A History of Eyak Language Documentation and Study: Fredericæ de Laguna in Memoriam Michael E. Krauss Abstract. Frederica de Laguna is generally considered the person who “discovered” Eyak. This paper chronicles a parade of characters who recorded Eyak in (over 9) vocabularies (1778–1862) and even phonographically (1899); more who defi ned or mapped it, even (1863) in color. Freddy’s fi eldwork of the 1930s is then discussed, and fi nally that of linguists after her (1940 –2006). This is a history full of ironies that should entertain the reader appreciative of humanistics, human foibles, and the history of science. Frederica de Laguna stumbled upon Eyak, i.e. theless, when in 1930 Frederica de Laguna, Boas’s (re-)“discovered” Eyak, in 1930. However, she was student, came to Cordova, Alaska, to outfi t for by no means the fi rst to stumble upon Eyak. That Chugach Eskimo archeology, it was mere chance honor goes to William Anderson, in 1778, the fi rst that she then fi rst learned about Eyak. This is a person ever to write down an Eyak word. In fact, history full of ironies. I hope to do justice to them then from 1778 to 1885 there are over 20 written for the reader appreciative of humanistics and the sources of various kinds, documenting or defi ning, history of science. Given that even science is still or mapping the Eyak language. Of these sources, done by human beings, in chronicling the remark- six are mere individual or a few words, identi- able parade of characters involved with Eyak, inev- fi ed as Eyak or not, but six more are formal vocab- itably certain human traits that affect this history ularies of Eyak as such, ranging in length from 80 are too lively to conceal. I give up, and unapolo- to 1,128 words transcribed during the Russian pe- getically hope that the result may be entertaining riod. Of these formal vocabularies, one was pub- and instructive. For the Eyak contribution to this lished in English, and two more, including the history we have not a single person’s name, un- 1,128 words, were published in German. More- fortunately, until all that changed with Freddy in over, there are at least nine sources explicitly rec- 1930. A stylistic note: in his old age Krauss calls ognizing Eyak as a separate language. Two of all females by their fi rst name, and males, includ- those are well-known maps, dated 1796 and 1863, ing himself, by their last. the latter published in color, no less! The other The fi rst part of this paper, the longest and sources, no fewer than eight, are discussions of most detailed, deals chronologically with the rich Eyak as such and its genetic relations. Six of these pre-1930 history of Eyak language work, com- were published—mostly in German. Eyak was pletely unknown to Freddy, harping on that. The thus very well recognized and documented by the second section deals with the period of her Eyak standards of the time, when Franz Boas arrived work, and the last is a summary of work done af- from Germany upon the American scene. Never- ter her. Michael E. Krauss, Alaska Native Language Center University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska 99775-7680 ARCTIC ANTHROPOLOGY, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 172–218, 2006 ISSN 0066-6939; E-ISSN 1933-8139 © 2006 by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System 117-W4106.indd7-W4106.indd 117272 22/28/07/28/07 55:01:44:01:44 PPMM Krauss: A History of Eyak Language Documentation 173 The Pre-Russian Period, 1778–1791 write, so this must be his very last work. Of the re- maining 16 words on the list, 10 are identifi able The Russians’ fi rst direct contact with Alaska Na- uniquely as Chugach Yupik, 2 could be either Yu- tives was Gvozdev at the Diomedes and King Is- pik or Eyak, and 3 are not identifi able as Yupik land in 1732; Bering’s fi rst landfall, Kayak Island, but could well be Eyak. The best example might in 1741, without direct contact, was just offshore be Akashou, ‘What’s the name of that?’, possi- from Eyak territory. However, the Russians appar- bly Eyak ’a:k’e:’sh we ‘he/she/it maybe?’ or ’anh ently did not approach Eyak territory again for an- k’e:’sh we ‘he/she maybe?’, meaning roughly ‘Do other 40 years, until the 1780s, and did not es- you mean him/her?’, hardly a poor response, given tablish installations near it until the 1790s. In the no common language. The year 1778 is rather meanwhile, from 1778–1791, at least four foreign early for Eyak to be in evidence in Prince William expeditions made signifi cant contact at the ex- Sound, as the Eyak takeover of even the Copper treme ends of Eyak territory, two English at the River delta from the Chugach may not have begun Prince William Sound end (Anderson and Walker- until the early nineteenth century. If the words Strange), and one English (Colnett) and one Span- were not from Eyaks directly, it could be that the ish (Malaspina) at the Yakutat end. This was Chugach were using some Eyak words they knew, enough to write down Native Alaskan words in- in order to communicate better with the English, cluding some Eyak, or to notice Eyak as being dif- especially since the Chugach must have known ferent (Colnett). The Eyak words from Prince Wil- that the ships had come from the Eyak direction. liam Sound, collected in 1778 and 1786, were an The only manuscript source or version for admixture in formal Chugach vocabularies, not this vocabulary is Admiralty ms. 55/113, f. 60, a recognized as Eyak, as was the ethnonym col- clerk’s copy of a comparative Eskimo-Aleut vo- lected at Yakutat as part of a formal Tlingit vocab- cabulary, which for “Sandwich [Prince Wil- ulary. Here we shall deal only with those sources, liam] Sound” includes only the Tanaina numerals not with those that may have had direct or indirect plus Aa for ‘Yes, or Aye’ (which could be Yupik contact but show no evidence of Eyak language or Eyak) and Akashou, here with a macron over data or recognition of Eyak as a separate language the second a and an accent mark after it, glossed from Chugach and/or Tlingit. ‘What call you that?’ It is thus an independent source from that published, and is for some reason Anderson 1778 very partial. Of course it raises still further ques- tion as to what was in the lost Anderson journal, William Anderson (b. 1750, d. 1778) was James of which perhaps only this hodgepodge remains. Cook’s surgeon and naturalist on the Resolution It is thus quite unclear just how accidental the po- in Alaska. This young Scot, not yet thirty and dy- tential Eyak entries were. ing, was most certainly one of the very great lights on that momentous expedition. Modest, agreeable, diligent, Anderson was a most loved and esteemed Walker and Strange 1786 member of that illustrious crew. His ethnographic Eight years after Anderson sailed with Cook, and linguistic skills were outstanding, as were his two more enterprising Scots, now from the Brit- medical and naturalistic. By the time the expe- ish military in India, sailed to Prince William dition reached Prince William Sound, mid-May Sound, where they also took down a Prince Wil- 1778, Anderson knew he was near death from the liam Sound vocabulary. The expedition, private— tuberculosis that had consumed him for a year. His though loosely associated with the British East In- journals end two weeks after the expedition left dia Company, was organized and led by James Prince William Sound, and he died at sea, on Au- Strange (b. 1753, d. 1840) under the military com- gust 3, 1778. The last of Anderson’s three journal mand of Alexander Walker (b. 1764, d. 1831) in books from that expedition is lost, most unfortu- the Experiment and the Captain Cook. Inspired by nately, and all we have left of it is what was taken Cook’s Voyage (1784), their expedition, though ba- from it by editor John Douglas for Volume II of sically commercial, also had scientifi c goals, and the published Voyage (Cook 1784). This includes, had also put in at Nootka, where they too collected pp. 375–376, a “Vocabulary of Prince William’s a large Nootka vocabulary, before they sailed to Land,” a list of 25 entries. Of these, the last 8 are Prince William Sound. They were in the sound numerals, not from Prince William Sound, how- from August 29 to Septem ber 16, 1786. Both men ever, but from Cook Inlet Tanaina Athabaskan— kept journals, but neither of these was published presumably unbeknownst to the editor. This short until the twentieth century. Strange’s appeared in vocabulary thus has the fi rst words ever written 1928 (then again in 1929, reset, in Madras; Strange of Alaskan Athabaskan (as well as of Alutiiq and 1928 and 1929; the vocabulary is on pp. 54 –57). probably Eyak). The expedition reached Cook In- Walker’s was not published until 1982 (nicely, let about one week before Anderson ceased to with informative apparatus and background; 117-W4106.indd7-W4106.indd 117373 22/28/07/28/07 55:01:45:01:45 PPMM 174 Arctic Anthropology 43:2 Walker 1982, vocabulary on pp. 156–160). Unlike tion. Without going further into linguistic detail, the unfortunate case of Anderson, we also have at suffi ce it to say that possibly Anderson (in 1778) least fi ve manuscripts including the vocabulary, and even more possibly Walker-Strange (in 1786) though still not the original.