TERRITORY, TERRITORIALITY, AND CULTURAL CHANGE IN AN INDIGENOUS SOCIETY: OLD CROW, YUKON TERRITORY by ROBERT JAMES McSKIMMING B.Ed., University of British Columbia, 1971 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in the Department of Geography We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA May, 1975 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Depa rtment The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date ii ABSTRACT The purpose of the research is to examine the impact of cultural, economic, and environmental factors on territory and territoriality in Old Crow, Yukon Territory. It investigates both the social and spatial changes in the society. An historical sketch provides the circumstances which led Kutchin Indians of the northern Yukon to eventually attach themselves to trading posts. The changing nature of resource-use patterns and the relationship between •land-use' territory and 'perceived' territory is compared. The thesis framework, then, is to present an evolution of territory and territoriality in an isolated indigenous society. The territory of Old Crow is defined as that which reflects native use and perception. Territoriality, on the other hand, is the behaviour of dominating, controlling, and defending a specific space. Through use of the ecological approach the relationship between occupied territory and the group's image of its territory is explored. At the same time the present conditions of Old Crow's used and perceived territory is compared with past use and past expressions of territoriality. The ultimate purpose of this work is to shed light on the relationship between man and the environment with which he is intimately familiar. Little is known ill of the implications of territoriality on human behaviour and even less is known about the effect of territorial change on that behaviour. The thesis shows that territory cannot be separated from the behaviour of territoriality; the community's territory is that space which all members could identify as belonging to them. The group, essential to geographic study, is shown to be held together by common values toward the control and use of their territory and individual view• points could not be secured. The research supports the thesis that through cultural, social, and economic change the spatial extent of land used diminished and that there was a comparable drop in the spatial extent of territoriality. Furthermore, there has been an intensification of land use in the 'core' of the territory which has been parallelled by an intensification in the expressions of territoriality. However, although the total extent of the land is not used, it does not suggest that the people do not view the land as belonging to them. The land and its resources as perceived by the people of Old Crow are shown to be the only known and permanent commodities. Not only can the land provide a livelihood, but it is shown to be part of the people - a base for identity. In the final analysis it is the land itself now under attack which intensifies the relationship between Old Crow people and their land. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1 1. The Study: Its Purpose and Scope 1 (a) The Land-Settlement Dichotomy 2 (b) The Kutchin People k 2. Location and Setting of the Study Area 8 (a) Physical Geography 8 (b) The People of Old Crow 10 3. Methodological Context 12 (a) The Ecological Approach 12 (i) human ecology 12 (ii) ecology in Arctic studies 16 (iii) ecological approach in the present study 18 (b) Territory and Territoriality 19 (c) The Problem 22 (i) the hypothesis 22 (ii) data and sample size 2 3 (iii) procedures and measurements 2k CHAPTER II PEOPLE AND PLACE: OLD CROW'S HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT 2? A. TRADITIONAL MATERIAL AND SOCIAL CULTURE 27 1. Seasonal Movement and Location 27 2. Hunting and Fishing 30 3. Dress, Shelter and Travel 32 k. Social Organization 3k B. EARLY POST-CONTACT CULTURE 3k 1. Contact History 35 (a) Fur Traders 35 (b) Missionaries 41 (c) Gold Seekers and Whalers k2 (d) The Government k$ 2. Changes in the Way of Life k5 (a) Seasonal Movement and Location k"? (b) Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping kB (c) Dress, Shelter, and Travel 50 (d) Social Organization 52 3. The Establishment of Old Crow 5k V Page CHAPTER III OLD CROW TERRITORY 58 A. THE OLD CROW LAND 58 1. Utilization of the Old Crow Land 58 2. Change in Land-Use Pattern 6l 3. Ownership and the Intensity of the Use of the Old Crow Land . 70 (a) Ownership 70 (b) Intensity of Land Use 81 (i) trapping 81 (ii) hunting 89 (iii) ratting 93 (iv) fishing 96 4. Summary 96 B. THE OLD CROW ECONOMY 99 1. The Community Based Economy 100 2. Land Based Economy 105 (a) Cash for Land Activities 105 (b) Direct Consumption from Land Activities 108 3. Summary and Conclusions 113 CHAPTER IV TERRITORIALITY 115 1. Territoriality in the Past 116 2. Present Day Claims 122 3. The Perception of a Territory 126 (a) Core Area 130 (b) Home Territory 130 4. Territorial Commitment 134 5. The Old Crow Claim 142 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 144 1. Land-Use 144 2. Perceived Territory 146 3. Economic Realities 147 4. Territory and Territoriality 149 REFERENCES * 151 APPENDIX I OLD CROW FACT AND OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE 165 APPENDIX II ENDPAPERS I83 vi LIST OF FIGURES Page 1.1 Athapaskans in Northwest America 5 1.2 Old Crow Region 9 2.1 Kutchin Territory in the Northern Yukon 28 2.2 Contact History and the Tribes in Northwest America ' J6 2.3 Caribou Migration Routes 56 3.1 Trapping Centre Locations 60 3.2 Old Crow Land Use, Long Ago 63 3.3 Old Crow Land Use, i960 64 3.4 Crow Flats Muskrat Trapping Sectors 6? 3.5 Old Crow Land Use, 1973 69 3.6 Crow Flats Muskrat Trapping Camps (i960 and 1961) 72 3.7 Crow Flats Muskrat Trapping Camps, 1973 78 3.8 Country Food Production: Old Crow Hunter/Trapper Family in 1973 109 4.1 Kutchin Inter Tribal Territoriality 117 4.2 Land Claim Territory and Group Trapping Area 124 4.3 Image of Old Crow Territory's Core 129 4.4 Older People's Image of Old Crow Territory 131 4.5 Younger People's Image of Old Crow Territory 132 vii Page 4.6 Category Frequency of Scale Points For Each Location 136 4.7 Correlation and Regression of Defense Intensity and Accessible Distance from Old Crow 138 4.8 Old Crow Attitude Toward Pipeline 140 Questionnaire Map I69 Loucheux Map of the Old Crow Country •e-r cm r ocket Old Crow, 196 3 Old Crow, 1973 En&pap-er n-> f vill LIST OF TABLES Page . 3.1 Ratting Camps and Ratting Sectors, Old Crow Flats, 196O-6I 73 3.2 Muskrat Trapping Associations Long Ago, I960, 1973 77 3.3 Relationship Between Muskrat Trappers and Owner of Ratting Sectors, 1973 79 3.4 Productivity of Winter Traplines In Old Crow by Mile of Line Length and Per Trapper 83 3.5 Old Crow Fur Returns, 1938-1973 87 3.6 Hunt Productivity and Land Use Intensity 90 3.7 Old Crow Game Returns, 1963-1973 92 3.8 Muskrat Camp Productivity 94 3.9 Fur Returns for Muskrats " 95 3.10 Old Crow Fisheries, 1967-1973 97 3.11 Length of Time in Wage Employment, Old Crow, 1972-73 100 3.12 Employment Opportunities 101 3.13 Wage Income Distribution, Old Crow, 1972-73 102 3.14 Affinity to Old Crow by Residents 104 3.15 Fur Income, 1967-73 106 3.16 Families with Income From Land Activities, Old Crow, 1972-73 107 3.17 Land-Based Income as a Per Centage of Total Income, Old Crow, 1972-73 108 ix Page 3.18 Family Requirements and Consumption of Country Food, 1973 110 4.1 Pre-Contact and Early Contact Territoriality in Northwest North America 119 4.2 A. Defense Response Values 135 B. Defense Indicies and Accessible Distance from Old Crow to the Sample Locations 136 11.1 Loucheux Place Name Map, Name and Number Key 184 11.2 Building Code Key for Old Crow (1973) 196 11.3 Building Code Key for Old Crow (1963) 200 X ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The field portion of this research was carried out in the summer of 1973» under the auspices of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Federal and territorial agencies were extremely helpful in my search for data. In Old Crow the people were friendly and open, enduring what must have seemed ceaseless inquiry. Thanks go to the following, who, from time to time assisted in the research: Charlie Abel, Johnny Abel, Martha Benjamin, Ben Charlie, Charlie Peter Charlie, Helen Charlie, Shirley Frost, John Kendl, Peter Lord, Neil McDonald, George Moses, Grafton NJootli, and Moses Tizya. Special mention is made of Randall Charlie, Glenna Frost, and Norma Kassi, who made valuable contributions to the research team. My stay in Old Crow would not have been as rewarding without the company of Bob and Clare Sharp, Ed and Mary Issacs, Herta Richter, and Rev.