DOCSLIB.ORG

Deconstructing the Aglurmiut Migration an Analysis of Accounts from the Russian-America Period to the Present Kenneth L. Pratt

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Deconstructing the Aglurmiut Migration an Analysis of Accounts from the Russian-America Period to the Present Kenneth L. Pratt 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 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bristol Bay, Alaska
    EPA 910-R-14-001C | January 2014 An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska Volume 3 – Appendices E-J Region 10, Seattle, WA www.epa.gov/bristolbay EPA 910-R-14-001C January 2014 AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA VOLUME 3—APPENDICES E-J U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10 Seattle, WA CONTENTS VOLUME 1 An Assessment of Potential Mining Impacts on Salmon Ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska VOLUME 2 APPENDIX A: Fishery Resources of the Bristol Bay Region APPENDIX B: Non-Salmon Freshwater Fishes of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Drainages APPENDIX C: Wildlife Resources of the Nushagak and Kvichak River Watersheds, Alaska APPENDIX D: Traditional Ecological Knowledge and Characterization of the Indigenous Cultures of the Nushagak and Kvichak Watersheds, Alaska VOLUME 3 APPENDIX E: Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem: Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values APPENDIX F: Biological Characterization: Bristol Bay Marine Estuarine Processes, Fish, and Marine Mammal Assemblages APPENDIX G: Foreseeable Environmental Impact of Potential Road and Pipeline Development on Water Quality and Freshwater Fishery Resources of Bristol Bay, Alaska APPENDIX H: Geologic and Environmental Characteristics of Porphyry Copper Deposits with Emphasis on Potential Future Development in the Bristol Bay Watershed, Alaska APPENDIX I: Conventional Water Quality Mitigation Practices for Mine Design, Construction, Operation, and Closure APPENDIX J: Compensatory Mitigation and Large-Scale Hardrock Mining in the Bristol Bay Watershed AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MINING IMPACTS ON SALMON ECOSYSTEMS OF BRISTOL BAY, ALASKA VOLUME 3—APPENDICES E-J Appendix E: Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem: Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values Bristol Bay Wild Salmon Ecosystem Baseline Levels of Economic Activity and Values John Duffield Chris Neher David Patterson Bioeconomics, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract Book
    January 21-25, 2013 Alaska Marine Science Symposium hotel captain cook & Dena’ina center • anchorage, alaska Bill Rome Glenn Aronmits Hansen Kira Ross McElwee ShowcaSing ocean reSearch in the arctic ocean, Bering Sea, and gulf of alaSka alaskamarinescience.org Glenn Aronmits Index This Index follows the chronological order of the 2013 AMSS Keynote and Plenary speakers Poster presentations follow and are in first author alphabetical order according to subtopic, within their LME category Editor: Janet Duffy-Anderson Organization: Crystal Benson-Carlough Abstract Review Committee: Carrie Eischens (Chair), George Hart, Scott Pegau, Danielle Dickson, Janet Duffy-Anderson, Thomas Van Pelt, Francis Wiese, Warren Horowitz, Marilyn Sigman, Darcy Dugan, Cynthia Suchman, Molly McCammon, Rosa Meehan, Robin Dublin, Heather McCarty Cover Design: Eric Cline Produced by: NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center / North Pacific Research Board Printed by: NOAA Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Seattle, Washington www.alaskamarinescience.org i ii Welcome and Keynotes Monday January 21 Keynotes Cynthia Opening Remarks & Welcome 1:30 – 2:30 Suchman 2:30 – 3:00 Jeremy Mathis Preparing for the Challenges of Ocean Acidification In Alaska 30 Testing the Invasion Process: Survival, Dispersal, Genetic Jessica Miller Characterization, and Attenuation of Marine Biota on the 2011 31 3:00 – 3:30 Japanese Tsunami Marine Debris Field 3:30 – 4:00 Edward Farley Chinook Salmon and the Marine Environment 32 4:00 – 4:30 Judith Connor Technologies for Ocean Studies 33 EVENING POSTER
    [Show full text]
  • Fisheries Rehabilitation and Enhancement in Bristol Bay-A
    FISHERIES REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT IN BRISTOL BAY A COMPLETION REPORT BY Melinda L. Rowse and W. Michael Kaill Number 18 Report No./BB009 FISHERIES REHABILITATION AND ENHANCEMENT IN BRISTOL BAY A COMPLETION REPORT BY Melinda L. Rowse and W. Michael Kaill Number 18 Alaska Department of Fish and Game Division of Fisheries Rehabilitation, Enhancement & Development Don W. Collinsworth Commissioner Stanley A. Moberly Di rector P.O. BOX 3-2000 Juneau, Alaska 99802 November 1983 TABLE OF CQNTENTS Section Page Abstract ........................................................ 1 Introduction .................................................... 2 Area Assessment ................................................. 2 Description of the Fishery ................................. 2 Japanese High Seas Fishery ................................. 4 History of Sockeye Salmon Rehabilitation in Bristol Bay ......... 7 Lake Fertilization ......................................... 9 Hatchery Evaluation ........................................ 12 Predator/Competitor Studies ................................ 12 Beluga Whale Predation ................................ 12 Stickleback Competition ............................... 13 Arctic Char Predation ................................. 14 Goals of F.R.E.D. Division in Bristol Bay ....................... 1.8 Report on F.R.E.D. Division Projects ............................ 19 Lake Nunavaugaluk Sockeye Salmon Smolt Studies ............. 19 Methods and Materials ................................. 19 Results ..............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership Strategic Plan (2017)
    Southwest Alaska Salmon Habitat Partnership Strategic Conservation Action Plan for Southwest Alaska Watersheds 2017 Update Preface In studying the history of the decline of the salmon runs of the Pacific Coast, it is striking to notice how invariably these declines are blamed on over-fishing. These statements come most often from those least acquainted with the subject and are frequently made to cover up other causes, which may be of their own making. While it is true that over-fishing is responsible for many declines, there is evidence to show that in numerous cases it is of minor or no consequence. The actual reasons are often found to be changes in the environment of the salmon due to natural and unnatural (man-made) conditions. This is especially true of the fresh water stages of its existence. Many examples could be cited. Some of the natural ones are cyclic climatic changes, floods, droughts, freezes, earthquakes, earth slides, beaver dams and increase in predators. On the other hand there are such man-made, or unnatural, causes as deforestation due to logging; hydro-electric, irrigation, flood control, and navigation projects; pollution, especially from pulp mills; soil conservation and reclamation schemes; gravel washing and mining operations; road construction such as stream culverts; insect control using poisonous sprays; and many others. The listing of these does not necessarily mean that all are inimical to the continuation of our salmon fisheries. It does mean, however, that if such projects are improperly and unwisely planned, the results will be disastrous to our fisheries. Alaska needs new industries, but not at the expense of her most important resource, which if properly cared for, will produce year after year.
    [Show full text]
  • Wildlife Protection Guidelines for Alaska
    Wildlife Protection Guidelines for Alaska Alaska Regional Response Team, Wildlife Protection Committee Revision 5 – August 2012 2018 Administrative Update Revision 5 – August 2012 Administrative Update: March 2018 1 Table of Contents I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................... G-5 A. Background G-5 B. Objectives ........................................................................................................................... G-5 C. Scope of Wildlife Protection Guidelines for Alaska ............................................................... G-6 1. Geographic Area ............................................................................................................. G-6 2. Wildlife Resources .......................................................................................................... G-8 3. Wildlife Resource Agencies ............................................................................................. G-8 D. Committee Organization and Development of Guidelines ................................................... G-8 1. Committee Organization ................................................................................................. G-8 2. Development of Guidelines ............................................................................................ G-9 E. Relationship to National Planning Requirements and Guidance .......................................... G-9 F. Procedures for Revisions and
    [Show full text]
  • COMPARISON of the PEBBLE MINE with OTHER ALASKA LARGE HARD ROCK MINES
    COMPARISON of the PEBBLE MINE with OTHER ALASKA LARGE HARD ROCK MINES Stuart Levit and David Chambers Center for Science in Public Participation February, 2012 Summary If permitted, the Pebble mine will be North America’s, and one of the world’s largest mines. It has been suggested that in spite of its size the Pebble mine is comparable to other Alaska mining projects. The amount of ore mined and the area that would be disturbed by development at the Pebble mine is on a scale entirely of its own in Alaska, and even enormous on a global scale. Size alone does not determine impacts, but based on other factors such as acid producing potential, easy movement of water away from the mine, a world class fishery, wet climate regime, etc., the mine’s potential impacts could be significant and irreparable. Several of Alaska’s large mines have potentially acid producing ore, but none are truly comparable with the size of the proposed Pebble mine. The Pebble Mine is unique compared to Alaska’s other large, hard rock mines when looking at characteristics such as size, geochemistry, geomorphology, fisheries, and hydrology. When viewed through the aggregate of these factors, the Pebble mine is distinctly different from any other present or past hard rock mine in Alaska. More important is Pebble’s massive potential to impact the pristine lands with industrial development. The Bristol Bay watershed is unique in Alaska because it comprises Alaska’s, and one of the world’s, greatest salmon fisheries. It supports cultural, subsistence, commercial, recreational, economic, and environmental values that are unparalleled.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Park Science 19(1): Arctic Alaska Are Living at the Species’ Northern-Most to Identify Habitats Most Frequented by Bears and 4-9
    National Park Service US Department of the Interior Alaska Park Science Region 11, Alaska Below the Surface Fish and Our Changing Underwater World Volume 19, Issue 1 Noatak National Preserve Cape Krusenstern Gates of the Arctic Alaska Park Science National Monument National Park and Preserve Kobuk Valley Volume 19, Issue 1 National Park June 2020 Bering Land Bridge Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve National Preserve Denali National Wrangell-St Elias National Editorial Board: Park and Preserve Park and Preserve Leigh Welling Debora Cooper Grant Hilderbrand Klondike Gold Rush Jim Lawler Lake Clark National National Historical Park Jennifer Pederson Weinberger Park and Preserve Guest Editor: Carol Ann Woody Kenai Fjords Managing Editor: Nina Chambers Katmai National Glacier Bay National National Park Design: Nina Chambers Park and Preserve Park and Preserve Sitka National A special thanks to Sarah Apsens for her diligent Historical Park efforts in assembling articles for this issue. Her Aniakchak National efforts helped make this issue possible. Monument and Preserve Alaska Park Science is the semi-annual science journal of the National Park Service Alaska Region. Each issue highlights research and scholarship important to the stewardship of Alaska’s parks. Publication in Alaska Park Science does not signify that the contents reflect the views or policies of the National Park Service, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute National Park Service endorsement or recommendation. Alaska Park Science is found online at https://www.nps.gov/subjects/alaskaparkscience/index.htm Table of Contents Below the Surface: Fish and Our Changing Environmental DNA: An Emerging Tool for Permafrost Carbon in Stream Food Webs of Underwater World Understanding Aquatic Biodiversity Arctic Alaska C.
    [Show full text]
  • Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter; Final Rule
    Thursday, October 8, 2009 Part III Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Southwest Alaska Distinct Population Segment of the Northern Sea Otter; Final Rule VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:03 Oct 07, 2009 Jkt 220001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\08OCR3.SGM 08OCR3 srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES3 51988 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 194 / Thursday, October 8, 2009 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR northern sea otter, refer to the final published in the Federal Register on listing rule published in the Federal August 9, 2005 (70 FR 46366). Fish and Wildlife Service Register on August 9, 2005 (70 FR Summary of Comments and 46366), the proposed rule to designate Recommendations 50 CFR Part 17 critical habitat published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2008 (73 FR We requested written comments from [FWS–R7–ES–2008–0105; 92210–1117– the public during the public comment 0000–FY08–B4] 76454), and the June 9, 2009 (74 FR 27271), notice of availability of the draft period on the proposed rule to designate RIN 1018–AV92 economic analysis (DEA). More detailed critical habitat for the southwest Alaska information on northern sea otter DPS of the northern sea otter. During the Endangered and Threatened Wildlife biology and ecology that is directly public comment period, we also and Plants; Designation of Critical relevant to designation of critical habitat contacted appropriate Federal, State, Habitat for the Southwest Alaska is discussed under the Primary and local agencies; Alaska Native Distinct Population Segment of the Constituent Elements section below.
    [Show full text]
  • A. F. Kashevarov, the Russian -American Company and Alaska
    A. F. KASHEVAROV, THE RUSSIAN-AMERICAN COMPANY, AND ALASKA CONSERVATION Ryan Tucker Jones Idaho State University, 935 W. Clark St., Pocatello, ID 83204; [email protected] ABSTRACT As Russia debated selling Alaska in the 1860s, A. F. Kashevarov, an Alaska Creole, published his thoughts about reforming the Russian-American Company (RAC). In several articles for the Russian naval journal Morskoi Sbornik, he described the RAC’s hunting policies and conservation measures. Kashevarov’s articles represent some of the few sources providing information on Russian-era tradi- tional ecological knowledge (TEK), even if his depth of knowledge concerning Aleut (Unangan) and Alutiiq environmental practices and conceptions is uncertain. Despite company claims of conserva- tion successes, in Kashevarov’s view the RAC had misunderstood the Alaska environment and mis- managed its fur resources. Claiming that marine mammals behaved unpredictably and were entwined in a complex ecology, Kashevarov insisted that company attempts to create zapusks (closed seasons) did not work. Instead, he proposed that only Alaska Natives understood the animals well enough to manage them and thus should be ceded control over Alaska’s environment. Though these radical claims were met with company derision, Kashevarov’s pleas for ecological sophistication and ecologi- cal justice provide some glimpse into the desires of Alaska Natives shortly before the colony’s demise. INTRODUCTION In the 1860s, as the Russian empire debated selling Alaska see Dmytryshyn et al. 1989:518–524), shed valuable light to the United States, some new, unexpected voices arose to on Alaska’s environmental history, the RAC’s conserva- challenge Russian-American Company (RAC) adminis- tion policies, and the history of Alaska Natives and hint trators and imperial officials and put forth their own plans at alternate paths not taken but that still seemed possi- for the colony.
    [Show full text]
  • NORTHERN EXPOSURE: PEOPLES, POWERS and Orientations, All of the Chapters in This Volume Explore These PROSPECTS in CANADA’S NORTH
    CORE Metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk Provided by University of Calgary Journal Hosting rEVIEWS • 243 or the Real-ökonomie of new-frontier resource exploitation. aboriginal and public governance; economic development; Zellen has written a book that will make us think, and for and education and human capital. The impressive list of that, his contribution should be lauded and welcomed as a contributing authors includes inuit and First nations lead- source of important discussion among students and scholars ers, former territorial premiers, and aboriginal youth, as of northern studies and northern policy makers alike. well as Siila Watt-cloutier (nobel peace prize nominee) and Mary Simon (former canadian ambassador for cir- cumpolar affairs), who provide insightful commentaries. ReferEnces in general terms, the volume addresses three fundamen- tal challenges facing canada’s north. The first is allowing Bell, J. 2006. okalik: Devolution must include internal waters. northern governing institutions, be they public or aborigi- Nunatsiaq News, December 22. www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/ nal, the necessary autonomy and means to make and imple- archives/61222/news/nunavut/61222_05.html. ment policies that reflect the interests of northerners. To Freeman, M.M.r. 1976. inuit land use and occupancy study, 3 date it is unclear whether the federal system is sufficiently vols. ottawa: Milton Freeman research inc. organized to support these new governing processes. The second challenge is to depart from outdated allegiances Stephanie Irlbacher-Fox to short-term economic development initiatives that focus University of Toronto almost exclusively on large-scale mineral and infrastructure Dalla Lana School of Public Health and development, often at the expense of other, perhaps more Institute of Circumpolar Health Research sustainable, economic development opportunities.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulatory Impacts on a Yup'ik Fish Camp in Southwest Alaska
    Regulatory Impacts on a Yup’ik Fish Camp in Southwest Alaska by Jory Stariwat B.A., University of Alaska, Anchorage, 2008 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE AND POSTDOCTORAL STUDIES (Anthropology) THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Vancouver) AUGUST 2016 © Jory Stariwat, 2016 Abstract Yup’ik fishers on the Nushagak River of Southwest Alaska harvest salmon for both subsistence and commercial purposes, however their cultural protocol and formal resource management principles are unrecognized by the State of Alaska. Drawing from two summers of ethnographic research and experience as an Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) anthropologist, I examine one state regulation preventing drift gillnetting for subsistence purposes. The analysis reveals that the Alaska Department of Fish & Game is currently preventing cultural adaptation on the Nushagak River despite Yup’ik communities maintaining sustainable harvest levels for millennia. Changes in river conditions, namely the location of sandbars and channels, in addition to warming water temperatures, necessitate the application of the traditional harvest method, drift gillnetting, to meet the harvest goals of Yup’ik fishers at the Lewis Point fish camp on the Nushagak River. The Alaska Board of Fisheries has maintained that drifting only be employed in the commercial fishery, not the subsistence fishery, despite policy dictating a subsistence priority over other consumptive uses. While failing to meet the subsistence priority codified in its own policy, the State of Alaska also fails to provide a meaningful role to the tribes in the decision-making domain of resource management.
    [Show full text]
  • Refashioning Production in Bristol Bay, Alaska by Karen E. Hébert A
    Wild Dreams: Refashioning Production in Bristol Bay, Alaska by Karen E. Hébert A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Anthropology) in the University of Michigan 2008 Doctoral Committee: Professor Fernando Coronil, Chair Associate Professor Arun Agrawal Associate Professor Stuart A. Kirsch Associate Professor Barbra A. Meek © Karen E. Hébert 2008 Acknowledgments At a cocktail party after an academic conference not long ago, I found myself in conversation with another anthropologist who had attended my paper presentation earlier that day. He told me that he had been fascinated to learn that something as “mundane” as salmon could be linked to so many important sociocultural processes. Mundane? My head spun with confusion as I tried to reciprocate chatty pleasantries. How could anyone conceive of salmon as “mundane”? I was so confused by the mere suggestion that any chance of probing his comment further passed me by. As I drifted away from the conversation, it occurred to me that a great many people probably deem salmon as mundane as any other food product, even if they may consider Alaskan salmon fishing a bit more exotic. At that moment, I realized that I was the one who carried with me a particularly pronounced sense of salmon’s significance—one that I shared with, and no doubt learned from, the people with whom I conducted research. The cocktail-party exchange made clear to me how much I had thoroughly adopted some of the very assumptions I had set out simply to study. It also made me smile, because it revealed how successful those I got to know during my fieldwork had been in transforming me from an observer into something more of a participant.
    [Show full text]