56 fourth, etc. There may have been a form of ancestor veneration, at least in the eastern

Aleutians. Veniaminov states that deceased kinsmen -- ancestors -- were appealed to for aid to avert danger, especially in wars. Hair from the heads of white-haired venerable elders were used as a blessing and a talisman. Grandchildren received such hairs, parts of clothing, and weapons from their grandfathers on their death beds (Veniaminov

1984:224). To abandon the aged was considered to be a dishonorable act (1984:221,

225.226). There was no senilicide, but suicide of old men who sailed into dangerous seas in a kayak and did not return was accepted. Apparently it was also proper to prefer voluntary death to surrender and capture by the enemy.

1I.B. Period of Disruption

The Russians penetrated the Aleutian Chain in the second half of the 18th century. The first landing of the crew of a fur procurement vessel was in the Near

Islands, on Attu, in 1745. By 1762 a crew was wintering on the Alaska Peninsula and a baidara (skin boat) crew visited the Shumagin Islands. The voyages for the purpose of fur procurement (sea otters, fur seals, foxes and others) lasted never less than a year, often two to three years, and toward the end of the century some lasted seven to eight and even ten years. The crews were ethnically mixed. In the early period often half to two thirds of the crew were Kamchatka natives, usually Itel'men (Kamchadal). After

1769, when the Kamchatka population was decimated by a smallpox epidemic, the number of Itel'men declined. As far as we know, no women sailed aboard these vessels.

The promvshlenniki hailed from the Russian North where sea mammal hunting and whaling was an ancient enterprise and women were forbidden on their ships, as they

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 57 were believed to bring bad luck. Thus, the "woman question", as a Russian historian termed it in the 19th century, inevitably came to the fore.

From the first, forcible abductions and rapes occurred. In the course of judicial investigation after the return of the crew of the Sv. Evdokim from Attu in 1746 it was established that one of the foremen, Beliaev, had with him in camp a young Attuan woman who bore a son but later escaped abandoning the infant (the fate of the infant is not known). In 1760 the crew of the Sv. Gavriil, owned by merchant Bechevin, consisting of 40 Russians and 20 Itel'men, arrived at Atka and joined on Amlia the remnant of the crew of the Sv. Vladimir. This crew lost a number of men to the Aleuts and was under siege. In 1761, Sv. Gavriil sailed east and made camp on the Alaska

Peninsula (modern Bechevin Harbor). From here they penetrated Unimak Island, Sanak

Island, and also sent out boats to the Pacific shore of the Alaska Peninsula and into the

Shumagins to Unga. One source reports that Bechevin's crew took with them from Atka four Aleut men with their wives and children and from adjacent islands 25 women

(Polonskii ms. n.d 34 Verso). They are also alleged to have raped or abducted a number of women from Unga (Polonskii ms. 34 Verso;Berkh 1974:24). But inter-gender relationships were multifaceted and complicated.

There are indications that particular skippers or foremen established alliances with Aleut leaders in specific localities. There are also indications that in such cases the leaders themselves joined the promvshlenniki on long distance voyages and often provided additional manpower.

God-parenthood was introduced soon after contact when the layman who took

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 58 upon himself the role of godfather in lay baptism (the earliest attested for Attu in

1750's) conveyed to the god-child his Christian name as patronymic as well as his family name. Thus, the boy Mushkal' baptized by Stepan Glotov on Umnak in 1761 became

Ivan Stepanovich Glotov, and the boy Temnak (Tiimnax?) of Attu, baptized in

Kamchatka, became Pave1 Mikhailovich Nevodchikov. It has been alleged that such a ritual tie was a subterfuge for economic exploitation since it bound an Aleut to the godfather. The Aleut allegedly then hunted exclusively for the promvshlennik godfather.

There is no direct evidence in available records that this was the case but Aleut godsons often accompanied their godfathers even to Russia. Some went to school in Russia at their godfather's expense. Several are known to have returned with a Russian education.

Sometimes Aleut men who joined a Russian fur procurement vessel were accompanied by their wives. In 1790, the leader of Kanaga complained that a number of young men and women joined a Russian vessel and settled somewhere on the Alaskan mainland. More often, young able bodied men joined (or toward the end of the 18th century were impressed for) the fur hunting crews. As such voyages could last over a year, and sometimes several years, the Aleut communities were deprived of able bodied men (and women). Subsistence procurement cycles were disrupted. This circumstance

not only created hardship for the Aleut settlements left without support but had to affect

family life, specifically gender relations. In the eastern Aleutians disruptions of this type

are documented in some degree for late 1780's - 1790's and in greater detail for the

period 1792 - 1818 (the Baranov era). In that period, Eastern Aleuts from the Shumagin

Islands and Unalaska and Umnak were recruited for long-distance sea otter hunting

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof lslands Region Ethnography, Page 59 kayak fleets. These men also served as Baranov's army and fought the Tlingit in the latter's own territory. Some were resettled on Kodiak and adjacent islands or in the

Cook Inlet area at Russian American Company outposts. Large numbers were settled in the Pribilofs. Until 1818 these settlers were predominantly young males. In 1818 they attempted a coup. Their main complaint was that there were no women for them to marry and take care of their households on St. Paul and St. George.

Both sets of factors -- hardship, economic and political disruption on one hand, and gender relations on the other -- must have been at play in the Russian-Aleut armed conflicts. Allegedly, armed conflicts between the Aleuts and fur hunters erupted most frequently over women (according to Veniaminov many native inter-group conflicts originated in the same way).

1I.C. Period of Consolidation

Some fur hunters established permanent unions with Aleuts from the time of first contact. In some cases they brought their wives to their camp. On the other hand, some men married into native communities following native customs. There are indications that some adopted practice of polygyny and had more than one concubine. By the turn of the century, many had Aleut families. In the absence of clergy to legitimize the unions according to Russian law, many men followed the ancient Russian folk practice of public declaration of the legitimacy of their marriages. Often such declarations were accompanied by the creation of written documents. Several such documents are preserved in various archives. Some men had wives in Russia and could not legitimize their children, though attempts to do so are on record. Offspring of such mixed

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 60 unions eventually became a legally recognized social category and finally a class. Many were educated in Russia or received educations from their fathers or other literate persons. Later, when schools were established in Alaska, many children, grandchildren, and great grandchildren of the promvshlenniki attended them. They eventually came to constitute a native Alaskan middle class, the creoles (Black 1990). Often, male creoles of Aleut origin married women from other groups, or women classified as creoles, or

Aleut women. Their children continued to be classified as creoles. Members of this class entered the Russian American Company employ in various capacities and made it possible for the Company to administer the territory and conduct the economic

enterprise. By the middle of the 19th century Aleuts and creoles predominantly of Aleut

(or Alutiiq) origin could be found at Sitka, in California at Settlement Ross, on the

Yukon, at Ikogmiut, Nulato, at the Andreevskaia Odinochka, on the Kuskokwim at

Kolmakovskii Redoubt and elsewhere.

Following the transfer of the territory to the United States in 1867, the creoles were classified as half-breeds and suffered social degradation. Some assumed Russian

identity, many moved out of the territory, but the majority became absorbed into Aleut

communities and became identified as Aleuts.

Clergy came to Alaska as missionaries in 1794. The mission was short-lived

because of the death at sea in 1799 of the Head of Mission and his entire staff. In the

early 19th century three parish clergy were assigned to Alaska, primarily to serve the

Russian personnel. One priest served at Sitka from 1816, and two others served in the

Aleutians: Veniaminov in the East from 1824, and Netsvetov (who was Aleut) in the

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 61 central and western islands from 1828. Marriages of Russians to the Natives were legitimized and so were their creole off-spring. As far as Aleut usages are concerned, it should be noted that following Baranov's removal in 1818, the situation stabilized under the supervision of the Company's activities by high ranking Navy officers who became

Chief Managers. By the time the parish clergy arrived, the Aleut population had been allegedly baptized in its entirety by laymen. The clergy were serving already established

Christian parishes. Monogamous marriage became accepted as the dominant form.

Serial monogamy was practiced, but the statistics on frequencies of divorce or separation are absent. There are indications that divorce took place, though informally and that

there were irregular unions. Polygyny gradually had become abandoned. Monogamous

marriages were recorded for the Aleuts by the clergy. With the adoption of monogamy,

the communal houses were abandoned on most islands. Gradually the Aleut population

came to live in small semi-subterranean dwellings with side doors, forerooms and

windows. In the literature this type of dwelling is called by the Itel'men word barabara

(with variations in spelling). The term originally designated a storage structure.

As a rule a household contained an extended family: a grandparent, an

unmarried sibling, adopted children or godchildren. This pattern persists to the modern

days.

In the period after 1867 there was an increase of Aleut inter-group marriage.

Atkans and Aleuts from a number of eastern settlements were brought to the Pribilofs as

seasonal labor. With the establishment of canneries in the eastern Aleutians, people

from diverse areas moved to settle at cannery towns such as King Cove and Nelson

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 62 Lagoon. Village endogamy, maintained to a degree during the Russian period, became a thing of the past. Inter-village marriages became frequent. As mentioned, the creoles became absorbed into Aleut communities through kinship ties and through marriage within the Aleut communities. Marriage with Euro-Americans became much rarer than in the Russian period. The few inter-group legal marriages were between Euro-

American males and Aleut or creole women. Such marriages were most frequent in the

Shumagin Islands and in villages on Alaska Peninsula, such as Belkofski, which were

centers for sea otter industry in the late 19th century. The men here were predominantly

Scandinavian. These males came to Alaska to make their fortune in sea otter fur hunting or in cod fisheries. Of the two, sea otter hunting promised quicker riches. In

1879 the U.S. Congress passed legislation restricting sea otter hunting to Alaskan

Natives. While large fur trading houses such as the Alaska Commercial Company provided schooners and provisions for Aleut sea otter hunters who hired themselves out

or sold their take to the Company, independent Euro-American sea otter entrepreneurs

married into Aleut communities.

While most of the Euro-Americans who married Aleut women accepted

Orthodoxy (which by the end of the 19th century was firmly established as an Aleut

religion), some were staunch Protestants and insisted that their children be brought up in

a Protestant faith. It is no accident that the first Methodist Mission in the Aleutians was

established at Unga. Today, some Aleuts from Unga and Sand Point are Protestants.

Though converts to Protestantism or other religions were (and remain) few, elements of

religious schisms were introduced and are sometimes reflected in current Aleut politics.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 63 Today, intermarriage with non-Aleuts is frequent and the ideal is monogamy and the nuclear family. Formal and informal divorce is frequent. In practice, serial monogamy seems to be the dominant marriage pattern.

1I.D. Recent Developments

During World War 11, Attu was occupied by the Japanese and the population was removed to Hokkaido. Elsewhere the population of the Aleutian Archipelago and the

Pribilofs (but not Shumagins or Alaska Peninsula villages) was removed to southeastern

Alaska. The Aleuts were kept in camps at abandoned canneries and gold mines under deplorable conditions. Children of school age, particularly teenagers, were removed to boarding schools. For the Aleuts this experience is considered traumatic, and sometimes even more traumatic than the Russian intrusion. Many small children and old people died in the camps. Knowledge of the elders was lost. Children removed from their families in order to attend boarding schools often lost their command of the Aleut language.

In the eastern Aleutians several villages (Chernofski, Kashega, Makushin and

Biorka) were not resettled. Aleut communities were reestablished only at Unalaska (by now incorporated as a 1st Class city), on Akutan, Nikolski on Umnak, and on Atka.

Attuans were not permitted to return to their homeland and were given a choice to settle on Atka or go elsewhere. Very few chose to settle on Atka and most of the

Attuan survivors went to urban centers such as Seattle and Anchorage.

Social problems ranging from alcoholism to domestic violence appear to have grown in the wake of this forcible resettlement and have put more stress on familial

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 64 units. Following repatriation after World War I1 and the introduction of the welfare system among the Aleuts, removal of children to foster care contributed to the disruption of familial ties and seems to have aggravated the social dislocation. Today, there is a conscious effort to prevent such removals.

Outmigration to urban centers in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States, especially of persons who acquired higher levels of education, grew in post-repatriation times. At the same time the non-Aleut population in major centers, such as Unalaska,

Sand Point, and King Cove increased. With school integration, and an increase in the non-Aleut population, the incidence of intermarriage with Euro-americans increased.

This applies especially to people with higher levels of education. Though the majority of these marriages are between Aleut women and non-Aleut males, marriages between

Aleut men and non-Aleut women are on the increase.

Leadership patterns also changed. Often, women represent Aleut communities to the outside world and assume formal leadership positions within the overarching structure. Men, on the other hand, continue to provide informal leadership within Aleut communities. Aleut Orthodox clergy are particularly influential. Several are or were active in teaching the Aleut language in school. Fr. Gromoff of St. Paul and Unalaska was the first to produce a homemade primer of the Aleut language. However, the use of the Aleut language in daily life diminishes. It is alive and well at Atka, where Moses

Dirks has been active for many years in teaching Aleut in school. Eastern Aleut is relatively well in the Pribilof Islands. In some communities only the very old have an active command of the language. The Church provides a forum for public use of the

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 65 Aleut language. At least part of the service is read or sung in Aleut.

In traditional Aleut society there was strict division of labor by gender. In modern times, distinctions are blurred or have disappeared. Any effect of these changes on family structure cannot be ascertained without specific data which are not now available.

111. HUMAN POPULATION AND PATHOLOGY

The sources on population for the Aleut Region are abundant though uneven in quality over time. Statistical analysis is sparse, except for a limited analysis for the

Pribilof Islands (D. M. Jones 1976 ms.). For the early contact period there are reports of the promvshlenniki skippers, foremen, and iasak (tribute) collectors. As these men were required to estimate the population and the fighting strength of local Aleut units, they contain data on able bodied men for a limited set of localities. Sometimes the relative proportions of females and children are reported. Often, however, only the number of dwellings and dwelling sizes, and sometimes an estimate of a dwelling's residents, are indicated. We lack data for the period 1792-1825, except for the number of resettled families from the eastern Aleutians. After 1825-1828 the records available in the archive of the Russian Orthodox Church of Alaska for the entire region are excellent. Parish priests submitted an annual census summary by village. In addition to population data at year's end, these summaries contain annual data on births and deaths.

The clergy also submitted annual confessional records which are in effect household censuses, also by village. An analysis of these data should provide the research team

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pnbilof lslands Region Ethnography, Page 66 with a sex-age distribution of the entire population and excellent data on household structure.

The data on pathologies are scanty for the early period and almost totally lacking for the pre-contact period, except for two desiccated cadavers from Kagamil examined by

Zimmerman (1983; 1981) and scattered data published by Laughlin (1980). For the post-contact period, some information may be gleaned from annual reports of the clergy, as the statistical summaries contain data on number of deaths by cause. This presents some difficulty, as the diagnostic procedures and categories of the time are hard to understand and must be interpreted with caution. However, cases of trauma by sea mammal attack, fall from cliffs, or drowning are well documented. Some diseases, such as scrofula (in Russian of the time veredy), can also be identified. These data are supplemented by reports of Russian American Company's physicians-in-chief. Some of these reports are on hand and have been analyzed by Fortuine in his authoritative Chills and Fever. Health and Disease in the Early History of Alaska (Fortuine 1989). For others, 19th century Russian journals, such as Zhurnal Ministerstva vnutrennikh del,

Zhurnal narodnago ~rosviashcheniiaand Meditsinskii Vestnik should be reviewed.

Excellent data on mortality in the region due to the smallpox epidemic of 1836-1838 are contained in the annual Church records. The impact of this calamity has been examined by Gibson (1982-1983) and by Arndt (ms. 1985). More recent data for the late

American period are archived by the Alaska Department of Health and Social Services and the Alaska Area Native Health Service, although those data are often difficult to examine at a regional level due to inconsistent administrative boundaries within which

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 67 data are aggregated. Below, I briefly summarize information currently available both on population and pathologies, concentrating on the earlier periods.

IIIA. Population and Population Dynamics

The size of the pre-contact Aleutian Archipelago population is a hotly disputed topic. Estimates range from 40,000 (Collins et al. 1945), to 20,000 (Hrdlicka 1945), or

12, 000 (Lantis 1970, 1984), to a range of 5,000 to 12,000 (McCartney 1975; 1977). The figure most firmly entrenched in literature is that of 16,000. This figure was first proposed by Mooney (1928), was considered "probably too high by Kroeber (1939), but continues to be used by Laughlin (1972, 1980, Laughlin and Aigner 1975) and other researchers who most frequently cite Laughlin. As I have pointed out elsewhere (Black

1981), these hypothetical figures are justified by reference to a steady resource base and

enumeration of sites. Existence of many such sites is postulated on the basis of the

observed character of vegetation (Frolich and Kopjanski 1975; McCartney 1972;

McCartney 1974). As at least two writers have pointed out (Martinson 1973; Staley

1984) this is not a reliable method at all: the same or similar vegetation is found in

areas not associated with human habitation in any way. Moreover, the lack of

contemporaneity is ignored, as is the fact that the same human group used several

different sites for various purposes in the same time span. There were permanent winter

settlements, permanent summer habitations, fishing camps, hunting camps (used

repeatedly or occasionally only), war assembly camps, and separate camps for guests

visiting the village. Recently, the late Roza G. Liapunova (1987, 1990) re-examined the

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 68 question of pre-contact population estimates, including her own earlier work (1975). She

points out that the majority of authors invoke the authority of Veniaminov who

estimated that at some time Eastern Aleuts numbered 12,000 to 15,000 and therefore the

total was correspondingly larger. But, as Liapunova points out, this hypothetical figure

was proposed by Veniarninov for a quasi-mythological time long ago, before the start of

internecine wars. The fact that Veniaminov states that prior to Russian arrival the Aleut

population was reduced at least by half is ignored. It follows, says Liapunova, that

Veniaminov's estimate for the pre-contact eastern Aleutians should be correspondingly

reduced to 6,000 or 7,500. It should be noted that all early Russian sources, from official

skippers' and foremen's reports in Russian archives to Veniaminov's ethnographic

"Notes..." agree that the eastern Aleutians were the most densely populated (but not as

densely as Kodiak; Kodiak specialists accept the range of 7,000 to a maximum of

10,100). Liapunova argues, on the basis of estimates calculated in the 19th century by

Polonskii (ms.), that the population of the entire Aleutian Region at contact was an

approximate maximum of 10,000 (her range is 7,500 to 9,500).

It is possible to estimate population for some islands based on data provided in

early official reports on adult able bodied males." Data on the number and sizes of

dwellings in particular settlements provide additional information." For Near Islands,

recent work by Corbett (1991) on site locations and characteristics is an invaluable

1

lo Analysis of the early raw figures for able bodied males is in progress. It should be noted that prumyshlenniki often over-reported the Aleut strength to justify violence by the need for self-defense.

l1 Work in progress. In our archaeological work, including the reconnaissance at Volcano Bay and then several seasons of excavation at Reese Bay on Unalaska, we found these data to be not only reliable but exact as to the size, number, orientation of dwellings and distinguishing features of the surrounding area. i Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 69 supplement to the 18th century Russian records.

Certain data on population dynamics can also be gleaned from examination of these 18th century reports. In particular, they invariably report the preponderance of females over males. This is consistent with the hypothesis that male casualties in war, at sea, and in hunting accidents (several of which are documented) were high. There are indications that the number of children may have been low and infant mortality high.

There are some hints that individuals of advanced years were present in some communities.

Recently I obtained from the Central State Archive of Ancient Acts (TsGADA) in

Moscow a copy of the census of males of hunting age for the eastern and central

Aleutians conducted by officers of the Billings/Sarychev Navy expedition in 1790/1792.

The Shumagin Islands, Rat, and Near Islands are not included. According to this record, there were 15 Unalaska Villages, including one each on Biorka and Arnaknak Islands; eight Urnnak villages, including Samalga Island and one of the Four Mountains Islands

(Unaliag, identified as the southwesternmost island in the group; it is not to be confused with the modern Unalga Island); Krenitzin Islands had at that time 16 villages, the majority were very small but a few very large, indeed, (presumably centers of local alliance and the seat of paramount leaders), as follows: two villages on Tigalda, five villages on Akutan, seven villages on Akun with the largest villages in the group, the largest Chulkax (excavated by Turner) with a population possibly as large as 220 persons; and there was one village each on Ugamok and Avatanok Islands. There were three large villages on Unimak, one large village on Sanak, and one on the Alaska Peninsula.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 70 The census figures are broken into three categories: adult men who have been

paying iasak, adult men who did not pay iasak, and minors (male youth of hunting age

but not subject to head tax by law). I have calculated the minimum and maximum

population ranges for each village, the eastern Aleutians (excluding Shumagins) and the

central Aleutians. The minimum range was calculated solely on the number of adult

males (excluding minors) and multiplying this figure by four and five according to the

rough demographic estimate formula. The maximum range is calculated on the total

number of males listed in the census, including the minors. According to these

calculations, the total population of the eastern Aleutians was from 3,068-3,835

(minimum) to 3,908-4,875 (maximum). It should be noted that all of the villages were

visited by members of the expedition. Baranov wintered at Kashega 1790-1791 and

attempted an independent census. He lists for Unalaska, Urnnak and Krenitzin Islands

26 villages and 583 able bodied males able to field 418 kayaks (Khlebnikov 1979:99).

Population estimated on the basis of Baranov's incomplete data (he had no opportunity

to travel, and he undercounts Krenitzin Islands where he lists only four villages to the

census' 16 ) is 2,332-2,915 persons.

The figures for the central Aleutians were obtained for the most part from Atkan

informants, notably Chief Sergei Pan'kov. Probably this is the reason why no breakdown

by categories is found for a number of villages. It appears that this set of data should be

considered less reliable than for the eastern Aleutians, except for those villages which

were visited by the expedition.

The data indicate that there was one village on Atka with a population in the i Social Trawltion in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 71 range of 148-185 persons, two villages on Amlia with populations each about the same size as that on Atka, two smaller villages on Adak, one on Chugul Island (population 64 minimum to 120 maximum), three on Kanaga, four on Tanaga, and one on Ilak Island

(population 36 minimum to 70 maximum). The total estimated population for the central Aleutians is 776-989 minimum to 998-1,130 maximum. The total for both areas is

3,844-4,824 minimum to 4,906-6,005 maximum. If we remember that Shumagins, Rat and Near Islands are not included, the population had to be somewhat larger. If

Liapunova's estimate of 10,000 total population at contact is provisionally accepted, the drop from the earliest contact in 1745-46 may be reasonably supposed to have been in the vicinity of 30 percent.

The most significant reasons for the rapid diminution of the population in this period are in all probability not epidemic diseases, but rather (a) casualties in conflicts with the Russians (the reported numbers are assumed to underestimate real losses) and the concomitant hardship and food shortages suffered by the Aleuts; and (b) casualties due to the continuation of Aleut inter-group warfare. Veniaminov indicates there was post-contact conflict between Umnak and Four Mountains Islands Aleuts. Aleut traditions regarding post-contact conflict between the eastern and western Central

Aleuts, when the Westerners were wiped out, has been discussed in the previous section.

Mass suicide to avoid capture by the enemy has to be included here (this was the Aleut tradition for Attu and Unalaska for 1766-1770's; see Khelbnikov 1979:173 and

Veniaminov in various reports).

The third reason for major population drop in certain areas was population shifts

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 72 when young men and women joined the fur procurement vessels for long periods of time or resettled permanently. It is known that relatively large Aleut contingents came to

Kodiak aboard some Russian vessels and attacked their ancient enemies in force with

Russian support (according to Kodiak traditions). The population of Kanaga Island is known to have diminished because a number of young Aleuts of both genders elected to sail with a Russian skipper to the American mainland and settled there sometime prior to 1790. Near the end of the century the population of Amchitka was resettled in the central Aleutians by prom~shlennikLazarev "to rest the sea otter grounds." Surviving

Amchitkans were returned to their home island in 1812.

Next, there were natural disasters. For the period in question, in the Shumagins, according to Aleut tradition preserved to these days, all villages except one on Unga

Island were wiped out in the 1788 tsunami. We have no details that this was the case in this period elsewhere, except the fact noted by Veniaminov that Alaska Peninsula and

Unimak and Sanak suffered also, but to a lesser degree than the Shumagins. In another instance, a number of Rat islanders resettled on Atka were killed when their dwelling collapsed under a snow avalanche sometime prior to 1812. On Adak, there was an unspecified catastrophe before 1828. It is not clear from the available records if there was famine in the wake of an earthquake and/or tsunami, or if this disaster was linked to loss at sea of a large portion of the Adak population in a baidara, apparently on the way to a hunting ground. Adak was abandoned sometime before 1828, with an unspecified number of survivors resettled on Atka, Attu, and in the Cornmandors. In the

Pribilofs, a skin boat (baidara) carrying two Russians and 30 Aleuts left St. Paul on the

Social Trans~tionin the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Re~onEthnography, Page 73 13th of March 1812 for St. George but never arrived. It is assumed that the passengers perished at sea (Khlebnikov 1979:194 and note "B").

Data contained in the records of the Russian American Company, as well as population statistics in the documents of the Russian Orthodox Church, including village census data compiled by Veniaminov, indicate that the greatest population drop occurred not during the promvshlenniki era (1745-1799) but in Baranov's time (1792-1818). This applies especially to the eastern Aleutians where the Aleuts were first impressed into the service of the Shelikhov-Golikov company (beginning in 1799 this became the Russian

American Company, a monopoly). Beginning in 1794, Baranov instituted a policy of impressing Kodiak islanders and Eastern Aleuts into his baidarka fleets, which eventually sailed as far as California to hunt sea otters and obtain salt. As noted, they also served as Baranov's army in engagements with the Tlingit and Haida. Manpower loss data are available but await detailed analysis. Losses include the following: between 1804 and

1807 - 16 baidarkas or 16 to 32 men; in 1807 en route to Kodiak 60 able bodied Aleut hunters perished. Total is estimated at 90 baidarkas; losses (including families of the men) total about 150 souls. In 1810, 200 Aleuts were shipped to the Pribilofs

(Khlebnikov 1979:108-109, census 1813 p. 110).

1II.B. Diseases and Pathology

We have no record of epidemic diseases in the period 1745-1790. Early reports on hand which list Russian casualties while in the islands indicate as causes of death

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 74 famine, scurvy, drowning, and Aleut violence." The smallpox epidemic which

decimated populations of Kamchatka and the Okhotsk Sea littoral and other regions of

Eastern Siberia in 1769 did not reach the Aleutians, according to the testimony of

Captain Levashev. Shelikhov, reporting from Kodiak 1784-1786, remarked that smallpox

was unknown (Shelikhov 198155). It should be noted that when smallpox broke out, all

shipping out of Kamchatka ports was stopped.

Laughlin examined the remains of a group of Russians killed by Aleuts at

Nikolski on Umnak in spring 1764. He characterizes them as "extremely robust men" in

good health, with excellent teeth (1980:122-124). The promvshlenniki were indeed rough

and healthy men used to hardship, and as a rule did not recruit those obviously suffering

from some malady (Black 1992). However, elsewhere Laughlin suggests that syphilis was

introduced early by the Russians (see below).

Information on disease among the Aleuts is scant in early reports. While some

documents mention the occurrence of intestinal parasites (worms), skin diseases, and

cases of blindness," no early report mentions any outbreaks of infectious disease. The

only exceptions are the areas of Kodiak Archipelago and extreme eastern Aleutians

where a respiratory disease of epidemic character (not known to the Russians) is

reported. The course of this disease was very rapid and the outcome almost invariably

fatal, following high fever, chest and back pains, and profuse bleeding from the mouth.

I ,- The symptoms are indicative of the pulmonary plague or tularemia which exist on the

l2 These data await analysis and collection of additional reports.

l3 One epdisease was diagnosed by Dr. Crurnrine, an ophthalmologist, as ptervgium from my description of these early data (personal written communication by N. Ross Crumrine 28 May 1978).

Scdil Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 75 American continent in wild rodents (Link 1975: Poland 1976 Poland 1977).

Archaeological evidence for early diseases is scant. Laughlin states that he has

examined remains of 194 individuals from Kagamil Island. He identifies all as

"mummies" though only 12 bundles were intact. In fact, May, who participated in several

expeditions led by Hrdlicka, states that very few identifiable remains were recovered.

The majority of the finds in all caves the group had examined were scattered bones (May

n.d.). He does not make any distinction between artificially mummified and naturally

desiccated corpses. He states that there were 64 males, 62 females and 68 unsexed

children. The age range is given from 5 to 90 years. Of the 68 children, 54 (if I am

reading his chart correctly) were under 5 years of age, which suggests extremely high

infant mortality.14 No data on morbidity are given, except to suggest that because one

body showed some indications (i.e., it was recorded as a "possible case") of syphilis that

the "population" (or at least a portion of it) was recent (1980:96-97, Figure 40, p. 101).

Apparently basing his inferences on Laughlin's work in which the recent origin of

Kagarnil remains is averred, Zirnrnerman (1981; 1983) did not date the remains when he

examined (in 1969 and 1978) two desiccated corpses from Kagamil, one male and the

other female, collected by Hrdlicka in 1938 and Henning in 1870's respectively.1s

Zimmerman's work is the only published case of detailed examination of Aleut remains

for pathologies. One corpse was of an adult male of undetermined age, blood group 0.

l4 The chart (Laughlin 198097, Figure 40) indicates 54 children under 5 years of age, and 8 between ages 5-10 (the unsexed bone population is divided equally between genders). The next set shown is the age group between 10 and 20 yean of age, comprising 9 males and 13 females.

Zimmennan cites as his authority for recent provenience of the remains an undated manuscript by Laughlin entitled "Use and Abuse of Mummies." Apparently it is this manuscript which has been reprinted as a chapter of the same title in Laughlin 1980.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 76 r Cause of death was lobar pneumonia with septicemia and multiple visceral bacterial

abscesses. Cocci (gram-positive, scattered throughout the tissues) were also found.

Pulmonary anthracosis and mild atherosclerosis (cholesterol plaque was found) were

noted. There was also "severe dental stress" and periodontal bone loss/disease. A peculiar hairgrowth -- several hair shafts in single follicles -- was recorded on a patch of

skin, a finding the author characterizes as inexplicable (Zimmerman 1983:123-134). Of

interest, too, is an earlier finding by Candela who typed 30 Kagamil corpses by blood

type. There were eleven 0, eleven A, six B, and two AB individuals present. According

to Zimmerman, "Candela noted that the Aleuts have an almost identical blood type

distribution to that of the Eastern Siberian tribes, but he felt that the number of

individuals typed was too small to draw any valid conclusions regarding the origins of the

Aleuts" (Zimmerman 1983:132). Zimmerman's team examined the second corpse in

1978. It was a female over 50 to 60+ years of age. Preliminary findings indicated that

she suffered from middle ear infection, pleuritis and renal tubular necrosis (1980:133;

1981). Head lice were present (presence of head lice is reported by early Russian

observers also). It is reasonable to postulate that lice carried diseases occurred in pre-

contact times. Laughlin reports from mild to severe arthritis and s~inabifida (1980:124).

Male Aleuts must have suffered significant muscular stress while kayaking.

Andrean Tolstykh, reporting for the end of the 1750's on Adak, noted that after up to 18

hours at sea, when a man beached his kayak he was so stiff as to be unable to climb out

of the hatch. All on hand would come to the beach and lift the kayaker out and warm

him up by placing an oil lamp under his parka. No wonder that one of the earliest

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 77 investigated in a systematic manner to my knowledge.

Venereal diseases were present in the Aleutians by 1778, when members of

Cook's crew became infected after their sojourn at Unalaska. Whether it was syphilis or gonorrhea is not established (Fortuine 1989:241-242). Some early Russian sources

(Gideon 1989 and Ioasaf ms.) seem to imply, at least for Kodiak, that venereal disease was indigenous. Shelikhov observed venereal disease on Kodiak in 1784, when contact with Russians was recent and minimal (198155). In 1769 members of Krenitzin crew wintering on Unimak, St. Catherine Cove, suffered from venereal disease (Khlebnikov

1979:91). The question of presence or absence of syphilis, particularly in aboriginal

populations of North America, is in dispute and even more so for Alaska. Between 1938

and 1940, Richmond C. Holcomb examined a collection of American skulls for signs of

syphilis. Among them were six skulls classed as syphilitic from the eastern Aleutians,

collected by W.H. Dall and Hrdlicka. The skeletal remains were not dated but assumed

to be post-Russian on the basis of signs of syphilis (Holcomb 1940). The known course

of the spread of this disease in the Russian period is uneven. Whatever the situation was

in early post-contact times, by 1825 the disease has declined. In 1817, no syphilis was

found at Unalaska (Fortuine 1989:242). In the 1840's and subsequently, the Russian

American Company launched a massive campaign aimed at eradication of venereal

disease, presumably both syphilis and gonorrhea. This campaign included periodic

medical inspections of the settlements and mandatory examinations of crews of vessels

sailing in the Colony prior to departure from Novoarkhangel'sk (modern Sitka). Any

crew members which may have been carriers were removed. In Sitka and at all medical

---

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 79 sub-stations established during the Russian period, venereal diseases were treated.

Toward the end of the Russian period the government inspectors reported that venereal

disease was practically non-existent (Fortuine 1989: 242).

There was a resurgence of venereal diseases, notably syphilis, in the American

period, particularly on the Alaska Peninsula where Belkofski was named as most heavily

infected settlement (Nikolai 1893; Shalamov 1898 in Fortuine 1989:242, citing U.S.

Revenue Cutter Service data provided by medical officers). Venereal disease,

specifically syphilis, was present at significant levels as late as 1944-1946.17 The

incidence of infection versus incidence of congenital syphilis is not discussed in the

literature.

Until very recent times, tuberculosis was a widespread and dreaded disease.

Tuberculosis is another disease which may have been present in the Americas in pre-

Columbian times. The question to be answered, preferably by pathological examination

of a statistically significant number of pre-contact remains, is if any form of tuberculosis

was present in Alaska prior to foreign intrusion. At the moment, it is believed that it is

an introduced disease. Tuberculosis was present among Cook's men in 1778, and it is to

1 be assumed that some Russians in the early post-contact time suffered from it also (see

Fortuine 1989:256-268, though some of his base data need to be re-examined). Early in

post-contact times there appears a description of a disease resembling scrofula, and then

the disease is named as such. Scrofula is today identified as tuberculosis of the lymph

l7 "Aleut Medical and Genealogical Data, Unalaska hospital records" and records from the World War 11 evacuation camps of Ward Cove and Ward Lake are relevant here; analysis is now in progress.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 80 nodes, manifested in boils and abscesses. Predisposition to acute respiratory infections documented by pathological examinations cited above and reported in many early sources, coupled with stress, malnutrition, and cramped living conditions probably aided the spread of tuberculosis of epidemic proportions among the Aleut populations.

Pulmonary tuberculosis, scrofula and bone tuberculosis were reported by Chief Manager

Wrangell in the period 1830-1835. In the American period these forms of tuberculosis were reportedly widespread and were listed in many cases as cause of death in the

Pribilofs and at Belkofski. More recently, pulmonary and bone tuberculosis was present among older members of the modern population.

Concerning the outbreaks of epidemic diseases after 1799, the best summary is by

Fortuine (1989:199-208). The character of these outbreaks can only be guessed. The available population data suggest that these post-1799 outbreaks caused significant population depletion.

The earliest mention of an epidemic disease is by Davydov for 1802 on Atka and refers to a disease allegedly spread by a vessel out of Okhotsk. About 15 crew reportedly died en route to Alaska (Davydov 1977:105). The earliest record for

Unalaska is for 1806-1807 when, due to an epidemic disease manifested by cough, colic

[kolot'ie] and bloody diarrhea, a number of islanders died. According to the census conducted by Unalaska Manager Fedor Burenin, by January 1st 1806 937 males and 961 females were listed. Unfortunately, the data do not show the villages and islands where the census was conducted (Khlebnikov 1979:109). According to a Fox Island Chain census dated May 1st 1813, there were 499 males of all ages, and 659 females of all ages,

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 81 excluding the 150 persons dispatched to Kodiak and Sitka and 200 persons sent to the

Pribilofs. It was estimated that the epidemic carried off 390 souls of both genders and all ages (Khlebnikov 1979:llO). On Atka, by 1811 the population dropped to 108, due to an epidemic spread presumably about 1806 from Unalaska, allegedly by a vessel, identified by Captain I.F. Vasil'ev as the Sv. Petr i Pave1 commanded by Pyshenkov.

Vasil'ev identifies the disease as "rotting fever" [gnilaia eoriachka] (Black 1984156).

Khlebnikov disputes these data and points out that according to a census of 1805 the entire presumably adult population of the Central (Andreanof) Islands was 331 souls, an appalling drop from the figures of the 1790/92 census cited above, which is difficult to attribute to any other cause but epidemic disease (in conjunction with other factors such as famine and natural disasters).

What appears to have been an influenza epidemic that was introduced in 1819 to

Sitka by an American vessel sailing from Java, is known to have devastated Kodiak but apparently did not spread to the Aleutians. In 1830-1832 an epidemic disease, manifested by cough and chest congestion, spread from the Alaska Peninsula and the

Shumagins through the Andreanofs, Rat and Near Islands. Typhoid might have occurred in the 1830's and is reported for the American period. Whooping cough, diphtheria, measles, and mumps are known to have occurred in Alaska in the 19th century, both under Russian and United States administrations, but the spread of these epidemics has not been traced (Fortuine 1989:200-208). Some kind of epidemic disease is reported in the Pribilofs in 1938 (Jones ms. 1976:139).

The smallpox epidemic of 1835-1840 was the greatest demographic disaster in

- --

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 82 Alaska. Though there was an earlier episode of smallpox in southeastern Alaska in the

1770's, it apparently did not spread to the archipelago. An alleged outbreak at Yakutat in 1795 aboard a Russian ship among Kodiak Islanders, cited by Fortuine on the basis of information in Bancroft's History of Alaska (Fortuine 1979:228), is in all probability fictitious, as Potap Zaikov, alleged skipper of the disease spreading vessel was by then dead. Besides, he had never been to Yakutat, where Baranov established his presence since 1794. The quote of de Roquefoil who suggested that the decrease of Kodiak Island population due to smallpox also lacks confirmation in available records. Russian records do not contain any mention of smallpox outbreak prior to 1835.

The Russian American Company attempted to introduce vaccination as early as

1808. The clergy, beginning with A. Sokolov who was dispatched to Sitka in 1815, were instructed in vaccine administration. The history of the vaccination program is discussed by Gibson, Arndt, Sarafian (1977) and Fortuine. Unfortunately, there was great resistance to vaccination on the part of many Alaska Native groups, instigated in several documented instances by shamans. Villages on the Alaska Peninsula escaped devastation due to a timely vaccination program. On Unalaska the vaccination program was incomplete, allegedly due to negligence on the part of a paramedic who failed to enforce quarantine restrictions and did not administer the vaccine in timely fashion as instructed. On Umnak, resistance to vaccination was strong and casualties numerous

(apparently the shaman or local leader who resisted vaccination but survived was later flogged to death and the leadership passed to another line, according to my field data).

In the Unalaska District (including the Shumagins and the Pribilofs; the Pribilovians

- -

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 83 were probably vaccinated and a majority survived) 144 persons reportedly died of smallpox (these data have to be checked against the records of death by Priest Grigorii

Golovin in the Church Archives). Vaccination was completed in the Atka District successfully by Priest Iakov Netsvetov and paramedic Galaktionov. Smallpox did not spread either to the Central, Near or Commandor Islands. In the wake of this epidemic, vaccination became accepted by the Native peoples within the Russian orbit. Thus, the

1862-1863 pandemic spread northward from California and British Columbia, affected

Haida and some Tlingit villages in southeastern Alaska, but did not spread further west.

The Aleut populations escaped.

During the American period, vaccination of the native populations was not

practiced or was practiced irregularly in some areas. Various outbreaks are reported in

Alaska but I found no specific data for the Aleutians. However, in 1926 there was an

outbreak of smallpox on Akutan with several fatalities. After this outbreak, vaccination

was reintroduced in the Aleutian area (Papers of Alaskan Governors and field data).

Alcohol addiction became a scourge after 1867. Alcohol consumption was

introduced by the Russians but alcoholism was not a problem until the American period.

In the early days, alcohol was not carried by fur hunting vessels, or was carried in small

quantities. Sugar or molasses, necessary for home brew, were not available or were

imported in exceedingly small amounts. During Russian times, trading alcohol (or

firearms) to the natives was forbidden by regulations and penalties were severe. The

regulation was enforced throughout the Colony. In fact, Russian representatives in

Washington repeatedly appealed to the United States Government to interdict illegal

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 84 trade in alcohol by American vessels in Alaskan waters.

Under the Russian American Company, alcohol was dispensed by the glass at

special occasions. It was not sold and private sales of alcohol to Natives were subject to

severe penalties; and if such sales took place, the quantity and frequency were small. In

the American period, alcohol was imported, also illegally, but in great quantities;

moreover, molasses and sugar were sold in unlimited quantities in exchange for furs and

other services and home brewing equipment was imported and disseminated.

Governmental efforts, including seizure of illicit cargoes, availed little. Even in the

Pribilofs, where government control was tight, importation of alcohol was considerable,

as a year's order for St. Paul and St. George indicates. It included among other

alcoholic beverages, 40 gallons of whiskey, 15 gallons of brandy, 15 gallons of alcohol

[sic], rum, brandy, wine, sherry, beer and champagne. In 1909, 265 gallons of alcoholic

beverages were imported into the Pribilofs by the white supervisory staff (Jones ms.

1976:102). Alcoholism was rapidly becoming widespread. By the 1890's church-

sponsored brotherhoods and societies for sobriety were being established. One great

Aleut churchman, Innokentii Shaiashnikov, published in Aleut a pamphlet on proper life

conduct which focused mainly on the evils of alcoholism. In 1902, the church

disseminated a pamphlet "Dedicated to the Russian Societies for Sobriety in America"

entitled "Time to Take Stock... ." Alcoholism is today one of the major social ills,

resulting in domestic violence, crimes, theft previously unheard of in Aleut society,

crimes of violence, illness, and death. It is often associated with suicides. More recently,

drug addiction has become relatively widespread and persists in spite of the communities'

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 85 efforts to combat both the use of alcohol and the use of other addictive drugs.

Health care and public health measures were introduced in Alaska on a very small scale between 1799 and 1818, and were systematically provided under the Second

Charter after 1828. Health care under the Russian American Company was provided even in outlying districts. It became much less available to the Aleuts during the

American period, except for the Pribilofs where under the terms of the lease, first the

Alaska Commercial Company (1870-1889) and then the North American Commercial

Company (1890-1909) and then later the United States Government (1910 until after passage of ANCSA), provided services of a physician. In spite of this, there was in the

Pribilofs until about 1895 an excess of deaths over births (Jones 1976, ms. p.83 and Table

9). Government agents and physicians attributed the poor state of Aleut health in the

Pribilofs to a subsistence diet. Introduction of Euro-american foods was urged in tandem with the improvement of sanitary conditions.

Available statistics for other areas in the region have not yet been examined. It should be noted that under Russian administration, after 1825 (with the exception of the smallpox years and during major outbreaks of measles) there was a small but steady population increase and rarely did deaths exceed births in any year. It is possible that in the Pribilofs forcible changes in housing, from wind-tight semi-subterranean dwellings to frame houses, led to the increase in respiratory diseases (Laughlin, personal verbal communication, 1976). In any case, in 1891 a question of depopulation was being raised and governmental efforts to increase the population and birth rate were initiated (Jones

1976239-90). After 1895 the birthldeath ratio improved, but the population increase on

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof lslands Region Ethnography, Page 86 St. Paul was due to immigration and a slight loss on St. George due to emigration. The population continued to drop after 1867 on both islands until about 1905. After that year, there was through 1946 a rapid increase attributed to natural increase (Jones

1976:92, 116, Figure 3 and Tables 15 and 16). A hospital was opened in 1915 and nursing training was provided for women. Elsewhere in the region, however, hospital care was absent. Aleut leaders, including Priest Innokentii Shaiashnikov, were active in requesting that a hospital be built at Unalaska (invoking the fact that under the Russian regime such a hospital existed).

One matter not covered in the literature is the treatment of Aleut midwives in the

American period. Aleuts were famous for their anatomical knowledge. This extended to the women's knowledge of childbirth. In the Russian period, Aleut midwives not only practiced in their villages but their services were used in Russian establishments as well.

According to my field data, in the American period the women were prohibited to practice traditional midwifery. The last known traditionally-trained Aleut midwife, originally of Kashega, died in the 1970's at Unalaska. To the last, she refused to discuss

Aleut midwifery practices, fearing legal prosecution (field data).

IV. CITIZENSHIP

Under the Russian regime, which had characteristics of a ranked class society, the

Aleuts were considered Imperial subjects with certain citizenship rights. This is clearly evident in documents dating from the reign of Catherine the Great (1762-1796).

Observed mostly in the breach by various merchant/skippers, the status did give Aleuts

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 87 some protection from arbitrary violence.

The Aleut status was clearly defined in regulations appended to the Second and

Third Russian American Company charters. These regulations had the force of law.

The status was that of free peasantry in Metropolitan Russia, but the Aleuts were freed of all taxation. Under terms of the Treaty of Cession which transferred control of

Alaska to the United States, Aleuts were to automatically become citizens of the United

States. After Russian withdrawal, however, this article of the Treaty was not observed.

By 1869 Aleuts were aware of the infringement of their rights. Pribilovians and

Unalaskans elected Captain Illarion Arlchimandritov, whose family was from Belkofski and who was one the few highly educated Aleuts to remain in Alaska after 1867, to represent them before the United States Government agencies and to protect them against incoming whites who infringed their rights. Later, Aleuts of Unalaska addressed a petition to President Cleveland protesting the infringement by whites on sea otter hunting. They stated that this infringement deprived the Aleuts of their subsistence pursuits and created economic hardship. Soon the Aleuts were treated as "wards of the

State" in line with customary practices in the United States. Aleut citizenship was denied by some governmental agencies even as young men were being drafted for the military service during World War 11. This was especially true in the Pribilofs. While the Indian

Citizenship Act of 1924 theoretically acknowledged all Natives as United States citizens,

Aleuts were referred to as wards until 1944. Civil rights of the Aleuts, especially in the

Pribilofs were frequently violated. The ample documentary material on evacuation and internment during World War I1 assembled by John C. Kirtland, an attorney for the

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 88 Aleuts, is replete with instances of such violations (Kirtland et al. 1981). Other examples may be gleaned from the Indian Claims Commission records (see Jones ms. for some examples such as arbitrary fines, interference with children's education, public shaming by government agents, arbitrary "administrative"jailing, punitive labor such as rock crushing, prohibition to purchase imported food stuffs at the canteen, etc.). In particular, bicultural education, including the use and teaching of Aleut language, was prohibited

(bicultural bilingual and sometimes trilingual education was a rule during the Russian period). Orthodox Church holidays had to be approved, in the Pribilofs by government agents who also checked workers' attendance at authorized church services (Jones

1976:144-145). An attempt to restrict Aleut church attendance was made by the whaling company on Akutan but was unsuccessful. In many communities church schools were either closed or were put under intolerable pressures. Literacy, in Aleut and also in

Russian, declined. Aleut literacy was no longer taught in schools, though in some communities individuals were taught to read and write Aleut (and frequently some

Russian) by elders at home. This generation is now almost gone. In 1916, Aleuts of St.

Paul addressed a protest to the Commissioner of Fisheries regarding suppression of the

Aleut language and their church school (Jones 1976:146-147). War time evacuation delivered a severe blow to the Aleuts, not only in terms of eradication of ancestral villages and population loss, but also in transmission of their cultural heritage. Only now, twenty years after the passage of ANCSA, Aleuts are on their way to cultural revival.

The Aleuts suffered probably more than any other Alaskan group at contact and

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 89 in post-contact times. They survived. They will probably survive in the future.

Hopefully, in the future they will be fully in control of their destiny.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 90 REFERENCES:

Arndt, K. L. 1985 The Russian-American Company and the Smallpox Epidemic of 1835 to 1840. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association. Anchorage, Alaska, 2 March.

Bergsland, K. 1959 Aleut Dialects of Atka and Attu. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, New Series 49 (3). Philadelphia: The American Philosophical Society.

Berkh, V. N. 1974 A Chronological History of the Discovery of the Aleutian Islands or the Exploits of Russian Merchants. Translation from the Russian edition of 1823. R. A. Pierce, eds. Dmitri Krenov, trans. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: The Limestone Press.

Black, L. T. 1981 Volcanism as a Factor in Human Ecology: the Aleutian Case. Ethnohistory 28(4, Fall):3 13-340.

1982 Aleut Art. Unangam Aguqaadangin. Unangan of the Aleutian Archipelago. Anchorage, Alaska: Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Inc.

1984 Atka. An Ethnohistory of the Western Aleutians. R. A. Piece, eds. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: The Limestone Press.

1987 Whaling in the Aleutians. ~tudes/Inuit/~tudies11(2):7-50.

1990 The Creole Class in Russian America. Pacifica 2(2, November):142-155.

1991 Glory Remembered. Wooden Headgear of Alaska Sea Hunters. Juneau, Alaska: Alaska State Museums. Friends of the Alaska State Museum.

1992 Promyshlenniki..Who Were They? Proceedings of the Bering-Chirikov Conference 5-7 August 1991. In . 0. W. Frost, eds. Pp. 279-290. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Historical Society.

Browning, R. J. 1974 Fisheries of the North Pacific. History, Species, Gear & Processes. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Northwest Publishing Company.

Burns, J. 1993 Personal written communication, 15 February.

Smal Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 91 Carr, W. J., L. M. Gard, G. D. Bath, and D. L. Healy 1971 Earth Science Studies of a Nuclear Test Area in the Western Aleutian Islands, Alaska: an interim study of results, Geological Society of America Bulletin No. 82(3).

Collins, H. B., Jr., A. H. Clark, and E. H. Walker 1945 The Aleutian Islands: Their People and Natural History. War Background Studies, I no. 21, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.

Corbett, D. G. 1991 Aleut Settlement Patterns in the Western Aleutian Islands, Alaska. M. A. thesis. University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Crurnrine, N. R. 1976 Personal written communication, 28 May.

Davydov, G. I. 1977 Two Voyages to Russian America 1802-1807. Translation from the Russian original published 1810-1812. R. A. Pierce, eds. C. Bearne, trans. Materials for the Study of Alaska History, no. 10. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: The Limestone Press.

Denniston, G. 1966 Cultural Change at Chaluka, Umnak Island. Arctic Anthropology 3(2):84-124.

Drewes, H., G. D. Fraser, G. L. Snyder, and H. F. Barnett, Jr. 1961 U. S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1028-S:583-676 Geology of Unalaska Island and adjacent insular shelf, Aleutian Islands, Alaska.

Fay, F. H. 1982 Ecology and Biology of the Pacific Walrus, Odobenus rosmarus Divergens Illiger. North American Fauna, Number 74. Washington, D. C.: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Fortuine, R. 1989 Chills and Fever. Health and Disease in the Early History of Alaska. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska Press.

Frolich, B., and D. Kopjansky 1975 Aleutian Site Surveys 1975; Preliminary Report to the Aleutian Corporation. Unpublished report on file. Anchorage, Alaska: Aleutian Corporation.

Gershanovich, D. E. 1967 Late Quaternary Sediments of Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska. In The Bering Land Bridge. D. M. Hopkins, eds. Pp. 32-46. Stanford, California: Stanford University

I Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 92 Press.

Gibson, J. R. 1982-83 Smallpox on the Northwest Coast, 1835-1838. BC Studies 56(Winter):61-81.

Gideon, H. 1989 The Round the World Voyage of Hieromonk Gideon 1803-1809. Translation from Russian manuscripts and of additional documents, with an Introduction and annotations by Black, L. T. R. A. Pierce, eds. L. T. Black, trans. Alaska history no. 32 and Alaska State Library Historical Monograph no. 9. Kingston, Ontario:Fairbanks, Alaska: The Limestone Press.

Holcomb, R. C. 1940 Syphilis of the skull among Aleuts, and the Asian and North American Eskimo about Bering and Arctic Seas. United States Naval Medical Bulletin 38(2, April):177-192. Washington, D. C.: Bureau of Medicine and Surgery; Navy Department.

Hudson, R. (Editor) 1992 Unugulux Tunusangin. Oldtime Stories. Aleut Crafts and Traditions as Taught to Students at the Unalaska City School. R. Hudson, eds. Unalaska, Alaska: Unalaska City School District.

Hulten, E. 1937 Flora of the Aleutian Islands. Flora of the Aleutian Islands and Westernmost Alaska .. 2d edition 1960. Stockholm.

Imperial Navy, R. 1790-1792 Delo ob ekspeditsii kapitana Billingsa kasatel'no oblozheniia iasakom aleutov. In TsGADA, fond 24; delo 67. Moscow.

Ioasaf 1975 A manuscript synopsis by the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of information provided on Kodiak by Ioasaf, Head of Mission. Golder Collection, Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Washington, D.C.

J.L.S. 1776 Neue Nachrichten von denen neuentedekten Insuln in der See zwischen Asien und Amerika; aus mitgetheilten Urkunden und Asziigen . Hamburg and Leipzig: Friedrich Ludwig Verlag.

Jones, D. M. 1976 A History of United States Administration in the Pribilof Islands 1867-1946. Prepared for Indian Claims Commission Docket Number 352 and Docket Number 369.

I Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribiloi Islands Region Ethnography, Page 93 Fairbanks, Alaska: Institute of Social, Economic and Government Research; University of Alaska, March.

Khlebnikov, K T. 1979 Russkaia Amerika v neopublikovannykh zapiskakh K. T. Khlebnikova. R. G. Liapunova and S. G. Fedorova, eds. Leningrad: Nauka.

Kienle, J., and C. J. Nye 1990 Volcano Tectonics of Alaska Volcanoes of North America. United States and Canada. E. Cambridge, trans. In Wood, Charles A.; Kienle, Jiirgen. Cambridge University Press: 8-109.

Kirtland, J. C., and D. F. Coffin (compilers) 1981 Documents, depositions etc. on War Time Relocation. In The Relocation and Internment of the Aleuts during World War 11. Kirtland and Coffin, eds. Anchorage, Alaska: Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Inc.

Knecht, R. 1993 Personal written communication, 21 January.

Kroeber Alfred L. 1939 Cultural and Natural Areas of Native North America. University of California Publications in Anthropology and Ethnology, no.38, vol. 38. Berkeley, California: University of California Press.

Laughlin, W. S. 1972 Ecology and Population Structure in the Arctic. In The Structure of Human Populations. G. A. Harrison and A. J. Boyce, eds. Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.

1980 Aleuts. Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology. New York, Chicago..: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Laughlin, W. S., and J. S. Aigner 1975 Aleut Adaptation and Evolution. In Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone. W. Fitzhugh, ed. Pp. 181-201. The Hague; Paris: Mouton Publishers.

Leer, J. 1991 Evidence for a Northern Northwest Coast Language Area: Promiscuous Number I marking and Periphrastic Possessive Construction in Haida, Eyak, and Aleut. International Journal of American Linguistics [LJAL] 57(2, April):158-193.

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 94 Liapunova, R. G. 1975 Ocherki po etnografii Aleutov (konets XVIII - pervaia polovina XIX v). Leningrad: Nauka.

1987 Aleuty. Ocherki etnicheskoi istorii. Leningrad: Nauka.

1990 Aleuts before the Russians: Culture and Demography. Pacifica 2(2, November):8- 23.

Link, V. B. 1975 A History of Plague In the United States of America. Reprinted by Public Health Service from the original 1955 publication. Public Health Monograph No. 26. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health Service.

Litke, F. 1987 A Voyage Around the World 1826-1829. Translation from the French edition 1835, vol. 1, abridged; supplemented by an account by Kittlitz, translated from the German. R. A. Pierce, eds. R. Marshall and J. Moessner, trans. Alaska History no. 29. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: The Limestone Press.

Martinson, C. R. 1973 Aleut Settlements of the Makushin Bay Area, Alaska. Unpublished PhD Dissertation presented to the Department of Geography and the Graduate School of the University of Oregon.

May, A. G. n.d. Appendix. Appendix to a report concerning the mummy caves of the Aleutian Islands written at the request of University of Michigan, unpublished. Pp. 1-36. Anchorage Museum of History and Art, Anchorage, Alaska .

McCartney, A. P. 1971 A Proposed Western Aleutian Phase in the Near Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 8(2):92-142.

1972 An Archeological Site Survey and Inventory for the Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska. File Report 1-1-72, US Fish and Wildlife Service. Anchorage, Alaska: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

1974 1972 Archeological Site Survey in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. 113-126 International Conference on the Prehistory and Paleoecology of the Western North American Arctic and Subarctic. S. Raymond and P. Schlederman, eds. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary, Archeological Association.

- --

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 95 I McCartney, A. 1975 Maritime Adaptations in Cold Archipelagoes: an Analysis of Environment and Culture in the Aleutian and Other Island Chains. In Prehistoric Maritime adaptations of the circumpolar zone. W. Fitzhugh, eds. Pp. 281-386. The Hague; Paris: Mouton.

1977 Prehistoric Human Occupation of the Rat Islands. In The Environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska. TID-26712. M. L. Merritt and R. G. Fuller, eds. Pp. 59-113 Technical Information Center, Energy Research and Development Administration.

Mooney, J. 1928 The Aboriginal Population of America North of Mexico. J. R. Swanton, eds. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, Publication 2955, vol. 80, no. 70. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution, United States Government Printing Office.

Narochnitskii, A.L. and A. I. e. a. Alekseev, eds. 1989 Collection of documents from Russian archives, some abridged. In Russkie ekspeditsii po izucheniiu severnoi chasti Tikhogo okeana vo vtoroi polovine XVIII v. Sbornik dokumentov. Issledovaniia russkikh na Tikhom okeane v XVIII-pervoi polovine XIX v. Moscow: Nauka.

National Research Council. Division of Earth Sciences, C. o. t. A. E. 1970 The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. Human Ecology. A volume in multivolume series. Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Sciences.

National Research Council. Division of Earth Sciences.Committee on the Alaska Earthquake 1971 A volume in multivolume series. The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. Biology. Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Sciences.

Netsvetov, I. 1980 The Journals of Iakov Netsvetov: the Atkha Years, 1828-1844. Translation from the original Russian language manuscript, with an Introduction and Supplementary Materials by Black. L. T. Black, trans. Materials for the Study of Alaska History, no. 16. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: The Limestone Press.

n.d. untitled. Atkan Aleut-Russian vocabulary, compiled 1828-1844; Alaska Church Collection. Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Washington, D.C.

Nikolai, R. R. B. o. t. A. a. A. 1893 Iz moego dnevnika. Putevye zametki i vpechatleniia vo vremia puteshestviia po Aliaske i Aleutskim ostrovam. S. Peterburg: Sinodal'naia tipografiia.

i Social Trans~tionin the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page % Poland, J. D. 1976 Tularemia. In Communicable and infectious diseases. F. H. S. W. Top, Paul F., eds. Pp. 754-759. Saint Louis: The C. V. Mosby Company.

Poland, J. D. 1977 Plague. Chapter 134 in 2d edition. In . Hoeperich, eds. Pp. 1050-1060.

Polonskii, A. n.d. Perechen' puteshestvii russkikh promyshlennykh v Vostochnom okeane s 1743 po 1800 g. Unpublished manuscript compiled on the basis of archival records now allegedly lost, r. 60; op.1, no.2. Russkoe geograficheskoe obshchestvo, St. Peterburg.

Ransom, J. E. 1946 Aleut Natural-Food Economy. American Anthropologist 48 (N. S.):607-623.

Salarnatov, L. 1862 Alaska Church Collection. Manuscript annual journals of the Atkan parish priest. Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, Washington, D. C.

Sarafian, W. L. 1977 Smallpox strikes the Aleuts. Alaska Journal 7(1):46-49.

Shade, C. I. 1949 Ethnological Notes on the Aleuts. Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements for the degree of B. A. with distinction, Harvard University. Peabody Library, Harvard University.

1951 The Girls' Puberty Ceremony of Umnak, Aleutian Islands. Brief Communications. American Anthropologist 53: 145-148.

Shelikhov, G. I. 1981 A Voyage to America 1783-1786. Translation from the Russian language edition 1812, with addenda from the 1793 edition. Originally published in two parts 1791. R. A. Pierce, eds. M. Ramsay, trans. Alaska History no. 19. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: The Limestone Press.

Simashko, I. 1851 Opisanie vsekh zverei vodiashchikhsia v Imperii Rossiiskoi, s atlasom v 138 tablits. St. Peterburg: K.Vingeber.

Snigaroff, C. L. 1979 Niigugis Maqaxtazaqangis. Atkan Historical Traditions. Told in 1952, first edition 1976 . 2d. K. Bergsland, eds. K. S. Bergsland, Vera, trans. Fairbanks, Alaska: Alaska

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 97 , Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Spaulding, A. C. 1962 Archaeological Investigations on Agattu, Aleutian Islands. Anthropological Papers, no. 18 . Ann Arbor, Michigan: Museum of Anthropology, The University of Michigan.

Staley, D. P. 1984 Aleutian Confusion: Vegetational Variation, Soil Chemistry, and Site Boundaries. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Conference of the Alaska Anthropological Association. Fairbanks, Alaska, 16-17 March.

U.S. Department of Interior, F. a. W. S. 1968 Refuge Narrative Report, January 1, 1968- December 31, 1968, Aleutian Islands national Wildlife Refuge. Report signed by Robert D. Jones. Anchorage, Alaska, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office.

United States Department of Comrnerce/Coast and Geodetic Survey 1964 Pacific and Arctic Coasts. Alaska, Cape Spencer to Beaufort Sea. United States Coast Pilot, No. 9, no. Seventh edition. Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office.

Varjola, P., J. P. Averkieva, and R. G. Liapunova 1990 The EtholCn Collection. The ethnographic Alaskan collection of Adolf EtholCn and his contemporaries in the National Museum of Finland. Gillian Hakli and P. Mason, trans. Helsinki, Finland: National Board of Antiquities, Finland.

Veniarninov, I. 1984 Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District. Originally published in Russian, 1840 (St. Peterburg). R. A. Pierce, eds. L. T. Black and R. H. Geoghegan, trans. Alaska History no. 27. Kingston, Ontario, Canada: The Limestone Press.

Zimmerman, M. R. 1981 The Paleopathology of an Aleutian Mummy. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine 105(December):638-641.

1983 Aleutian and Alaskan Mummies. Abridged edition of the 1980 publication. In . A. Cockburn and E. Cockburn, eds. Pp. 118-134. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

-

Social Transition in the North Aleutian-Pribilof Islands Region Ethnography, Page 98