DECONSTRUCTING THE AGLURMIUT MIGRATION: AN ANALYSIS OF ACCOUNTS FROM THE RUSSIAN-AMERICA PERIOD TO THE PRESENT Kenneth L. Pratt Bureau of Indian Affairs, ANCSA Office, 3601 C Street, Suite 1100, Anchorage, AK 99503-5947; [email protected] ABSTRACT Historical accounts describe the Aglurmiut as a Yup’ik Eskimo group from the Kuskokwim River area that migrated to Bristol Bay and the Alaska Peninsula in response to warfare with other Yup’ik groups and reportedly survived by allying themselves with the Russians at Aleksandrovskii Redoubt on Nushagak River. Variable, vague, and confusing, the accounts leave several key questions unan- swered, such as: Who were the Aglurmiut? What was their original homeland? These are the primary questions with which this paper is concerned. The evidence suggests that the so-called Aglurmiut were survivors of an altercation at the former settlement of Agalik, near present Quinhagak on Kuskokwim Bay, who fled to the area of Bristol Bay sometime around the year 1750. This finding simplifies the story of the Aglurmiut migration while at the same time supporting its veracity. INTRODUCTION Every human migration has a driving force behind it; Yup’ik region earlier than in the southern part, where one in the case of the so-called “Aglurmiut1 migration” the seemingly well-attested battle may have occurred as late impetus was reportedly warfare between Yup’ik Eskimo as about 1816 (VanStone 1988:91).2 populations in southwest Alaska (Fig. 1). Definitive de- At its root, the Aglurmiut migration is essentially a tails regarding the timing of the migration do not ex- warfare story, one of many in oral and written accounts ist, but it is mentioned in the earliest historical accounts that imply warfare was endemic in the Yup’ik region dur- about this region, and indigenous oral tradition grounds ing pre-Russian times. But such accounts should not be the event in what is known as the “Bow and Arrow Wars” accorded validity without first subjecting them to criti- era. This period of internecine strife had its origins in pre- cal analysis; to do otherwise is unscientific. Perhaps more history, and the prevailing view is that it ultimately came importantly, to arbitrarily treat the large number of such to an end due to impacts tied to the 1838–1839 small- accounts as a reliable indicator of the scope of indigenous pox epidemic and/or the influence of Russian trading warfare in the region is roughly equivalent to endorsing a activities (e.g., Fienup-Riordan 1990:155, 1994:29; Frink dominant nineteenth-century social evolutionist perspec- 2003:172; Funk 2010:523). It is my opinion, however, tive on “primitive” societies—the notion that the primeval that this warfare ended not only well before the smallpox state of man was war (e.g., Voget 1975: 255–257).3 epidemic but also prior to the establishment of Russian My own perspective is that reports of warfare in the re- trade posts in the region, the first of which dates to 1819. gion, generally, are exaggerated in terms of scale. I instead I further believe warfare ended in the northern part of the think intergroup hostilities among the Yupiit were far less Alaska Journal of Anthropology vol. 11, nos. 1&2 (2013) 17 Figure 1. Southwest Alaska. common and far more localized than other scholars have story is repeatedly cited to account for the origin of war- suggested (Pratt 2009a:269–276). My interpretation of fare.” Referred to herein as the “eye-poking incident,” the Aglurmiut migration relies on a similar local vs. re- the story is very pertinent to the Aglurmiut migration. gional level perspective. Fienup-Riordan summarized it as follows: This is an old story, and narrators typically lo- CONTEXT OF THE BOW AND ARROW WARS cate the incident in a village in their own region. According to tradition, two boys were playing The sheer volume of oral history concerning the subject with bone-tipped darts in the men’s house. One makes it clear that Yup’ik peoples did engage in warfare;4 of the boys aimed poorly and accidentally hit his some reported battle sites are sufficiently documented to companion in the eye, blinding him. The father of the offender told the father of the injured boy either verify specific accounts or lend them substantial to go ahead and poke out one of the eyes of his credibility. But just as we will never know exactly when son in retribution. However, the father whose such conflicts began, we can also never truly know what son had been injured was so enraged that he sparked most of them. As noted by Ann Fienup-Riordan poked out both of the offender’s eyes, blinding (1990:153), however, “throughout western Alaska a single him completely. The other father reacted by kill- 18 deconstructing the aglurmiut migration ing the first man’s son. And so it went, the violence island.” In other words, the parties that supposedly split escalating and each man joining sides until the en- from one another on the lower Yukon River due to intense tire village, and eventually the entire region, was at internal strife later made amends and joined together as war (Fienup-Riordan 1990:153–154).5 allies in war. At least eight known locales in the region have been The story concludes with the following statement: reported as the site at which the eye-poking incident oc- During the time of the migration from the Yukon curred (Table 1, Fig. 2). Because none of the accounts all of these people spoke one tongue, but having are based on eyewitness testimony and the event they de- settled at three widely separated places, their lan- scribe (if it really happened) clearly dates to precontact guages gradually became different, the people at times, there is no reasonable justification for according Bristol bay and on Nunivak island being nearest one report more credibility than another (but see Funk alike in speech (Nelson 1899:517). 2010:538–539). This story has been treated as the definitive account That said, the best-known version of the “eye-poking” of the Aglurmiut migration by some researchers (e.g., story was published by Edward Nelson (1899:516–517) as Jacobson 1998:xii–xix), but the migration was first men- the “Migration Legend.” He was told the story in 1880 tioned in Russian historical accounts sixty years before by Lachar Belkoff, an elder of the lower Yukon River vil- Nelson’s story was collected. A review of other versions of lage of Iqugmiut [present-day Russian Mission] (Nelson the migration follows. 1880:42). In this account, the eye-poking incident oc- curred at the site of Unglurmiut (from unglu, “nest”), in THE AGLURMIUT MIGRATION reference to the nest of a giant eagle said to have been located on a nearby mountaintop (Hansen 1985:119–123; The name “Aglurmiut”—a modern Yup’ik rendering see also Pratt 1993). There are many other stories about of what the Russians wrote as “Aglegmiut” (Jacobson this village (Hansen 1985:120; Nelson 1899:264), the 1998:xvn27)—was historically applied to what Wendell tremendous size of which is implied by the name given Oswalt (1967:4) understandably described as “the most to the watercourse along which it stood, i.e., “Thirty-Two perplexing of all Alaskan Eskimo” groups (see also Kazyga Slough” (Orth 1967:960), a reference to the num- VanStone 1967:xxi–xxii). This group was first mentioned ber of men’s houses (qasgiit) the site reportedly contained.6 by Petr Korsakovskiy in 1818, who identified them as the This detail about the village’s reported size should be kept “Aglegmiut Indians” and reported that “they had rather a in mind when evaluating the associated migration story, lot of conflict with neighboring peoples [who] have driven in which the eye-poking incident led to a state of civil them from their real territory and now [the Aglegmiut] re- war between Unglurmiut residents. The resulting factions side at the mouth of Naknek River” (VanStone 1988:29– reportedly migrated to the following locales: (1) the vil- 31). He also presented a description of the “Koingak lage of Qissunaq (ancestral to present-day Chevak), (2) Indians” (i.e., the Kuinerraq [Quinhagak] Eskimos) and Nunivak Island, and (3) the Nushagak area of Bristol Bay described their village as lying at the mouth of Kuskokwim (Fig. 3).7 River (VanStone 1988:46–47). Korsakovskiy did not say According to the story (Nelson 1899:516–517), the where the “real territory” of the Aglurmiut was located. Bristol Bay faction was subsequently attacked by a Koniag In the journals of his second (1819) expedition, however, war party, which it reportedly defeated, and then by Aleut the coastal inhabitants of Bristol Bay are referred to as the warriors from Unimak Island, who were victorious. Oddly, “Glakmiut,” which is presumed to mean the Aglurmiut the surviving migrants are said to have “joined with some (VanStone 1967:109, 1973:31), and said to be “constantly of their friends from Nunivak island and attacked the peo- at war with [the] Eskimos living along the Kuskokwim ple living at Goodnews bay . killing them and burning River” (VanStone 1988:69n 46; see also Khlebnikov their village.” They then built a village in the same locality 1994:56; VanStone 1967:118–119). (i.e., Goodnews Bay) and were living there at the time the Vasiliy Khromchenko’s 1822 journal noted that the Russians arrived in the country. The people reportedly “re- constant migration of the Aglurmiut is: sisted [the Russians] for some time [but finally scattered], still remembered by the old people, and constant some going back to Bristol Bay and others .