Culture and Archaeology of the Ancestral Unangax̂/Aleut of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska: Unangam Tanangin ilan Unangax̂/Aliguutax̂ Maqax̂singin ama Kadaangim Tanangin Anaĝix̂taqangis 303144292X, 9783031442926

Table of contents :
Acknowledgements
Contents
List of Figures
List of Tables
1 Introduction
Demolishing Archaeological Myths
Our Approach in Writing This Book
Roadmap
Unanga^ is the Aleut Word for Aleut
References
2 The Physical Environment
The Aleutian Evolution: Plate Tectonics, Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Tsunami
Living with Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Tsunami
Volcanoes and Archaeology
Tsunami, Earthquakes, and the Unanga^
The Sea
Tides and Sea Levels
Weather and Climate
Climate Variation and Change in the Aleutian Islands
Climate at the End of the Pleistocene
The Holocene
Early Holocene (9000–5000 BP)
Neoglacial Period (4200–2500 BP)
2500–1200 BP
The Medieval Warm Period (1200–1000 BP)
1000–600 BP
The Little Ice Age (600–100 BP)
Consequences of Climate Change
References
3 The Living Environment
Ecotones and Patches
Open Ocean to Nearshore Waters (The Pelagic Zone)
Where Sea Meets Sky
The Nearshore
The Liminal Littoral and Adjacent Shorelines
Islands of Lakes
Modern Environmental Changes and the Loss of an Analogue
References
4 The People
The First Alaskans
The First Unanga^ Arrive (ca. 9000 to 6000 Years BP)
7000 to 6000 Years Ago
Settling in and Spreading Out (6000 to 4200 BP)
Mid-Holocene Cooling (4200 to 2500 BP)
The Climate Moderates (2500 to 1200 Years BP)
Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climatic Anomaly (1200 to 600 Years BP)
Who Are the “Neo- and Paleo-Aleuts,” and Are They Real?
Little Ice Age and the Arrival of Russians (600 to 200 Years BP)
References
5 People on the Landscape
Pre-contact Aleut Population
Ethnic Divisions
Types of Aleut Sites
Villages
Camps
Upland Sites
Other Site Types
Petroglyphs
Umqan
Mound Clusters
Caves and Rockshelters
Historic Sites and Features
Settlement Patterning
Regional Settlement Systems
Landscape Archaeology
Kinship
Social Rank
Leadership
Trade and Exchange Mechanisms
Archaeology of Rank
Warfare
Enemies
Leadership and Campaign Planning
Tactics
Massacres: Big Raids
Pitched Battles
Naval Battles
Weapons
Fortifications
Aftermath
References
6 Making a Living
Spiritual Authority for, and Obligations of, Hunting
The Organization of Production
Alaĝu^, the Open Ocean
Offshore Sea Mammal Hunting
Hunting Solo and with a Partner
The Hunting Surround
Offshore Bird Hunting
Iqya^, The Unanga^ Kayak
Capabilities
Construction
Iqya^ Accessories
Hunting Clothes
The Hunting Kit
Hasxu^, The Throwing Board
Harpoon and Spear Foreshafts and Sockets, Tumga^
Tuhmu^, Rings
Spear Foreshafts
Toggling Harpoon Foreshafts
Harpoon Foreshafts
Harpoon and Spear Points
Spear Points
Harpoon Points
What Does This Mean?
Fishing for Birds
Offshore Fishing
Offshore Fishing Gear
Faunal Evidence for Offshore Hunting and Fishing
Marine Mammals
Offshore Birds
Offshore Fish
Alaĝum Achidaa, At the Seashore
Onshore Sea Mammal Hunting
Onshore Bird Hunting
Inshore Fishing
Inshore Collecting on Reefs
Fishing Gear
Fishhook Primer
Qanaaĝasi^, Qasaaĝuusi^, “Instrument for Fishing, Fishhook”
Again, What Does This Mean?
Faunal Evidence for Inshore Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering
Birds
Fish
Shellfish/Invertebrates
Other Shellfish
Tanadgusim Akuu^igan “Behind the Village, Away from the Shore”: Terrestrial Habitats and Organisms
Land Mammal Hunting
Land Mammal Trapping
Terrestrial Bird Hunting
Onshore Fishing
Onshore Collecting
Bones and Shells in Sites
Terrestrial Birds
Freshwater Fish
References
7 Life at Home
Houses
The Stone-Walled Houses of the Neoglacial
Ulaagamax-Longhouses
Near Island Chief’s Houses
Peninsula-Style Longhouses
Unalaska Style Longhouses
Izembek Whalebone House
Barabaras, Yurts, and Kasamax
A Map of Domestic Life
Four Genders
A Woman’s Work Is Never Done
Lamps
Food
Storage
Food Preparation Utensils
Sewing and Weaving
Man the Hunter
Wood and Bone Working
Lithic Technology
Paints
Conclusion
References
8 Transitions
Becoming a Person
Puberty
Marriage
Disease and Illness
Mourning and Death
Burial
Burials in Structures
Ulaaka^
Qumna^
Umqan
Mounds
Rockshelters and Caves
Mummies, As^aana^
Shamans and Shamanism
Public Ceremonies
Archaeology of Aleut Ceremonialism
Masks
Conclusions
References
9 Reflection
Continuity
Change
Myths and Dogma
Where is the New Research Going?
Applications of Ancestral Knowledge
References

Citation preview

Debra Corbett · Diane Hanson

Culture and Archaeology of the Ancestral Unangaxˆ/ Aleut of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska Unangam Tanangin ilan Unangaxˆ/ Aliguutaxˆ Maqaxˆ singin ama Kadaangim Tanangin Anaĝixˆ taqangis Illustrations by Mark Luttrell

Culture and Archaeology of the Ancestral Unangaˆx/Aleut of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska

Debra Corbett · Diane Hanson

Culture and Archaeology of the Ancestral Unangaˆx/Aleut of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska Unangam Tanangin ilan Unangaˆx/Aliguutaˆx Maqaˆxsingin ama Kadaangim Tanangin Anaˆgiˆxtaqangis

Illustrations by Mark Luttrell

Debra Corbett Nanutset Heritage Anchorage, AK, USA

Diane Hanson Department of Anthropology and Geography University of Alaska Anchorage Anchorage, AK, USA

ISBN 978-3-031-44292-6 ISBN 978-3-031-44294-0 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44294-0 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Illustrations by: Mark Luttrell, Seward, AK, USA This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland Paper in this product is recyclable.

Kanaagis (To the ancestors of the Unangaˆx)

Acknowledgements

Our first acknowledgment is to the Unangaˆx or Aleut people, the Indigenous people of the Aleutian Islands, the culture bearers, language holders, and parents that pass the wisdom of their grandparents to the children and maintain the continuity of Unangaˆx culture. Moses Dirks kindly translated the title and dedication of the book. Melvin Smith, Ben Leon-Garcia, and Carmen Philemonof at the Aleut Corporation offered endless support and advice. Any profits from the sale of this book will go to the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association cultural program. So many people have helped along the many (many) years we have been working on this. Michael Livingston, Douglas Veltre, and Tom Corbett read some of our early chapters and commented on them. Our writing group, which included Margan Grover and Allison Young, encouraged and helped us work through our chapters. Deb Vanesse was our motivational editor who got us going again when we hit a low in our progress and reviewed each chapter. Debbie’s Alaska Native mentors, teachers, and friends who made her think beyond rocks and bones to the ancestors who made them—thank you, Alice and Patricia Petrivelli and Alexandra Lindgren. Not directly involved but certainly influential were our parents and family. Jack and Sue Garland, Debbie Corbett’s mother, Sue Garland, fascinated by Debbie’s passion for archaeology from a very early age encouraged her dream, and later was able to participate in an Aleutian field trip. Diane’s father, Allen Hanson, first introduced her to information about the Aleutian Islands and he and her mother, Kay Hanson, passed along an interest in science and the love for Alaska that led her to the Aleutian Islands, one of the most beautiful places on earth. Our mentors, colleagues, and friends who kept the passion alive and demanded dedication and perseverance as well as love for the Aleutian Islands and archaeology along the way included Jean Aigner, Michael Bartlett, Lydia Black, Richard Jordan, William Sheppard, and Douglas Veltre. Fieldwork in the western Aleutian Islands would have been impossible without the logistical support given by the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge and especially the crew of the R/V Tiglaˆx and Lisa Spitler for getting us there and back. Thanks to every crew member that worked with us on the various projects in the Aleutian Islands. We learned from each of you.

vii

viii

Acknowledgements

Rajan Muthu with Springer had infinite patience and through his annual queries reinfused the guilt that kept us moving. Liz Ortiz gave Diane Hanson a place to stay one summer while she was away, and that largely contributed to the completion of one chapter. Two sabbatical years from the University of Alaska Anchorage and borrowed empty offices also contributed toward the completion of the book. We also appreciate the support from our families, particularly Tom Corbett and Bob Furilla who probably thought we would never finish.

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Demolishing Archaeological Myths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Our Approach in Writing This Book . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roadmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unangaˆx is the Aleut Word for Aleut . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1 8 10 10 11 14

2 The Physical Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Aleutian Evolution: Plate Tectonics, Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Tsunami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Living with Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Tsunami . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Volcanoes and Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tsunami, Earthquakes, and the Unangaˆx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Sea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tides and Sea Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weather and Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate Variation and Change in the Aleutian Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Climate at the End of the Pleistocene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Holocene . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Early Holocene (9000–5000 BP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neoglacial Period (4200–2500 BP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2500–1200 BP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Medieval Warm Period (1200–1000 BP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1000–600 BP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Little Ice Age (600–100 BP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Consequences of Climate Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21

3 The Living Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ecotones and Patches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Open Ocean to Nearshore Waters (The Pelagic Zone) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63 63 65

22 27 33 34 37 40 42 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 51 52 52 54

ix

x

Contents

Where Sea Meets Sky . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 The Nearshore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 The Liminal Littoral and Adjacent Shorelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Islands of Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Modern Environmental Changes and the Loss of an Analogue . . . . . . . . . 102 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4 The People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The First Alaskans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The First Unangaˆx Arrive (ca. 9000 to 6000 Years BP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7000 to 6000 Years Ago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Settling in and Spreading Out (6000 to 4200 BP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mid-Holocene Cooling (4200 to 2500 BP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Climate Moderates (2500 to 1200 Years BP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climatic Anomaly (1200 to 600 Years BP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Who Are the “Neo- and Paleo-Aleuts,” and Are They Real? . . . . . . . . . . . Little Ice Age and the Arrival of Russians (600 to 200 Years BP) . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

119 121 125 132 133 135 138

5 People on the Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pre-contact Aleut Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ethnic Divisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Types of Aleut Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Villages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Camps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Upland Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Site Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petroglyphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Umqan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mound Clusters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Caves and Rockshelters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historic Sites and Features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Settlement Patterning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regional Settlement Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Landscape Archaeology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kinship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Trade and Exchange Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Archaeology of Rank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Warfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Enemies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Leadership and Campaign Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tactics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

157 157 159 162 162 164 164 166 168 169 170 171 171 172 173 178 179 180 182 182 183 187 188 189 189

139 140 145 149

Contents

xi

Massacres: Big Raids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pitched Battles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Naval Battles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fortifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aftermath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

191 192 192 193 201 202 203

6 Making a Living . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spiritual Authority for, and Obligations of, Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Organization of Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alaˆguˆx, the Open Ocean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Offshore Sea Mammal Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hunting Solo and with a Partner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hunting Surround . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Offshore Bird Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iqyaˆx, The Unangaˆx Kayak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Capabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iqyaˆx Accessories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hunting Clothes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Hunting Kit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hasxuˆx, The Throwing Board . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harpoon and Spear Foreshafts and Sockets, Tumgaˆx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tuhmuˆx, Rings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spear Foreshafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toggling Harpoon Foreshafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harpoon Foreshafts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harpoon and Spear Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spear Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harpoon Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What Does This Mean? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fishing for Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Offshore Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Offshore Fishing Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Faunal Evidence for Offshore Hunting and Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marine Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Offshore Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Offshore Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alaˆgum Achidaa, At the Seashore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Onshore Sea Mammal Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Onshore Bird Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inshore Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Inshore Collecting on Reefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

213 214 215 216 216 218 221 222 223 226 227 229 230 231 237 237 239 239 239 240 240 244 246 251 255 255 256 258 260 263 263 263 264 266 267 268

xii

Contents

Fishing Gear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fishhook Primer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qanaaˆgasiˆx, Qasaaˆguusiˆx, “Instrument for Fishing, Fishhook” . . . . . . Again, What Does This Mean? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Faunal Evidence for Inshore Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering . . . . . . . . . . Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shellfish/Invertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other Shellfish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tanadgusim Akuuˆgigan “Behind the Village, Away from the Shore”: Terrestrial Habitats and Organisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land Mammal Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Land Mammal Trapping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terrestrial Bird Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Onshore Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Onshore Collecting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bones and Shells in Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terrestrial Birds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Freshwater Fish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

272 272 274 279 280 280 282 282 283

7 Life at Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Stone-Walled Houses of the Neoglacial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulaagamax-Longhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Near Island Chief’s Houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peninsula-Style Longhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Unalaska Style Longhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Izembek Whalebone House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Barabaras, Yurts, and Kasamax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Map of Domestic Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Four Genders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A Woman’s Work Is Never Done . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lamps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Food Preparation Utensils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sewing and Weaving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Man the Hunter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wood and Bone Working . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lithic Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

309 309 311 313 314 315 317 318 319 319 321 322 323 324 331 333 337 344 346 349 351 352 352

283 284 285 286 287 290 293 294 295 295

Contents

xiii

8 Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Becoming a Person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Puberty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marriage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Disease and Illness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mourning and Death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Burial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Burials in Structures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ulaakaˆx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qumnaˆx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Umqan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rockshelters and Caves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mummies, Asˆxaanaˆx . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shamans and Shamanism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Public Ceremonies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Archaeology of Aleut Ceremonialism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Masks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

361 361 363 363 364 366 368 369 372 373 375 376 376 381 383 385 391 393 396 396

9 Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Continuity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Myths and Dogma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Where is the New Research Going? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Applications of Ancestral Knowledge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

403 404 406 409 412 415 416

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 Fig. 1.2 Fig. 1.3

North Pacific Ocean and the Aleutian Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aleutian Islands colonization and research timeline . . . . . . . . . . . a Western Aleutian Island Site numbers and names mentioned in text 1. ATU-019, Austin Cove; ATU-198; ATU-004, Nanikax; ATU-014, Murder Point; 2. ATU-003, ATU-021, ATU-022, ATU-061; 3. Gillon Point Petroglyphs; ATU-030, ATU-227; ATU-228, Aga Cove; ATU-001; ATU-002, Krugloi Point; 4. KIS-008, Buldir; 5. KIS-005, Witchcraft Point: KIS-002, Little Kiska; KIS-010, Gertrude Cove; KIS-076, KIS-077, Gertrude Cove Mounds; KIS-050, Corvie Bay; 14. KIS-162; 15. RAT-081; 16. RAT-163; RAT-164; RAT-165, Mound clusters; 17. RAT-076, RAT-077, Refuge Rocks; 18. RAT-003, RAT-010, RAT-014, RAT-031, RAT-032; RAT-035; RAT-036; RAT-060, RAT-068; 19. XGI-008, Amatignak Umqans; 20. Kavalga Cave; 21. Tanaga Cave; 22. ADK-071, Kanaga Cave). b Central Aleutian Island Sites numbers and names mentioned in text (1. ADK-127, ADK-237; 2. ADK-265, ADK-266, ADK-273; 3. ADK-009, ADK-011, ADK-171; 4. ATK-002, Korovinski Village, ATK-005; 5. ATK-003, Atxalax; 6. AMK-003, AMK-008, AMK-009, SAM-009, SAM-014, SAM-016, SAM-017, SAM-047; 7. SAM-019, Warm Cave, SAM-020, Cold Cave, Mask Cave; 8. UMK-001, Chaluka; 9. SAM-006, SAM-012, Anangula Blade Site; 10. SAM-007 Aglagax, SAM-009 Nutxalx, SAM-010 Oglodax, SAM-040 Sandy Beach Bay, SAM-042, SAM-043 Idaliuk; 11. UMK-011, Aishishik Point;

2 4

xv

xvi

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 4.1 Fig. 5.1 Fig. 5.2 Fig. 5.3 Fig. 5.4 Fig. 5.5 Fig. 5.6

Fig. 5.7

List of Figures

12. UNL-001, Ship Rock). c Eastern Aleutian Island and Alaska Peninsula Sites numbers and names mentioned in text (1. UNL-035, Chernofski Village; 2. UNL-097, Split Rock; 3. UNL-003, Kashega Village; 4. UNL-063, Reese Bay Village; 5. UNL-048 Margaret Bay, UNL-050 Amaknak Bridge, UNL-055 Tanaxtaxax, UNL-092 Summer Bay, UNL-115, UNL-318 Oiled Blade Site, UNL-469; 6. UNL-143 Egg Island; 7. UNL108, Old Biorka Village; 8. UNI-002 Chulka, UNI-016, UNI-044, UNI-048; 9. UNI-104, UNI-125; 10. UNI-009, Tigalda Village; 11. UNI-067 Agayadan Village, UNI-071; 12. XCB-004 Morzhovoi, XCB-105 Adamagan, XCB-110; 13. XCB-001, XCB-003, XCB-030 Strawberry Point, XCB-057; 14. XCB-022 Russell Creek; 15. XCB-005, XCB-028; 16. XFP-054, XFP-056, XFP-067, XFP-110, XFP-121, XFP-132; 17. XSI-011, XSI-024, XSI-030, XSI-038, XSI-040, XPM-042; 18, XPM-042, Caverne d’Aknanh; 19. XPM-001 Port Moller Hot Springs) . . . . . . . . . . . Ocean currents of the Aleutian Archipelago . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Archaeological periods and climatic events for the Aleutian chain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Historic ethnic divisions (Modified after Black 1984.) . . . . . . . . . Midden site with house depressions seen from offshore . . . . . . . Agattu Island petroglyph site. Photo courtesy of the National Marine Fisheries Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gertrude cove mounds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schematic Village Complex with coastal and inland sites . . . . . . Sadiron and decorated stone lamps. (1) Sadiron lamp from Umnak. (2) Sadiron lamp from Amaknak Bridge, Unalaska. (3) Boulder lamp from Buldir with pecked grooves on rim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Carved and decorative bone and ivory objects. a Bone pendant, similar objects are found across the archipelago. b Ivory link, eastern Aleutian Islands. c Spiral carved ivory, unknown use. d Ivory pendant. e Bone pin, possibly a nose ornament. f Ivory, unknown use. g Drilled seal tooth, pan-Aleutian Archipelago. h Bone “mushroom” button, Buldir Island. i Bone “curlicue,” unknown use, Near Islands. j Ivory pin or tattoo needle. k Ivory plaque, Amaknak Island. l U-shaped stone rod, eastern Aleutian Islands. m Ivory Qusidax, nose ornament. n Ivory bar, unknown use, Amaknak Island. o Ivory “plaque” possibly a hat ornament. p Ivory, round capped object, unknown use. q Bone comb, probably a sinew or grass splitter. r,s Bone pins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12 39 120 161 163 169 170 177

184

186

List of Figures

Fig. 5.8

Fig. 5.9

Fig. 5.10

Fig. 5.11 Fig. 5.12 Fig. 6.1 Fig. 6.2

Fig. 6.3

Fig. 6.4

Fig. 6.5

Bone and stone arrow points. a, h, t Stemmed Amaknak Bridge arrow points, 3–4 cm long. b Bi-pointed arrow point from Amaknak Bridge, 4 cm. c, p, s Bullet or Qaqax points, Amaknak Bridge, 3–5 cm. d, i, j, k, l, m, q Fishtail points, Krenitzin Islands, Sanak, Alaska Peninsula, Bristol Bay, 5–9 cm. e, f Bone arrow points, Tanaxtaxax, 5–8 cm. g Stemmed arrow point, Pan-Aleutian, 5 cm. n, o Square stemmed arrow point, Margaret Bay, Unalaska, 2–3 cm. r Bi-pointed arrow point, pan-Aleutian, 6 cm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decorative motifs on arrow, spear, and harpoon points. a Engraved lines with carved square holes in a bead-like pattern. b Engraved lines with raised triangles, chigidan. c Angled, cross-hatching in two directions and a row of raised circles with central dot. d Single line with whole and partial chevrons. e Single line with bisected triangles. f, g Human face on harpoon point. h, i Sea mammal faces on harpoon foreshafts. j Bisected triangles with slanted lines. k Winged foreshaft with dashed lines. l Central raised bar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Baroque barbing on spear and harpoon war heads. a Unique multi-faceted beveled barb. b, h Barbing on 3–4 faces of spear point. c Small, “ridged barbs” are found only on Umnak and Unalaska in the last 1000 years. e, f, g Raggedly barbed spear points. d, i, j Raggedly barbed points with flared double, triple, and quadruple barb prongs . . . . Slat armor coat, modified after Dall 1878: plate 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . Wooden shield, modified after Hrdliˇcka (1945: 173) . . . . . . . . . . Simplified Unangaˆx/Aleut seasonal schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mask of human to killer whale transformation. Modified from Black (2003: 82–83). Shared mask/whale features include a circular blowhole between the eyes, small inconspicuous eyes, angular teeth, bulbous nose, and scratches/scars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Igyaˆx bow styles, top to bottom: curved bifurcate bow, 1770–1790, upcurved bifurcate bow, by 1825, straight bifurcate bow, pre-1780, Atkan round bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Archaeological Igyaˆx parts. a Deck beams. b Ribs. c Bow pieces. d Gunwale. e Paddles. Drawings a, d, e modified after Johnson (2016) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Igyaˆx skeleton with bone and ivory bones. a Deck beam over deck stringer with bone plates. b Ball and socket joint in keelson. c Crutch support between stringers. d Bow assembly. Photo from the C. Willard Evans Collection, 2019.007.158. Special thanks to the Museum of the Aleutians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xvii

195

196

198 199 200 217

220

224

225

228

xviii

Fig. 6.6 Fig. 6.7 Fig. 6.8

Fig. 6.9

Fig. 6.10 Fig. 6.11 Fig. 6.12 Fig. 6.13 Fig. 6.14

Fig. 6.15 Fig. 6.16 Fig. 6.17

Fig. 6.18 Fig. 6.19 Fig. 6.20 Fig. 6.21 Fig. 6.22 Fig. 6.23 Fig. 7.1 Fig. 7.2

Fig. 7.3 Fig. 7.4 Fig. 7.5 Fig. 7.6

List of Figures

Conical wooden hunting hat (top) and open-crowned visor. Modified from Black (1991: 60, 83) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Decorative motifs used on visors and hats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Schematic diagram of spear and harpoon parts and assembly. Left: spear, middle: harpoon, right: toggling harpoon. Redrawn from Jochelson (2002: 55) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Three styles of drag floats with float plug insets. Top, weighted spear shaft standing vertically; middle, float fixed to shaft; bottom, large float attached by a line to a harpoon head . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hasxux—throwing boards with pin insets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spear and harpoon point tip styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spear and harpoon point barbing styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Spear point base styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a Sunburst charts of Near and Rat Island spear types. b Sunburst charts of Andreanof Islands and Umnak Island spear types. c Sunburst charts of Unalaska (top left), Port Moller (bottom center), and Krenitzin Islands (top right) spear types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toggling harpoon points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Harpoon point base styles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a Sunburst charts of Near and Rat Islands harpoon types. b Sunburst charts of Andreanof Islands and Umnak Island harpoon types. c Sunburst charts of Unalaska Island, Krenitzin Islands, and Alaska Peninsula harpoon types . . . . . . . . Halibut and cod fishhooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone fishing sinkers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fishhook anatomy. Redrawn after Jochelson (2002: 87) . . . . . . . Fishhook shanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fishhook points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Single fence fishing weir. Modified after Jochelson (2001) . . . . . Generalized ulaˆx floor plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stone house interior features. A-A’: chimney cross-section; B-B: floor channel cross-section; C: interior wall with boulder facing; D-D’: wall cross-section; hearth with external vent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Generalized simple longhouse floor plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Generalized Peninsula longhouse floor plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Outlines of Unalaska style longhouses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Knives: top left, flake knife; top right, bifacial knives; middle left, stemmed knife; right, boulder spall; bottom left, ground ulu, right chipped ulu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

231 232

233

235 238 242 243 244

245 247 249

252 257 259 273 276 278 289 311

312 314 316 318

334

List of Figures

Fig. 7.7

Fig. 7.8 Fig. 7.9 Fig. 7.10 Fig. 7.11 Fig. 8.1 Fig. 8.2

Fig. 8.3 Fig. 8.4 Fig. 8.5 Fig. 8.6 Fig. 8.7

Fig. 8.8

Appliqué and embroidered sewing designs. Top row, left to right panel with gut chevrons on hide strip, with yarn insets, chevron strip and lower strip with feather tufts, appliqué panels. Bottom row, left to right, braided ribbon with “macrame” loops, strip with gut X’s, above skin flaps with caribou hair fringe, appliqué panel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Examples of designs from grass basketry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sewing kit: knobbed and eyed needle in skin, a hank of sinew thread, rolled dried intestines, small cutting board . . . . Bird bone awls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sea lion vertebra with embedded stone point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cradle frame and cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . a Distribution of burial types, Attu Island to Kanaga Island b distribution of burial types, Adak Island to Umnak Island c distribution of burial types, Unalaska Island to Port Moller . . . Ulaakax burial house, family crypts built within villages . . . . . . Qumnax, above ground burial house . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Burial cave entrance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Festival cap worn by men for dancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ceremonial objects: top down, left to right: toothed bird effigy, hands and legs from life-sized puppets, ivory human figure (13 cm), wooden paddle with green tip and red and black handle, blue and white “wavy” object, drum (28 cm diameter), stone human figure (6 cm). Drawn from photographs courtesy of Allison Young McLain . . . . . . . . . a Left, Atkan mask with removable helmet, 25 cm long. Wooden mask from Islands of Four Mountains b Shumagin Island masks with assorted mask bangles. Length of left 30 cm. Drawn from photographs courtesy of Allison Young McLain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xix

339 340 342 343 347 362

370 373 374 378 388

392

395

List of Tables

Table 5.1 Table 5.2 Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Table 6.4 Table 6.5 Table 7.1

Early period population estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Late period population estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aleut procurement systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sites and faunal remains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shank and hook shapes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hook eyes distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hook point bases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Soil chemistry of pits from ATU-019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

159 160 218 260 276 277 279 332

xxi

Chapter 1

Introduction

We are obsessed with the Aleutian Islands, a malady that struck in 1983 when we spent an incredible summer in a couple of shacks on the west coast of Adak Island. We cherish memories of fog-shrouded volcanoes looming over cold, gray ocean waters, transformed to startling green hills rising over sparkling blue seas on the rare sunny day. From light breezes to hurricane-force gales, constantly moving air punctuated our fieldwork. Seals watched from just offshore. Sea lions followed our skiffs, mimicking engine noises. The breathy chuff of surfacing whales broke the silence of a quiet evening. Millions of auklets wheeled over rookeries. The islands are magic. We learned that if you visit more than once, they are unlikely to let you go. The Aleutian Islands are wild and remote, the northern edge of the “Ring of Fire,” chains of volcanoes encircling the entire Pacific Ocean. Over 150 islands form an arc 1600 km long, east to west, including the submerged peaks of the Aleutian Range. These mountains extend east up the Alaska Peninsula another 1000 km to Cook Inlet and Anchorage. The western end of the Alaska Peninsula and the clusters of small islands to the south—the Shumagin Islands, Sanak, and others—are also territory of the Unangaˆx, the people native to the landscape. From north to south, the island arc spans nearly four degrees of latitude, or 425 km, with Unimak Island at the same latitude as Ketchikan, Alaska, and the southernmost island, Amatignak, at nearly the same latitude as the northern tip of Vancouver Island in British Columbia. Attu, in the far west, is 900 km from Russia’s Kamchatka Peninsula. The islands get smaller from east to west (Fig. 1.1). The largest, Unimak Island, is a barely separated extension of the Alaska Peninsula. Beyond Unimak, clusters of islands are separated from each other by ocean passes. Between Unimak Pass and Akutan Pass are the small Krenitzin Islands. Together with Unalaska and Umnak, they comprise the Fox Islands. Samalga Pass separates the eight Islands of the Four Mountains from Umnak. Seguam Island sits alone between Amukta Pass and Seguam Pass.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Corbett and D. Hanson, Culture and Archaeology of the Ancestral Unangaˆx/Aleut of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44294-0_1

1

2

1 Introduction

Fig. 1.1 North Pacific Ocean and the Aleutian Islands

To the west are the Andreanof Islands, divided into two clusters of larger islands with Atka and Amlia Islands in one; Adak, Kanaga, and Tanaga in the other. Small, steep islands lie between Adak and Atka Islands. Southwest of Tanaga lie the small Delarof Islands. The 97-km-wide (60 mile) Amchitka Pass separates the Andreanof Islands from the eight Rat Islands. Lonely Buldir Island sits near the middle of the 244-km-wide (151 mile) pass between the Rat and the five Near Islands. For 9000 years, the Aleut or Unangaˆx people flourished in this spectacular land and seascape. They lived almost exclusively on the products of the sea, the most thoroughgoing marine adaptation of any people on earth. Using superbly designed skin-covered kayaks, they pursued sea lions, fur seals, pelagic birds, deep sea fish, and even whales with elaborate hunting and fishing technology. They lived in large, permanently occupied villages with a ranked social organization of hereditary chiefs, “better men,” commoners, and slaves captured in warfare. During elaborate winter ceremonies featuring masked dances, vast exchanges of wealth reaffirmed social relationships between human groups and between humans and the natural world. Burial practices were remarkably varied and included intentional mummification as well as burials in family sepulchers, in elevated sarcophagi, in caves, and in mounded tumuli, or umqans. Aleuts were the first Alaskans encountered by Europeans during the relentless expansion of the Russian Empire eastward. In the twentieth century, the islands were a theater of war between the USA and Japan during World War II, and during the Cold War, roughly 1947–1990, they formed the first line of defense against

1 Introduction

3

the Soviet Union and China, including the site of the world’s largest underground nuclear test, Cannikin. Unangaˆx live here still, in villages spread thinly over the eastern and central portions of the archipelago. Closely linked to the islands and seas of their homeland, they are fishermen, politicians, artists, corporate officers, parents, children, elders, and tradition keepers. They have a keen interest in their past. Aleut tradition bearers and linguists, including Aleksey Yachmenev, Leontey Sivtsov, Isidor Solovyov, Iakov Netsvetov, Vasha Golodoff, Sophie Pletnikov, Kathryn Diakanov Sellers, Henry Swanson, and numerous others have worked to preserve their traditions. More recently, Unangaˆx archaeologists, anthropologists, linguists, and educators have labored, often behind the scenes, to preserve traditions and educate youth. Generations of artists and craftspeople have fostered creative and spiritual life. The people have also generously allowed non-Aleut archaeologists, biological anthropologists, linguists, and ethnographers to explore their origins and history. Aleutian archaeology has been dominated by three themes. The earliest sought to understand the origins of the Aleuts and determine their place among other northern people. Gradually, researchers began to define the culture history, tracing the development of the Aleut culture through time. By the 1970s, Aleutian prehistory was being evaluated in an ecological and systemic framework, fitting the people into their environment. Archaeologist Allen McCartney (1977, 1984) offers the best summary of the intellectual trends in Aleutian archaeology. Aleutian archaeology and ethnohistory happens as bursts of activity, each followed by a long hiatus during which the previous burst becomes canonized. Major pulses occurred in the 1830s and the 1870s, from 1909–10 and again from 1936–38, from the late 1940s through the 1950s, and during a sustained period in the eastern Aleutians from the 1960s through the 1980s (Fig. 1.2). Research exploded in the 1990s, with large, regionally focused projects in the western Aleutians, Lower Alaska Peninsula, and Unalaska Bay. The various expeditions and researchers are comprehensively summarized in Veltre and Smith (2010) and Veltre (2012). Father Ivan Veniaminov, the first priest in Unalaska, wrote the initial and most complete ethnography of the eastern Aleuts in 1834 (Veniaminov 1984). His work has dominated cultural and archaeological interpretations since. The pioneering archaeology of Dall (1877), Jochelson (2002), and Hrdliˇcka (1945) led to the establishment of two major tenets on which all later work has been based: these are that the islands were initially populated from the American mainland, and the occupation has considerable time depth. Dall (1877) produced one of the first published accounts in America using stratigraphy to interpret archaeological excavations. Jochelson’s expedition (2002, 1933) established a tradition of multidisciplinary study in the Aleutians that continues to the present, with teams of anthropologists, geologists, meteorologists, and zoologists working together on related questions (Corbett et al. 2010; Johnson 1988; Maschner et al. 1997; West et al. 2010). Hrdliˇcka, a biological anthropologist from the Smithsonian Institution, was interested in acquiring human skeletal materials. He asserted the islands had been occupied sequentially by two physically distinct populations, Pre-Aleuts and Aleuts, with slight stylistic differences in material cultures.

4

1 Introduction

Fig. 1.2 Aleutian Islands colonization and research timeline

Later archaeological and biological research has been dominated by the views of William S. Laughlin and his students. Based on intensive work on the southwest end of Umnak Island, this formidable group established a bedrock set of untested assumptions that still control interpretation of Aleutian prehistory and culture. The first is that Aleuts arrived in the Aleutians with a complex culture that changed little over the last 4000 years (Desautels et al. 1971; Jochelson 2002; Laughlin 1980; McCartney 1984; Yesner 1977). The second is that Unangaˆx culture existed in cultural isolation wherein the initial colonists of the islands, themselves “Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge,” created a life with little or no influence from outside the archipelago (Aigner 1977, 1983; Dumond 1987; Laughlin 1963, 1970, 1974/75, 1980; Laughlin and Aigner 1975; Laughlin and Marsh 1951; Laughlin and Reeder 1962; McCartney 1974, 1975, 1984). A final foundation myth is that of a mostly

1 Introduction

5

homogenous culture spread across the entire chain, the western Aleuts being slightly less “complex” (Desautels et al. 1971; Spaulding 1962; Yesner 1977). By the 1980s, new researchers with few or no ties to the Laughlin “school” were challenging most of the foundational myths of Aleutian archaeology. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) resolved ownership conflicts between the State of Alaska and hundreds of Alaska Native villages. To support Alaska Native claims to historic and cemetery sites, one element of the Act, Section 14(h)(1), led to surveys of thousands of archaeological and historic sites along with research on ethnohistory, oral history, and recent Alaskan Native history. In the Aleutian region, over 400 archaeological sites were documented. Cleaning up the debris left by World War II also resulted in site inventories and research on the twentieth century historic record (Harritt and Gannaway 2003; Lobdell 1984; Mobley 1996; Rogers et al. 2008; Veltre 1996; Yarborough 1984). Large research-driven projects in the Near and Rat Islands, Adak, Unalaska Bay, and Alaska Peninsula have spurred a more dynamic view that includes ancient Aleut ties to the Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Canadian Arctic. Aleuts are being revealed as fully participatory in their larger world. The Western Aleutians Archaeological and Paleobiological Project (WAAPP) began with an explicit interest in the biological history of the Aleutian archipelago. Early excavations focused on recovering bird bones for information about long-term environmental change (Causey et al. 2005; Corbett et al. 2007). The project soon switched to cultural history of the Near Islands and the unique variant of Aleut culture found there. Evidence for a very different social and political structure by the Near Island Aleuts has demolished ideas of western Aleutian “simplicity” (Corbett et al. 2010; Corbett 2011). The Central Aleutians Archaeological and Paleobiological Project (CAAPP) and the Rats Intersections Project grew out of WAAPP. CAAPP was designed to begin filling the gap in knowledge of the Central Aleutian Islands, the least known portion of the chain (West et al. 2010). Rats Intersections planned to explore the Aleut cultural relationship with the land and seascape of the Rat Islands (Funk 2011). At the same time on southwestern Adak, Hanson (Hanson and Corbett 2010) began a concerted search for prehistoric Aleut sites in the island’s uplands, expanding knowledge of land use, economics, and social networks. Recent work in the eastern Aleutian Islands, at Margaret Bay (UNL-00048) and Amaknak Bridge (UNL-00050) sites in Unalaska Bay, effectively demolishes the myths of cultural stability and cultural isolation. These two excavations cover an otherwise unexplored period, 4000–3000 BP, in delicious detail, showing evidence of Unangaˆx interactions with their eastern neighbors (Bacon 1977; Knecht 2005; Knecht and Davis 2001; Knecht et al. 2001; Rogers 2011; Rogers and Anitchenko 2011; Yarborough et al. 2010). Two large-scale projects on the lower Alaska Peninsula and Sanak Island addressed questions around shifting settlement patterns, growth of sedentism, and sociopolitical complexity, warfare, and regional interactions (Knudsen 2004; Maschner 1999; Maschner and Jordan 2001; Maschner et al. 1997, 2010).

6

1 Introduction

New analytical methods and techniques incorporated into more recent research are also having an effect on what we know. The most exciting is research on modern and ancient DNA and stable isotope analysis of Aleut populations (Coltrain et al. 2006; Derbeneva et al. 2002; Misarti and Maschner 2015; Rubicz et al. 2003; West, O’Rourke and Crawford 2010; Zlojutro et al. 2006). This work has engaged modern Aleut communities eager to learn positive information about their ancestors and heritage. As people wrestle with the dual concerns of respecting their ancestors and the destructive testing by which knowledge has often been gained, they appreciate the benefits derived from the tiny samples needed for these analyses. Working in the Aleutians: If It Were Easy, Everyone Would Do It! Fieldwork in the Aleutians can be formidably hard, especially in the western and central islands. The biggest problem is scarce and unreliable transportation. This is not a new concern. A brief sketch of Jochelson’s expedition still resonates with Aleutian researchers (Jochelson 2002: 11–18). On December 8, 1908, after two months in New York and Washington, DC getting supplies and permissions from the Treasury and Commerce Departments and the Smithsonian Institution, the team boarded a ship in Seattle bound for Seward, Alaska. In Seward, they discovered that the mail boat to Unalaska was out of service and the steamer Farallon had been substituted. A storm turned the three-day trip to Unalaska into a 10-day ordeal, and the ship lost its poop, a structure on the stern of the boat, and its mast in a storm. A month later, the Farallon wrecked off Kodiak Island (Jochelson 2002: 13). The winter in Unalaska was spent arranging logistics for the next summer. The Alaska Commercial Company (ACC) offered use of their new boat to transport the team to Attu in March 1909. From there, a revenue cutter would transport them to Atka in July, and trader Samuel Applegate would move them to Umnak Island in September. In May, they learned the ACC boat, expected in March, was still under construction in Kodiak. The revenue cutter Perry moved Jochelson’s team to Attu in June. In August, the cutter Tahoma took the team to Atka. Applegate’s boat had left Atka by then. Meanwhile, the ACC vessel, Leti, sailing toward Attu to pick up the crew fought bad weather at sea for 32 days before retreating to Atka. In September 1909, the cutter Bear moved the team to Umnak Island, where they wintered. Applegate returned them to Unalaska in May, and the team caught the Perry to the Pribilofs. After offloading passengers and supplies, the Perry foundered on the rocks and was lost. Finally, Jochelson’s team were picked up by the Kolyma, a Russian naval vessel, which took them to Unalaska, and then to Kamchatka in July 1910. In 20 months, the expedition spent 47 days excavating archaeological sites. They were on Attu for seven weeks, Atka for four, and Umnak for seven and a half months.

1 Introduction

There are currently three airports west of Unalaska, at Adak, Shemya, and Atka. The US Coast Guard runway on Attu closed in the early 2000s. Until the 1990s, US Navy clearance was required to land on Adak. Shemya still requires permission from the US Air Force. Archaeological sites near airports have been heavily affected by construction since World War II (Corbett et al. 2010), limiting their research potential. From these airports, a boat is needed to reach research areas on the other side of the island or on other islands. For a few years, small boats were available on Adak to take crews to the south and west sides of the island. Elsewhere, the only option was the R/V Tiglax, a research vessel operated by the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Tiglax is available for charter, but schedules must mesh with the refuge’s research and support functions. Since 2015, the University of Alaska Fairbanks has operated the National Science Foundation Research Vessel (R/V) Sikuliaq in the Bering Sea and a smaller private vessel M/V Pukuk out of Homer has been available for charters across the chain as well. After arranging boat transportation, everything a working expedition needs to function must be carried to the work site. There are no resupply missions. If items are forgotten, broken, or lost, the work continues without them. The first three days of fieldwork are spent hauling tons of materials off the beach and building camp. One year at Buldir, due to bad conditions at the landing beach a few feet from our site, we were dropped a mile away and had to carry everything over boulder, gravel, and sand beaches to build camp. At the end of the project, the process is reversed. The best maintained boats are not immune to hiccups. We never had a boat sink on us, but Tiglax once hit a rock, tearing off the rudder and piercing the hull. Engines may fail, and once we hit floating debris, bending a screw and reducing our speed to one knot for days until we could return to Adak. To further complicate travel, schedules may change due to weather, injuries, and emergencies elsewhere. Transportation is a big issue, but others also loom large. When the boat sails out of sight, the crew is alone for the duration of the project. Over the years, each of us has spent anywhere from a few weeks to four months at a stretch in field camps. Our first season on Adak, we were required to take a safety lecture from the Navy before we could leave the base. The lecture detailed 87 ways to die on Adak. Though some dangers were overblown, others are real, including hypothermia, waterborne illnesses, getting lost, broken bones, unexploded ordinance, Rommel stakes, and drowning. Carrying camp supplies over seaweed-covered rocks to shore is especially dangerous. Other hazards include rats and foxes, which can wreak havoc with food supplies. (On the plus side, there are no bears or mosquitos!) Researchers also face the potential of geological threats. In 2008, Kasatochi volcano erupted near Adak. Two biologists in a field camp escaped the island before the eruption, which buried the cabin under at least 10 m of fresh tephra. The incident vividly demonstrates the limited options available for rescue.

7

8

1 Introduction

Injury and illness are always possible. We told our crews “death is not an emergency” and joked that bodies would be rolled into tarps until the ship returned. But on the more remote islands, even minor injury or illness can be life threatening. We called our water supply on Amchitka Island “Goose Camp Green” and everyone suffered. We actually got a relief drop of water filter and Pepto-bismol. On Buldir Island, after being assured the water was safe the entire crew fell ill. We were then informed “Well we BOIL it first!”. In a span of more than 30 years, our crews have experienced abscessed teeth, appendicitis, gall bladder attacks, and a dislocated elbow, all of which required medical evacuations, sometimes via Coast Guard helicopter, other times by the Tiglax providing transport to the nearest runway. Concussions, crippling seasickness, sprains, chemical burns from vegetation, broken teeth, and cuts and lacerations have been minor enough to power through until the boat arrived. Miraculously, memories of pain, illness, and misery fade quickly, and we return the next season to do it all over again.

Demolishing Archaeological Myths Over 130 years of archaeological research has left us with a wealth of data and knowledge about the culture history, variability, and richness of the many cultures across the Aleutian archipelago. Not true. As is customary for archaeology everywhere, the early researchers laid necessary foundations and established fundamental facts for later research to build on. These foundations include an outline of Aleut culture history, consideration of how the culture is grounded in the local environment, and identification of cultural roots. We know the Aleuts have lived for millennia among their islands and their unique culture developed there. This is the bare skeleton of Aleut history. However, a number of problems hinder more sophisticated analysis and interpretation of Aleut prehistory. Archaeology has focused on narrow goals, and uncritical applications of an ethnohistoric model from one island to all the others have hindered the exploration of Aleut culture in all of its complexity. Close inspection of the seeming wealth of information reveals a critical lack of basic data, including incomplete artifact typologies, few and questionable carbon dates, poor descriptions of excavated sites, no details on excavation or fieldwork techniques, and recycled interpretations based on previous interpretations (Black 1983; Mason 2001). Preliminary results from single excavations have been applied across the entire archipelago. Sweeping generalizations have been based on vanishingly small faunal or artifact samples. People have been capable of amazing interpretive leaps based on the most tenuous connections.

Demolishing Archaeological Myths

9

One example will demonstrate this, and it is far from unique. Toggling harpoon points are rare in the North Pacific and have not received the same level of attention as they have in North Alaska where they are associated with whale hunting. A comparison of Aleut toggling harpoons with those from North Alaska led one researcher to conclude that the Aleutian examples were not related to northern styles, decorative elements suggested similarities to Punuk and Dorset traditions from Bering Straits, and socketed heads are older than slotted heads. This analysis was based on 12 points from unprovenienced contexts in three undated sites in Unalaska Bay (Quimby 1946). Another researcher using 53 toggling harpoon heads, 34 of which are unprovenienced, boldly stated that toggling harpoons were associated with the ritual use of whale bone (Black 1987, 2003). This is the stuff from which Aleut prehistory has been constructed. Some of the most important excavations and collections have never been analyzed or published. The Anangula site (SAM-00012, UMK-00001), seminally important in the origins of human occupation in the Aleutians, is reported in over 25 articles, dissertations, and reports, but there is no site report or site map, and there are no published plans, profiles, or feature descriptions (Aigner 1970, 1974, 1976, 1977, 1978; Aigner and Del Bene 1982; Black and Laughlin 1964; Del Bene 1982, 1992; Gómez-Coutouly 2015; Laughlin 1966, 1974/75; Laughlin and Laughlin 1981; Laughlin and Marsh 1951, 1954; McCartney and Turner 1966; McCartney and Veltre 1996). Chaluka (SAM-00001); the basis for all Aleutian archaeology is reported in a similar number of articles and unpublished manuscripts but also lacks a comprehensive report (Aigner 1966, 1978; Bland 1996; Denniston 1966; Hanson 1983; Laughlin 1955, 1961, 1974, 1975, 1980; Laughlin and Laughlin 1981; Laughlin and Marsh 1956; Laughlin et al. 1952, 1975; Turner 1974; Turner and Turner 1974). The same can be said for the burials and artifacts from the Warm and Cold Caves on Kagamil Island and Ship Rock. Everything we think we know about Aleutian burial practices is based on Hrdliˇcka’s diary accounts from these caves (Hrdliˇcka 1945). No data in the form of maps, artifact descriptions, or analysis of the burials have ever been published, leaving us to work with the impressions and conclusions of the excavator. Ted P. Bank, a botanist, spent approximately ten years excavating across the entire archipelago, yet his work is poorly reported in a variety of popular accounts and a small handful of journal articles (Bank 1953a, b). Also flawed is the mythology of Aleutian archaeology. As we prepared this book, we repeatedly ran across deeply entrenched myths. One favorite example will illustrate this point. A brief comment by Sarychev (1806: 72)—that Unalaskans “seldom make a fire in the jurt” except to cook—morphed over time into “Neither the Aleuts nor their predecessors in the islands had any regular fireplaces” (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 54). Even though Jochelson (2002) observed it was difficult to imagine how humans could live in the Aleutian Islands without fire and also found traces of fire at all levels of every site he excavated, archaeologists routinely profess surprise at their presence. A 12-cm-thick lens of burned shell, bone, and charcoal “appears to represent a large hearth, but such hearths are unknown archaeologically or ethnographically in the Aleutians” (Grayson 1969). Lest this be considered a relic of old thinking, a

10

1 Introduction

colleague submitting a proposal to the National Science Foundation (NSF) in 2012 was informed by a reviewer that Aleut houses did not contain hearths!

Our Approach in Writing This Book The canonical picture of Aleutian Island archaeology, while never uncritically accepted by all researchers, is in fact based on a flimsy framework. As we learned while writing this book, many conclusions of Aleutian archaeology are a house of cards built on incompletely analyzed data, starry-eyed assumptions, and deeply entrenched, preconceived notions. The culture as presented is a lifeless, mechanical sketch. Most of the standard sources are at least 40 years old, and the best archaeological references are by Jochelson (2002) and McCartney (1984). This is an exciting time to be working in the Aleutian Islands. Research since the 1980s has demolished the prevailing one-dimensional view and replaced it with one featuring dynamic, creative people living complex lives in a rich, challenging world. Entrenched opinions have been challenged by independent researchers, and new research is yielding exciting new data. We no longer have to recycle the information found in old reports. Still, far too much of the recent work is underreported or in limited circulation. There is a critical need for a presentation of the current state of knowledge. Our biggest goal for this book has been to integrate the new information with the old, in a readable form, accessible to the broadest possible audience. Along the way, we debunk old myths. To add flesh and life to the sterile, dry bones of archaeology, we used ethnohistoric records, ethnological information from Aleut neighbors, oral histories, and folklore (Bergsland and Dirks 1990). Much of this is presented with a certainty we certainly do not completely feel. All conclusions, assertions, and interpretations here are based on our analysis of the best available information. Additional research could turn our facts to myths. If our ideas stimulate others to launch fieldwork and analysis to challenge our conclusions, we will revel in their findings.

Roadmap Ethnographic analogy is the practice of using information about customs and adaptations recorded in historic and ethnographic sources to interpret archaeological remains. Our primary source is Father Veniaminov (1984). Uncritical use of his work has distorted archaeological interpretation for decades, but he made clear his account only pertains to the immediately pre-Russian, Fox Island, Aleut culture. His ethnography is enhanced and clarified by snippets of information drawn from the first Russian explorers up to modern anthropologists. The Aleut Dictionary (Bergsland 1994) has been a surprisingly useful source of critical cultural information not otherwise recorded. Secondary and tertiary meanings of common words unlock deeper

Unangaˆx is the Aleut Word for Aleut

11

concepts. For example, the root word anˆg- means to breathe, but it also means life, ghost, spiritual being, and soul. It forms the base for anˆgaˆgina, “human being,” and anˆgaˆgisiga, “living well, worthily” (Bergsland 1994: 73). Aleut terms shed faint light on meanings of some objects recovered by archaeologists. We also use information from people believed to be closely related to the Aleuts, such as the Yup’ik of southwest Alaska and the Alutiiq of the Alaska Peninsula, Kodiak Archipelago, and Prince William Sound. These cultures shared material objects and, more importantly, social, political, and religious ideologies. Carefully applying information from these groups can clarify aspects of Aleut life that have long been suppressed. It is important to remember the Aleuts were not a single, monolithic people and were also not identical to their neighbors, so when specific tidbits of information were shared, these underwent sometimes profound changes. If what was recorded is consistent with the evidence from archaeology, it is valid to assume a relationship of shared culture. Wherever possible, we discuss change through time. All dates are presented as calibrated radiocarbon years BP, “before present,” meaning years ago, unless clearly identified otherwise. Because “present” is constantly changing, standard practice is to use January 1, 1950, as the start point for the time scale. Calibrated dates are also called calendar years because they are tied to the modern calendar. Sites are identified by a two-part site number. The first part is a three-letter abbreviation of the USGS 1:250,000 scale map where the site is found. The Aleutian Region is covered by 16 of these maps. Individual sites are given a five-digit number in the order in which they are reported. Thus, ADK-00049 is the 49th site reported on the Adak 1:250,000 map. Most sites will be identified by number. Well-known sites often have names—Chaluka, Port Moller Hot Springs, Anangula—which are better known than the number (Fig. 1.3). For these, the site number will be presented when the site is first introduced, but thereafter the name will be used.

Unangaˆx is the Aleut Word for Aleut Ethnicity and tribe are modern, controversial, and poorly defined terms used to categorize people. The people of the Aleutian Islands recognized their common biological, cultural, and linguistic heritage but did not conceive of themselves as a single nation. Geography, dialect, cultural differences, and alliances split people into multiple independent and overlapping groups. People identified themselves by kingroup, home village, and island residence. Boundaries were fluid and porous. Russians recognized the similarities among the people of the Aleutian Islands and borrowed a single term, Aleut, to define them. The term was eventually applied to groups on the Alaska Peninsula, Bristol Bay, Kodiak Archipelago, and Prince William Sound. By the end of the nineteenth century, Aleut encompassed people of multiple ethnic groups and three languages who share a common, Russian-influenced culture (Black 1991). The term had legal meaning in Russia; Aleuts were Christian subjects. They formed the economic backbone of the Russian colonial enterprise.

12

1 Introduction

a

Fig. 1.3 a Western Aleutian Island Site numbers and names mentioned in text 1. ATU-019, Austin Cove; ATU-198; ATU-004, Nanikax; ATU-014, Murder Point; 2. ATU-003, ATU-021, ATU-022, ATU-061; 3. Gillon Point Petroglyphs; ATU-030, ATU-227; ATU-228, Aga Cove; ATU-001; ATU002, Krugloi Point; 4. KIS-008, Buldir; 5. KIS-005, Witchcraft Point: KIS-002, Little Kiska; KIS010, Gertrude Cove; KIS-076, KIS-077, Gertrude Cove Mounds; KIS-050, Corvie Bay; 14. KIS162; 15. RAT-081; 16. RAT-163; RAT-164; RAT-165, Mound clusters; 17. RAT-076, RAT-077, Refuge Rocks; 18. RAT-003, RAT-010, RAT-014, RAT-031, RAT-032; RAT-035; RAT-036; RAT060, RAT-068; 19. XGI-008, Amatignak Umqans; 20. Kavalga Cave; 21. Tanaga Cave; 22. ADK071, Kanaga Cave). b Central Aleutian Island Sites numbers and names mentioned in text (1. ADK-127, ADK-237; 2. ADK-265, ADK-266, ADK-273; 3. ADK-009, ADK-011, ADK-171; 4. ATK-002, Korovinski Village, ATK-005; 5. ATK-003, Atxalax; 6. AMK-003, AMK-008, AMK009, SAM-009, SAM-014, SAM-016, SAM-017, SAM-047; 7. SAM-019, Warm Cave, SAM020, Cold Cave, Mask Cave; 8. UMK-001, Chaluka; 9. SAM-006, SAM-012, Anangula Blade Site; 10. SAM-007 Aglagax, SAM-009 Nutxalx, SAM-010 Oglodax, SAM-040 Sandy Beach Bay, SAM-042, SAM-043 Idaliuk; 11. UMK-011, Aishishik Point; 12. UNL-001, Ship Rock). c Eastern Aleutian Island and Alaska Peninsula Sites numbers and names mentioned in text (1. UNL-035, Chernofski Village; 2. UNL-097, Split Rock; 3. UNL-003, Kashega Village; 4. UNL-063, Reese Bay Village; 5. UNL-048 Margaret Bay, UNL-050 Amaknak Bridge, UNL-055 Tanaxtaxax, UNL092 Summer Bay, UNL-115, UNL-318 Oiled Blade Site, UNL-469; 6. UNL-143 Egg Island; 7. UNL108, Old Biorka Village; 8. UNI-002 Chulka, UNI-016, UNI-044, UNI-048; 9. UNI-104, UNI-125; 10. UNI-009, Tigalda Village; 11. UNI-067 Agayadan Village, UNI-071; 12. XCB-004 Morzhovoi, XCB-105 Adamagan, XCB-110; 13. XCB-001, XCB-003, XCB-030 Strawberry Point, XCB-057; 14. XCB-022 Russell Creek; 15. XCB-005, XCB-028; 16. XFP-054, XFP-056, XFP-067, XFP-110, XFP-121, XFP-132; 17. XSI-011, XSI-024, XSI-030, XSI-038, XSI-040, XPM-042; 18, XPM-042, Caverne d’Aknanh; 19. XPM-001 Port Moller Hot Springs)

Unangaˆx is the Aleut Word for Aleut

b

c

Fig. 1.3 (continued)

13

14

1 Introduction

Today, all of these groups are working to reclaim their distinct ethnic and cultural identities and “make it clear to local residents and outsiders alike that the term Aleut cannot describe the region’s varied people or their traditions” (Morseth 2003: 9). The earliest known use of the term Aleut is from a judicial action against a seaman, Belyaev, “who was permitted in 1747 to go with a party on a sea voyage to the unknown islands, to the newly discovered people, namely the Aleut, committed murders without provocation” (Harrington 1941; Jochelson 1933: 2). Russian explorers in the Near Islands state, “On that island live Natives called Aleuts” (Cherepanov 1762: 208), and “In their own language they call themselves Aleut” (Kulkov 1764: 229). These same men called the people living to the east of the Near Islands “Americans.” The self-designation, the ethnonym, of the Near Islanders in 1745 was Aleut. Russian linguist G. Menovshchikov notes the word allíthuh in the Commander Islands means “community, host” derived from Attuan alixtuˆx, warrior, war party, army” (Bergsland 1994: 55; Black 1984: 47; Kolga et al. 1993). By the end of the eighteenth century, the entire archipelago was known as Aleutskie Ostrova, the Aleutian Islands (Black 1984: 47). As the term encompassed people to the east, the Near Islanders became known as Sasxinaˆx or Sasignan. This name is first recorded as Sazignan on a map, made around 1770 by G. F. M˝uller (Black 1984: 50). To the people, the term Aleut “is not such a definite term as one tries to make it in ethnological English” (Harrington 1949: 30–34). People used Aleut when speaking Russian or English, and Unangaˆx when speaking Unangam tunuu, their language (Harrington 1949: 30–34). Proponents of replacing the term with Unangaˆx are passionate about reclaiming an identity that was nearly obliterated by over 250 years of acculturation by successive waves of foreigners. The use of Unangaˆx is a step in revitalizing culture and heritage and exercising the authority to “say for ourselves Who We Are” (Dushkin 2012: slide 12). The passion is as strong among people who insist they are Aleut. We have received confidential comments in response to a discussion on the Aleut-ListServe, an internet discussion forum. To protect their privacy in small communities, we include here a few, unattributed but vehement statements: “I’m Aleut!”, “I was born an Aleut, and I will die an Aleut!”, “My Dad told me I am an Aleut & he said always call yourself an Aleut (Amen).” “I will use…the same name my Grandparents and Great-grandparents used.” It is not our place to tell anyone who they are. In deference to our friends, teachers, mentors, and students who call themselves Aleut or Unangaˆx, we have used both in this book.

References Aigner, Jean. 1966. Bone Tools and Decorative Motifs from Chaluka, Umnak Island. Arctic Anthropology 3 (2): 57–83. Aigner, Jean. 1970. The Unifacial, Core and Blade Site on Anangula Island, Aleutians. Arctic Anthropology 7 (2): 59–88.

References

15

Aigner, Jean. 1974. Studies in the Early Prehistory of Nikolski Bay: 1937–1971. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16 (1): 9–25. Aigner, Jean. 1976. Dating the Early Holocene Maritime Village of Anangula. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 18 (1): 51–62. Aigner, Jean. 1977. Anangula: An 8500 B.P. Coastal Occupation in the Aleutian Islands. Quartär 27/28: 65–104. Aigner, Jean. 1978. Lithic Remains from Anangula, an 8500 year old Aleut Coastal Village. Urgeschichtilche Materialhefte Number 3, Archaeologica Venatoria, Institut für Urgeschichte der Universität Tübingen, Tubingen, Germany. Aigner, Jean. 1983. Sandy Beach Bay, Umnak Island: A Mid-Holocene Village Site on the Bering Sea. Report to the Alaska State Historical Commission, Anchorage, Alaska. Aigner, Jean, and Terry Del Bene. 1982. Early Maritime Adaptation in the Aleutian Islands. In Peopling of the New World, ed. Jonathon Ericson, Royal E. Taylor, and Rainer Berger, 35–68. Anthropological Papers No. 23. Los Altos, California: Ballena Press. Bacon, Glenn. 1977. A Preliminary Narrative Report on the 1977 Excavations at the Amaknak Bridge Site, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Report on file at the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage, Alaska. Bank, Theodore P. 1953a. Ecology of Prehistoric Aleutian Village Sites. Ecology 34 (2): 246–264. Bank, Theodore P. 1953b. Cultural Succession in the Aleutians. American Antiquity 19 (1): 40–49. Bergsland, Knut. 1994. Aleut Dictionary/Unangam Tunudgusii, ed. K. Bergsland. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Bergsland, Knut, and Moses L. Dirks. 1990. Unangan Ungiikangin Kayuk Tunusangin Unangam Uniikangis Ama Tunuzangis: Aleut Tales and Narratives: Collected 1909–1910 by Waldemar Jochelson. Alaska Native Language Center: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Black, Lydia T. 1983. Some problems in the interpretation of Aleut prehistory. Arctic Anthropology 20 (1): 49–78. Black, Lydia T. 1984. Atka: An Ethnohistory of the Western Aleutians. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press. Black, Lydia T. 1987. Whaling in the Aleutians. Études/Inuit/Studies 11 (2): 7–50. Black, Lydia T. 1991. Glory Remembered: Wooden Headgear of Alaska Sea Hunters. Juneau: Alaska State Museum. Black, Lydia T. 2003. Aleut Art. 2nd ed. Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Anchorage, Alaska. Black, Robert, and William S. Laughlin. 1964. Anangula: A Geologic Interpretation of the Oldest Archaeological Site in the Aleutians. Science 143 (3612): 1321–1322. Bland, Richard L. 1996. The Chaluka Site and Its Implications for Subsistence Regimes in the Aleutian Islands. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. Causey, Douglas, Debra G. Corbett, Christine Lefèvre, Dixie L. West, Arkady B. Savinetsky, Nina K. Kiseleva, and Bulat F. Khassanov. 2005. The Paleoenvironment of Humans and Marine Birds of the Aleutian Islands: Three Millennia of Change. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (Supplement 1): 259–276. Cherepanov, Stepan. 1762. The Account of the Totma Merchant, Stepan Cherepanov, Concerning his Stay in the Aleutian Islands, 1759–1762. In Russian Penetration of the North Pacific Ocean: A Documentary Record, 1700–1797, Volume 2, ed. B. Dymytryshyn, E.A.P. Crownhart-Vaughan, and Thomas Vaughan, 206–213. North Pacific Studies Series number 10, T. Vaughan, general editor. Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press. Coltrain, Joan B., M. Geoffrey Hayes, and Dennis O’Rourke. 2006. Hrdliˇcka’s Aleutian Population Replacement Hypothesis: A Radiometric Evaluation. Current Anthropology 47 (3): 537–548. Corbett, Debra. 2011. Two Chief’s Houses from the Western Aleutian Islands. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 3–16. Corbett, Debra, Douglas Causey, Mark Clements, Paul Koch, Angela Doroff, Christine Lefèvre, and Dixie West. 2007. Aleut Hunters, Sea Otters, and Sea Cows: Three Thousand Years of Interactions in the Western Aleutians, Alaska. In Human Impacts on Marine Environments:

16

1 Introduction

A Global Perspective, ed. Torben Rick and Jon M. Erlandson, 43–75. Berkeley: University of California Press. Corbett, Debra, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre. 2010. The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island. Aurora VIII. Anchorage: Alaska Anthropological Association. Dall, William H. 1877. On Succession in the Shellheaps of the Aleutian Islands. In Contributions to North American Ethnology, Vol. 1, Part 1, Department of the Interior, US Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, 41–91. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Del Bene, Terry Alan. 1982. The Anangula Lithic Technological System: An Appraisal of Aleutian Technology Circa 8250–8750 BP. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Del Bene and Terry Alan. 1992. Chipped Stone Technology of the Anangula Core and Blade Site, Eastern Aleutian Islands. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 24 (1–2): 51–72. Denniston, Glenda. 1966. Cultural change at Chaluka, Umnak Island. Arctic Anthropology 3 (2): 84–124. Derbeneva, Olga A., Rem I. Sukernik, NataliaV. Volodko, Seyed H. Hosseini, Marie T. Lott, and Douglas C. Wallace. 2002. Analysis of Mitochondrial DNA Diversity in the Aleuts of the Commander Islands and its Implications for the Genetic History of Beringia. American Journal of Human Genetics 71 (2): 415–421. Desautels, Roger, Albert J. McCurdy, James D. Flynn, and Robert R. Ellis. 1971. Archaeological Report Amchitka Island, Alaska 1969–1970. Archaeological Research Inc. Report for Holmes and Narver, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada. Submitted to United States Atomic Energy Commission Report TID-25481, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas. Dumond, Don E. 1987. The Eskimos and Aleuts, 2nd ed. London: Thames and Hudson. Dushkin, Crystal. 2012. Aleutian Islanders: Who We Are. PowerPoint presented at the Lost Villages Reunion, National Park Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Funk, Caroline. 2011. Rat Islands Archaeological Research 2003 and 2009: Working Towards an Understanding of Regional Cultural and Environmental Histories. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 25–51. Gómez-Coutouly, Yan Axel. 2015. Anangula: A Major Pressure-Microblade Site in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska: Reevaluating its Lithic Component. Arctic Anthropology 52 (1): 23–59. Grayson, Donald K. 1969. The Tigalda Site: An Eastern Aleutian Midden. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene. Hanson, Diane K. 1983. Analysis of Stone Tools from Western Chaluka, Umnak Island. Report submitted to the University of Alaska Museum of the North, Fairbanks. Hanson, Diane K., and Debra G. Corbett. 2010. Shifting Ground: Archaeological Surveys of Upland Adak Island, the Aleutian Islands Alaska, and Changing Assumptions of Unangan Land Use Patterns. Polar Geography 33: 165–178. Harrington, John Peabody. 1941. Linguistic Notes and Records. In Papers of John Peabody Harrington. Accession #1976–95 NMNH-Harrington_mf1 Box 172, Alaska and Northwest Coast, Microfilm 04, frames 0567–0684. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC. Harrington, John Peabody. 1949. Unalaska Aleutian Grammar. Alaska Native Language Center Archives. Accession 941H1949f1. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Harritt, Roger, and James Gannaway. 2003. Driftwood Bay LRRS Archaeological Survey, June 12–14, 2003. Environment and Natural Resources Institute, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage. Report submitted to the US Army, 61 ASG, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Anchorage. Hrdliˇcka, Aleš. 1945. The Aleutian and Commander Islands and Their Inhabitants. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology. Jochelson, Waldemar. 2002. Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Originally Published, 1925. Publication 367. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.

References

17

Jochelson, Waldemar. 1933. History, Ethnology and Anthropology of the Aleut. Publication 432. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution. Johnson, L. Lewis. 1988. Archaeological Surveys of the Outer Shumagin Islands, Alaska, 1984 and 1986. Arctic Anthropology 25 (2): 139–170. Knecht, Richard, and Richard Davis. 2001. A Prehistoric Sequence for the Eastern Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, edited by Don E. Dumond, 269–288. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Knecht, Richard, and Richard Davis. 2005. Unalaska South Channel Bridge Project Number MGSSTP-BR-0310(S)/52930 Amaknak Bridge Site Data Recovery. Anchorage: Report on file with Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities. Knecht, Richard, Richard Davis, and Gary Carver. 2001. The Margaret Bay Site and Eastern Aleutian Prehistory. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, ed. D.E. Dumond, 35–69. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers. No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Knudsen, Garrett. 2004. Ancient House and Households on the Western Alaska Peninsula. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Idaho State University, Pocatello. Kolga, Margus, Igor Tõnurist, Lembit Vaba, and Jüri Viikberg. 1993. The Aleuts. In The Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire. Tallinn, Estonia: NGO Red Book. Kulkov, Fedor A. 1764. A Report Dictated in St. Petersburg by Fedor Afanasevich Kulkov Concerning His 1762 Voyage to The Aleutian Islands. In Russian Penetration of the North Pacific Ocean: A Documentary Record, 1700–1797, Vol. 2, ed. B. Dmytryshyn, E.A.P. Crownhart-Vaughan, Thomas Vaughan, 225–230. Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press. Laughlin, Sara B., and William S. Laughlin. 1981. Anangula and Chaluka Investigations of 1972. National Geographic Society Research Reports 13: 365–379. Laughlin, Sara B., William S. Laughlin, and Mary E. McDowell. 1975. Anangula Blade Site Excavations, 1972 and 1973. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 17 (2): 39–48. Laughlin, William S. 1955. Chaluka Archaeology. Report Submitted to the Office of Naval Research ONR 82ed. GN 784. Calgary Alberta: Arctic Institute of North America. Laughlin, William S. 1961. Archaeological Investigations on Umnak Island, Aleutians. Arctic Anthropology 1 (1): 108–109. Laughlin, William S. 1963. Eskimos and Aleuts: Their Origin and Evolution. Science 142 (3593): 633–645. Laughlin, William S. 1970. Aleutian Ecosystem. Science 169 (3950): 1107–1108. Laughlin, William S. 1974/1975. Holocene History of Nikolski Bay, Alaska and Aleut Evolution. Folk 16/17: 95–115. Laughlin, William S. 1975. Aleuts: Ecosystem, Holocene History and Siberian Origin. Science 189 (4202): 507–515. Laughlin, William S. 1980. Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Laughlin, William S., and Jean S. Aigner. 1966. Preliminary Analysis of the Anangula Unifacial Core and Blade Industry. Arctic Anthropology 3 (2): 41–56. Laughlin, William S., and Jean S. Aigner. 1975. Aleut Adaptation and Evolution. In Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone, ed. William Fitzhugh, 181–201. The Hague, Paris: Mouton Publishers. Laughlin, William S., and Gordon H. Marsh. 1951. A New View of the History of the Aleutians. Arctic 4 (2): 74–88. Laughlin, William S., and Gordon H. Marsh. 1954. Lamellar Flake Manufacturing Site on Anangula Island in the Aleutians. American Antiquity 20 (1): 27–39. Laughlin, William S., and Gordon H. Marsh. 1956. Trends in Aleutian Chipped Stone Artifacts. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 5 (1): 5–21. Laughlin, William S., Gordon H. Marsh, and John W. Leach. 1952. Supplementary note on the Aleutian Core and Blade Industry. American Antiquity 18 (1): 69–70.

18

1 Introduction

Laughlin, William S., and William G. Reeder. 1962. Revision of Aleutian prehistory. Science 137 (3533): 856–857. Lobdell, John E. 1984. An Archaeological Assessment of Selected Parts of Amchitka Island, Aleutian Archipelago. Las Vegas, Nevada: Alaska. Report to Holmes and Narver Inc. Maschner, Herbert D.G.. 1999. Prologue to the Prehistory of the Lower Alaska Peninsula. Arctic Anthropology 36 (1–2): 84–102. Maschner, Herbert D.G., Buck Benson, Garrett Knudsen, and Nicole Misarti. 2010. Archaeology of the Sapsuk River, Alaska. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska Region, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Maschner, Herbert D.G., and James W. Jordan. 2001. The Russell Creek Manifestation of the Arctic Small Tool Tradition on the Western Alaska Peninsula. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 151–172. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Maschner, Herbert D.G., James W. Jordan, Brian Hoffman, and Tina Dochat. 1997. The Archaeology of the Lower Alaska Peninsula. Report 4 of the Laboratory of Arctic and North Pacific Archaeology. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison. Mason, Owen K. 2001. Catastrophic Environmental Change and the Middle Holocene Transition in the Aleutian Islands. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 105–121. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Eugene, University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. McCartney, Allen. 1974. Maritime Adaptations on the North Pacific Rim. Arctic Anthropology 11 (Supplement): 153–162. McCartney, Allen. 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, ed. William Fitzhugh, 281–358. The Hague, Paris: Mouton Publishers. McCartney, Allen. 1977. Prehistoric Human Occupation of the Rat Islands. In The Environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska, ed. Melvin L. Merritt and R. Glen Fuller, 59–113. National Technical Information Service, Energy Research and Development Administration, Springfield Virginia. McCartney, Allen. 1984. Prehistory of the Aleutian Region. In Arctic, edited by David Damas, pp. 119–135. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. McCartney, Allen P., and Christy G. Turner. 1966. Stratigraphy of the Anangula Unifacial Core and Blade Site. Arctic Anthropology 3 (2): 28–40. McCartney, Allen P., and Douglas Veltre. 1996. Anangula Core and Blade Site. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia, ed. Frederick Hadleigh West, 443–450. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Misarti, Nicole, and Herbert D.G.. Maschner. 2015. The Paleo-Aleut to Neo-Aleut Transition Revisited. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 37: 67–84. Mobley, C.M. 1996. Cultural Resources Investigations at Kiska, Little Kiska, and Semisopochnoi, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Charles M. Mobley and Associates. Submitted to Dames and Moore, Anchorage, Alaska for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska. Morseth, Michele. 2003. Puyulek Pu’irtuq! The People of the Volcanoes: Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve Ethnographic Overview and Assessment. 2nd ed. Anchorage: Alaska Natural History Association. Quimby, George I. 1946. Toggle Harpoon Heads from the Aleutian Islands. Fieldiana Anthropology 36 (2): 15–23. Rogers, Jason. 2011. Architecture and Complex Hearth Features at the Amaknak Bridge Site, Eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 92–112. Rogers, Jason R., and Evguenia V. Anitchenko. 2011. A Whalebone Mask from Amaknak Island, Eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 48 (1): 66–79. Rogers, Jason, Michael Yarborough, and Catherine Pendleton. 2008. Archaeological Testing at UNL-469, Quarry Site, Amaknak Island, Alaska. Cultural Resource Consultants LLC. Report to

References

19

TetraTech, Inc. for the US Army Corps of Engineers, Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson (JBER), Alaska. Rubicz, Rohina C., Theodore G. Schurr, Paul L. Babb, and Michael H. Crawford. 2003. Mitochondrial DNA Variation and the Origins of the Aleuts. Human Biology 75 (6): 809–835. Sarychev, Gavriil Andreevich. 2016 [1806]. Account of a Voyage of Discovery to the North-East of Siberia the Frozen Ocean and the North-East Sea. Printed for Richard Phillips, London. 2016 facsimile ed. Delhi, India: Facsimili Publisher. Spaulding, Albert C. 1962. Archaeological Investigations on Agattu, Aleutian Islands. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology No. 18. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Turner, Christy G. 1974. The use of Prehistory for Direct Comparative Baselines in the Study of Aleut Microevolution. In International Conference on the Prehistory and Paleoecology of Western North American Arctic and Subarctic: Proceedings of the 5th Annual Chacmool Conference, ed. Scott Raymond and Peter Schlederman, 205–215. Calgary, Alberta: The University of Calgary. Turner, Christy G., and Jacqueline A. Turner. 1974. Progress Report on Evolutionary Anthropological Study of Akun Strait District, Eastern Aleutians, Alaska, 1970–71. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16 (1): 27–57. Veltre, Douglas. 1996. Archaeological Monitoring of the Restoration of the Church of the Holy Ascension, Unalaska, Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: Report for International Steel Erectors. Veltre, Douglas. 2012. One Hundred Forty Years of Archaeology in the Central Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gualtieri, 35–45. BAR International Series 2322. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Veltre, Douglas, and Melvin Smith. 2010. Historical Overview of Archaeological Research in the Aleut Region of Alaska. Human Biology 82 (5/6): 487–506. Veniaminov, Ivan. 1984. Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District. Translated by Lydia T. Black and R.H. Geoghegan, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History Series No. 27. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press. West, Dixie, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gualtieri (editors). 2012. The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology, and archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska. BAR International Series 2322. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. West, Dixie, Dennis O’Rourke, and Michael Crawford. 2010. Origins and Settlement of the Indigenous Populations of the Aleutian Archipelago. Human Biology 82 (5–6): 481–486. Yarborough, Michael. 1984. Archaeological Survey of Proposed Airport Site, Unalaska. Alaska. Cultural Resource Consultants: Report to the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage. Yarborough, Michael, Jason S. Rogers, Catherine L. Pendleton, Edward P. Arthur, Shawna M. Rider, and Erika E. Malo. 2010. Salvage Recovery at the Amaknak Bridge Site (UNL-050), Dutch Harbor. Alaska. Cultural Resource Consultants: Report Prepared for Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage. Yesner, David. 1977. Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Aleutian Islands. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Zlojutro, M., R. Rubicz, E.J. Devor, V.A. Spitsyn, S.V. Makarov, K. Wilson, and M.H. Crawford. 2006. Genetic Structure of the Aleuts and Circumpolar Populations Based on Mitochondrial DNA Sequences: A Synthesis. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 129 (3): 446–464.

Chapter 2

The Physical Environment

The Aleutian Archipelago strains sea mammals through the pointed teeth of a curving volcanic maw of islands sweeping from the Alaska mainland to the Asian coast. Seals and sea lions pull ashore to rest and pup their offspring on the jagged dark beaches and whales rumble through the narrow corridors between the rocky islands feeding on fish and plankton forced through the passageways by the violent currents. Below the surface of the gray, cold waters surrounding the islands are the submerged peaks of long dead volcanoes, dark carcasses flanked by young new mountains that will one day breach the surface in explosive exuberance.

Physical surroundings contribute to the story of the cultures of the Aleutian Islands. From the emergence of the Chain from the Pacific Ocean floor to its continuing evolution, the geology is responsible for the earthquakes, tsunami, and volcanoes that can destroy villages, but also provide hot springs; sulfur and minerals for pigments; rock for tools or building material; crevasses, bays, and tidelands for fish and sea mammals to occupy; soil for plants; and the land on which people live. Air currents affected by the Aleutian Low produce storms that roll along the archipelago from Japan to southeast Alaska, bringing rain that erodes the land surface and creates valleys while providing water that sustains plants, animals, and humans. From around the world, millions of birds glide on these air currents to nest on these islands in the middle of the ocean, where they feed on fishes brought to the same place by water currents that flow from the Kodiak Archipelago and along the Aleutian Island shores, and passing northward from there into the Bering Sea. These water currents bring driftwood, plankton, krill, fishes, and crustaceans that support whales, sea lions, porpoises, and sea otters, which in turn supply food to Unangaˆx families of skilled hunters. These interactions involving the land, oceans, and climate make the Aleutian Islands unique. People are as much a part of their physical place as the environment is part of their culture. This chapter covers the formation of the Chain, its geology, the surrounding seas, weather, climate, and the connections these have with the people of the Aleutian Islands.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Corbett and D. Hanson, Culture and Archaeology of the Ancestral Unangaˆx/Aleut of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44294-0_2

21

22

2 The Physical Environment

The Aleutian Evolution: Plate Tectonics, Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Tsunami The Aleutian Islands did not form during a single event. Mainland Alaska is part of the North American tectonic plate. The North American continent was one of the plates from the original continent of Pangaea that split away and moved northward. At the beginning of the Cenozoic Era, about 65 million years ago, the Pacific plate began subducting, or sliding under the North American plate, near Beringia between Alaska and Siberia (Scholl et al. 1986). As the upper North American plate ground against the lower plate, sediments pushed up along the margin of the intersecting plates, creating a ridge or a bluff along the Beringian shelf. Fifty million years ago, during the Eocene Epoch, the Pacific plate broke along an arc offshore, creating a new plate edge. As the Pacific plate slid under the broken edge, a new active subduction zone formed the modern Aleutian Trench, while the old Beringian subduction zone slowed to a stop (Chang et al. 2009; Marlow et al. 1994; Scholl et al. 1986). At this new subduction zone, the Pacific plate dives toward the Earth’s core. Crushed rocks and sediments slip between the two massive plates. The edge of the North American plate is pushed up, creating a ridge north of the deep Aleutian Trench. The ridge is metamorphic rock altered by the heat and pressure from the intersecting plates. Behind this ridge is a depression called the Aleutian Terrace, wedged between the bluffs along the trench and a shelf supporting the Island Chain. About 80–100 km (50–60 miles) below the ground surface, pressure from the upper continental plate squeezes water from the rock and sediments moving below. Lighter than the surrounding rock, the released water moves upward through the hot crust, in the process reducing the melting temperature of the rock through which it percolates. The molten rock creates chambers filled with magma that rises through the enveloping rock. Eventually, the magma may cool underground, forming plutons of granite and diorite, or the pressure may push the magma to the surface as volcanoes (Frisch et al. 2011: 113–114; Vallier et al. 1994). As the plate continues to plunge downward and less water is available in the surrounding rock, less magma is formed and volcanic activity eventually decreases over the most deeply subducted portion of the plate (Frisch et al. 2011: 114). As the magma rises, it melts and incorporates the rock around it, and changing its chemical composition. Some unmelted rocks are pulled into the rising magma stream, creating pockets of rock that are different from the surrounding magma. As pressures decrease, gasses trapped underground expand, mixing with the melted rock. When the magma reaches the ground surface through fractures in the rock, an explosive eruption results as the lighter gasses are released ahead of the magma, scattering dust, ash, and rock. Sometimes the magma follows the gasses and becomes lava at the surface. If the opening becomes blocked, the explosion may be massive (Chernicoff and Fox 2000). Not all eruptions are explosive, however; the lava may quietly leak from fractures in the rock onto the ground surface. Stratovolcanoes, with the stereotypical cone shape, tend to be explosive, producing ash and larger particles,

The Aleutian Evolution: Plate Tectonics, Volcanoes, Earthquakes …

23

or tephra. The Aleutian Chain has 80 stratovolcanoes (Kienle and Nye 1990: 9), and its violent geological history supports this observation. The rate of volcanic activity may also be associated with the rate of tectonic plate subduction. Volcano volume is largest where the subduction rate is greatest (Fournelle et al. 1994: 728). In the Aleutian Chain, the largest islands are in the east, where the angle of subduction is more nearly perpendicular, with one plate siding directly under the other. The overall size of the islands as one moves westward decreases as the angle of subduction decreases (Kay and Kay 1994: 689). Based on potassium/argon dates collected from rock from Murray Canyon in the pass west of Kiska Island, the volcanic activity that formed the archipelago began 46 million years ago (Jicha et al. 2006: 663). The oldest surface volcanic rocks on the Central Aleutian Islands are nearly 38 million years old in the Finger Bay pluton on Adak Island (Jicha et al. 2006: 662). The plutons that formed Attu Island, at the west end of the Chain, are 42 million years old (Vallier et al. 1994: 382). After this initial volcanic activity, the archipelago was relatively quiet until 16 to 11 million years ago. The most recent period of activity began about 7 million years ago and has lasted through the present (Jicha et al. 2006). Over the past 5 million years, volcanic activity has crept northward. This is most obvious in the Central Aleutian Islands. From Umnak to Kiska Islands, volcanoes tend to be on the north side of the islands with new volcanoes forming nearby in the Bering Sea. The south sides of the islands are composed of older, eroded volcanoes, exposed plutons, and metamorphic rock (Fournelle et al. 1994: 728; Jicha et al. 2006: 663). Alaska Peninsula volcanoes show less northward movement. Volcanoes end at Buldir Island, near the west end of the Chain, where the intersection between the plates changes to a transform fault, a boundary where the two plates slide beside each other in opposite directions, and not one underneath the other as they do to the east (Kay and Kay 1994; Kienle and Nye 1990). Therefore, there is no opportunity for volcanoes to form under the tectonic plate. The western islands were instead formed through plutons or magma that cooled underground (Fournelle et al. 1994; Vallier et al. 1994). Smaller subdivisions, or blocks, at the edge of the continental plates also crack away and twist under tremendous pressure from the intersecting Pacific and North American plates, creating canyons and deep passages between the islands (Jicha et al. 2006: 662; Vallier et al. 1994: 369). These divisions allow water currents to pass from the Pacific Ocean to the Bering Sea. The land mass of the Aleutian Archipelago has shrunk since its formation (Vallier et al. 1994: 382). Nearly 60% of the landmass has eroded back into the sea, ground away by glaciers and washed or blown away over the past 46 million years (Jicha et al. 2006: 664). Modern volcanic eruptions do not keep pace with erosion (Vallier et al. 1994: 382). Weathering may also expose plutons originally hidden underground. The formation of the Alaska Peninsula and southcentral Alaska is more complex than the development of the Island Chain. The peninsula is a fusion of several ancient land forms and islands carried northward about 200 million years ago on the Farallon Plate along the eastern Pacific Ocean and then pushed into the North American Plate by the end of the Jurassic Period (144 million years ago). The lighter landmass on

24

2 The Physical Environment

the surface was not carried down with the subducting plate and instead caught on the North American Plate, folding onto the larger continental plate and creating a mountain range. During the Eocene Epoch (56–33 million years ago) the Alaska coastline shifted, the western shoreline twisting southward. The ancient Cretaceous Era rock that had formed the southwestern coastline of Alaska became the Alaska Peninsula and Unimak Island (Redfield et al. 2007). The base rock of the Alaska Peninsula is much older than the islands that developed off its western tip. Formed by the continually subducting Pacific Plate, the Aleutian Trench extends 3800 km (2360 miles) from the mid-Gulf of Alaska south of Kodiak Island to Kamchatka (Ruppert et al. 2007). On the south side of Unalaska Island in the eastern Aleutian Islands, the trench is over 7 km (4.4 miles) deep. It gradually becomes shallower east of Unalaska Island until it reaches a depth of 4.25 km (2.6 miles) south of Kayak Island in the Gulf of Alaska (National Ocean Service 1985, 1988, Middleton No. 6–2). Effect of the Aleutian Trench on Radiocarbon Dates from Archaeological Sites You would not think archaeologists would be particularly concerned about the Aleutian Trench, but this deep trench causes radiocarbon dates from marine mammal bones to be hundreds of years older than they should. Radiocarbon dates are statistical estimates of age using the ratio of radioactive carbon, or 14 C, to stable carbon, or 12 C. An isotope of an element is identified by adding the number of protons and neutrons in the atom. Stable nitrogen has seven protons and seven neutrons; therefore, stable nitrogen is 14 N. Stable carbon has six protons and six neutrons; therefore, stable carbon is 12 C. Chemical behavior and identification depend on the number of protons in the atom. When a single proton neutralizes, or loses its positive charge in a nitrogen atom, and the proton becomes a neutron, the nitrogen atom becomes a carbon atom with extra neutrons. This happens when nitrogen is bombarded by cosmic rays in the atmosphere. Because the atom now has six protons (instead of seven as it had before), it becomes carbon with eight neutrons, or 14 C. Radioactive carbon, or 14 C, is unstable; eventually, its extra neutron will regain its charge and become a proton again, and the atom will revert to stable nitrogen. Until that time, it acts as a carbon atom, and it is inhaled by plants, which are eaten by animals, and those animals are eaten other animals (or eaten by humans who eat the plants and animals). Through the whole process, 14 C and 12 C are absorbed in the same ratios as they are found in the environment. When those hungry organisms eventually die, the 14 C in the tissues gradually reverts to 14 N in the remains. The rate of this shift can be measured. Half of the 14 C is calculated to shift back to nitrogen in 5568 years. This is called a “half-life.” To estimate how long ago something died, a sample of plant or animal remains (charcoal, wood, bone, hide) are sent to a lab, where technicians

The Aleutian Evolution: Plate Tectonics, Volcanoes, Earthquakes …

25

measure the amount of 14 C compared to 12 C to determine how much 14 C has disappeared from the original ratio. But the Aleutian Trench is so deep that not much 14 C reaches the lower levels, or if it does, it has already long ago stabilized as 14 N, and few sources of 14 C are reintroduced into the environment. The ratio deep in the trench is not the same as it is near the surface of the water or on land or in the atmosphere. More of the carbon below the water surface is 12 C, or stable carbon. Because a greater ratio of stable carbon to radioactive carbon is absorbed by the animals living and feeding in the trench, the ratio already has less 14 C. If carbon dating was done on living plants or animals from the Aleutian Trench, they would appear to be many hundreds of years old. Upwelling, or mixing the lower and upper columns of water, can also increase the 12 C available to organisms living in shallow water and alter the radiocarbon dates. Upwelling is a common phenomenon along the Aleutian Archipelago. To determine the difference in the amount of 14 C deep-diving animals absorb from their environment, such as fish, whales, sea lions, and seals that eat food from the Aleutian Trench as compared to animals and plants at the surface or on land, Dumond and Griffin (2002) submitted wood and marine bone from the Summer Bay site on Unalaska Island. They found the marine mammal bone was 580 ± 90 years older than the associated wood, indicating that the marine reservoir of 12 C was causing dates from marine mammal bone to be nearly 600 years too old. West et al. (2019) stated that marine mammal bone dates from Islands of the Four Mountains required a correction of 495 ± 20 years. Khasanov et al. (2015: 962) determined that the marine reservoir was causing marine animals on Adak Island sites to date 545 ± 10 years older. Using a software program to correct for this discrepancy, the dates are recalibrated based on the kind of material that was sent in for radiocarbon dating (wood or grass vs. marine mammal bone) and the location where the sample was collected. Like volcanic eruptions, earthquakes and tsunami common to the Aleutian Islands are caused by the movement of tectonic plates. As the plates catch and slip, tremors develop deep underground in an area called the Wadati-Benioff Zone (Frisch et al. 2011: 103). Ninety-five percent of the earthquakes in the world develop in this zone. The causes of the earthquakes in subduction zones differ depending on depth. Shallow earthquakes are caused by friction between the plates as the oceanic slab slides under the continental plate. This friction can extend as deep as the base of the overlying plate. These are the most powerful, destructive earthquakes; one example is the Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964, with a magnitude of 9.2, which originated in the Aleutian Trench in the Gulf of Alaska (Alaska Earthquake Information Center 2002; Frisch et al. 2011: 105). Of the ten largest recorded earthquakes in the world, two were recorded in the Aleutian Islands, including an 8.7 magnitude earthquake in the Rat Islands in 1964 and an 8.6 magnitude earthquake in the Andreanof Islands in

26

2 The Physical Environment

1957 (Frisch et al. 2011: 103; Ruppert et al. 2007). Magnitude 6 earthquakes are not unusual in the Aleutian Islands, occurring at least once a year (Alaska Earthquake Information Center 2011). Far fewer earthquakes are generated between the base of the upper plate to 250– 300 km (155–186 miles) below the ground surface (Frisch et al. 2011: 106). This intermediate zone is the source for the molten rock that makes its way to the surface feeding volcanoes. Earthquakes develop as the rock volume decreases with the release of water (Frisch et al. 2011: 108). Only 8% of earthquakes occur as deep earthquakes, 350–700 km (217–435 miles) below the surface (Frisch et al. 2011: 107). Resulting from compression, these deep earthquakes are less likely to cause extensive structural damage on the ground surface compared to shallow earthquakes (Frisch et al. 2011: 107). Volcanic activity also generates earthquakes as pressurized magma rises from the chamber through faults and fissures. The Kasatochi eruption in 2008 was preceded by nearly 1500 earthquakes, comprising an “earthquake swarm,” within 48 h of the eruption. Three hours before the first part of the eruption there was a magnitude 5.8 earthquake. After the eruption, the number and intensity of the earthquakes decreased (Ruppert et al. 2011). If an earthquake causes the ground to drop or lift quickly along a fault or subduction zone underwater, tsunami can follow. Tsunami form after a “sudden vertical displacement of a column of water” (Bryant 2008: 3). A large earthquake does not necessarily cause a tsunami unless there is vertical ground displacement. Earthquakes with less than magnitude 7 are responsible for about half the tsunami in the world (Bryant 2008: 138). Generated by earthquakes, rolling waves passing through land, then through water, called Rayleigh seismic waves, also generate tsunami (Bryant 2008: 138), as can underwater volcanic eruptions. Other volcanic sources of tsunami are ash flows reaching a shoreline or earthquakes from an eruption, as during the eruption of Krakatau in 1883 (Bryant 2008: 13, 220) and more recently in 2018 after a partial collapse of Krakatau. Tsunami in the Aleutian Islands are produced from all these sources (Lander 1996). The origin of the disturbance is not as important as the effect on the water (Bryant 2008). Eighty-two percent of the tsunami that form in the Pacific Ocean are caused by earthquakes (Bryant 2008), and the Aleutian Islands have been the source of two destructive tsunami in the past 100 years (Lander 1996). Tsunami from elsewhere in the Pacific Ocean also strike the Aleutian Islands, which lie in the path of any northward-moving wave. Tsunami originating from Japan, the Kuril Islands, Russia, Philippines, and even Peru and Chile have found their way to Aleutian shores (Lander 1996: 21). Most tsunami have the greatest effect on the Pacific coastline or on the shores of constricted passages between the islands, with a much reduced impact on the Bering Sea coastline. A tsunami can be a single wave or a series of waves that extend the full length of the water column, unlike wind-generated waves that primarily affect the water surface. This is why tsunami are more destructive than surface waves. As one approaches the shoreline, the water is pulled out, creating the impression that the tide is going out. A high wave crest follows (Bryant 2008: 31). The waves can travel across the

Living with Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Tsunami

27

ocean as rapidly as 620 km (500 miles) per hour (Lander 1996: 6). While wave height increases, the tsunami speed decreases as it reaches shallow water; even so, the wave can strike the shore at speeds much faster than a person can run. Multiple waves can hit the shore with as much as a half-hour between each wave, with the distance from one crest to the next measured in kilometers or miles, not feet. The first wave is also not necessarily the largest; later waves can build with changing tides and from waves reflected back from the initial waves striking the shore (Lander 1996: 8–9). Much of the damage from a tsunami does not come from the wave height as it reaches the beach, but from run-up. Run-up is the distance a wave will push landward from the shoreline. Depending on the characteristics of the beach, the run-up elevation can be twice the height of the wave when it hits the shore (Bryant 2008: 40). The wave retains the energy generated in the ocean as it hits the beach, and the wave continues well upland (Bryant 2008: 41). Damage on shore is caused by the impact of the wave pushing into structures and objects, then pulling them back into the water, or eroding the sediments around them (Giudoboni and Ebel 2009: 24). The movement of the ground can cause seiches, smaller waves that move back and forth in small bays or lakes, much like the waves formed by tilting a bowl back and forth (Lander 1996). Most of the damage from seiches comes from the higher lapping water eroding the shoreline, but there is no run-up wave extending upland.

Living with Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Tsunami The immediate effects of volcanic eruptions and earthquakes are frightening and sometimes fatal. Grewingk (2003 [1850]: 75) described the consequences for one community on Umnak Island in the early 1800s: The village Egorkovskoi, now abandoned, located on the southwestern half of Umnak at Deep Bay, was once located on the northeastern end. During the eruption of 1817, while fortunately the inhabitants were away on the Pribilof Islands, the village was buried under enormous rocks and ashes. The place where the village is presently located, is supposed to have been under water once, according to legend. After the earthquake it is supposed to have risen up.

More recently, in 2008, biologists on Kasatochi Island were warned of an impending explosion by minutes-long earthquakes, steam vents, and sulfur gasses. A small charter boat from Adak carried them away only a half-hour before a volcanic eruption covered the island in poisonous gasses and thick ash. Their cabin is still buried under tons of ash. The same year, Okmok volcano on northern Umnak Island rumbled and spewed ash so thick that daylight was unable to penetrate. A rancher on the north end of the island evacuated the residents, including a woman and infant, in three helicopter trips. When the helicopter could no longer fly, the remaining two people and their dog escaped by boat: Hardman and Kennedy began a two-mile walk to the beach, carrying their dog Soup, who was too terrified to get out of their truck. They were about halfway to the beach to meet

28

2 The Physical Environment the Tara Gail (Fishing Boat) when the world turned black. Because it was the middle of the day, Hardman and Kennedy hadn’t thought to grab flashlights and were left walking through the ash, unable to raise their heads without getting an eyeful of ash. As they were walking, there was an electrical storm above their heads. Hardman said some of the lighting (sic) was grounded, while other (sic) was horizontal, and some flashes were large wheels or balls of light in the sky. Near-blinded and carrying Soup, a few supplies and personal belongings, the pair stumbled down an old road, then finally made it to the beach. (Southworth 2008)

The cattle and reindeer were left behind under the falling ash. The eruption in 2008 was a minor event in the evolution of Okmok. Major explosions 12,000, 8250, and 2400 years ago blew off the top of the mountain and formed a large caldera that extends 10 km (6 miles) across (Miller and Smith 1987). At least eight massive eruptions occurred during the Holocene in the eastern Aleutians Islands and Alaska Peninsula with explosions equivalent to the eruptions of Mt. Saint Helens in Washington in 1980 and Krakatoa in 1883 (Miller and Smith 1987). Volcanic Explosivity Index Developed by Newhall and Self (1982), the Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI), is to volcanoes what the Richter scale is to earthquakes. It is used to quantify how explosive an eruption was, but not to estimate the amount of ash in the atmosphere or the volume of lava flows and other byproducts of volcanic activity. The scale ranges from 0 to 8. The famous 1883 eruption of Krakatau was a 6, the more recent eruption of Mt. St. Helens a 5. Some recent Alaska eruptions, include the Mt. Spurr eruptions of 1953 and 1992 and the Mt. Augustine eruption of 1976, were rated 4 on the VEI scale. The Novarupta eruption of 1911, which covered most of the Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak Island in thick ash, was a 6 on the VEI scale. Most moderate eruptions are a 3 on the VEI. The Aleutian Archipelago has had its share of large-scale eruptions. Miller and Smith (1987) of the US Geological Survey, divided Holocene Epoch caldera-forming eruptions in the eastern Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula into classes I through III with classes I and II equivalent to a VEI greater than 6, and Class III with a VEI of 5. The Okmok caldera was initially formed in 8250 BP by a Class I eruption, the Makushin volcanic explosion in 7950 BP was a Class III explosion, the Akutan volcanic eruption in 5200 BP was a Class II, the Veniaminov eruption in 3700 BP was a Class I, and a later eruption by Okmok in 2400 BP was a Class I. These were all greater than or equal to the 1980 eruption of Mt. St. Helens. The effects of Krakatoa or Mt. St. Helen-sized eruptions on people living on the shores of the islands must have been devastating. Explosive eruptions can generate pyroclastic flows that cause most casualties. A pyroclastic flow is wave of ash, rock, and poisonous gasses as hot as 500 degrees Celsius (932 degrees Fahrenheit) rushing downhill at speeds of 100 km (60 miles) an hour. Once the rock and ash settle, the

Living with Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Tsunami

29

mixture solidifies from the heat and pressure (USGS 2010). The ash and hot gasses melt the snow or glaciers on the mountains creating a mudflow, called a lahar, that can bury everything downslope. Lahars are a threat in the Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula because of the large number of stratovolcanoes, glaciers, and snow fields. Oral descriptions of the effects of volcanic eruptions on Unangaˆx life before Russian arrival are rare. Veniaminov (1984 [1840]: 300) relates a legend from Unalaska about a war among the volcanoes of the Chain that continued until there were only two left: Axax (Makushin Volcano) and Ismax (Recheschnoi Volcano). These two remaining volcanoes in turn battled to determine who was the greatest: Fire, rocks and ashes were hurled about in such quantities that all the animals in the neighborhood perished and the air became heavy. At last the Umnak volcano could not stand up against its rival and, seeing destruction imminent, gathered all its strength together, blew itself up, burst open and completely expired. The Makushinskaia sopka [volcano], now the victor and not damaged at all, without enemies around it, calmed down and, up to the present has rested, only smoking a little.

Using knowledge gleaned from legends and wisdom passed from their grandparents, people may have fled to neighboring islands when they saw steam rising from vents and felt frequent earthquakes. If they could not escape in boats because of poor weather, they would have hidden in their houses, closing the vents and doorways, hoping for the best. During an explosive eruption, people would have been subject to thick ash that made the air nearly unbreathable. They would not have been able to see past their hands, and their lamps and fires would have been useless. The glassy ash would have gotten into their eyes, lungs, food, and water. It is likely many perished from pyroclastic flows and lahars. The time of year can influence the impact of a volcanic eruption. Salmon were running when Novarupta, on the Alaska Peninsula, erupted in 1912, choking the region with ash. But because most salmon had not yet moved into the rivers to spawn, the effects on the fish populations were minimal (Dumond 1979: 386). However, many fish were not able to make their way into the small tributaries up-river. The Kasatochi eruption occurred when auklets were nesting, killing the chicks that year, and possibly the next, since a thick layer of ash settled in the rock crevices used for nesting. This would have hampered people who relied on birds for eggs or feather parkas. A winter eruption could potentially have fewer long-term consequences, as plant life is dormant, summer breeding birds and migrating sea mammals have not yet arrived, and people are living on stored food. The effect of volcanism and other natural disasters on people living in the volatile Chain has been a topic of interest for many archaeologists. Workman (1979), Robert Black (1975), Lydia Black (1981), Dumond (1979, 2004), VanderHoek (2009), and Barton et al. (2012) have addressed the possible effects on precontact people living in the volcano-peppered North Pacific. They have used modern analogs, archaeological information, and biological data. Heusser (1978: 21) noted that there were small fluctuations in the types of plants that were present on Adak Island before and after volcanic eruptions, but the basic plant population was similar. After volcanic ash covered the landscape about 2000 years ago, grasses replaced crowberries for a short

30

2 The Physical Environment

time (Heusser 1978: 21). There was another shift in plant species following an ashfall 4000 years ago. However, a geologically short-term shift in plant availability may still be long enough to affect humans. Disruption in plant growth or intertidal foods for even a few months can mean the difference between starvation and health for a family. Knowledge of these hazards may prompt images of tormented residents fleeing from island to island in a nightmarish quest to escape a nearly constant inferno of natural disasters. However, several generations might live in an area without any eruptions occurring close enough to affect their community, or they may have experienced only minor ash-falls. Moreover, the people in the western Aleutian Islands had no volcanoes to worry about. Workman (1979) notes that the effects of volcanism were local and were not sufficiently disruptive to cause cultural interruptions regionally. Citing Chaluka (under the modern community of Nikolski) on Umnak Island as an example, he stated that, judging from artifact styles after a thick ash-fall between 3200 and 3000 years ago, people reoccupied the site with no break in cultural traditions. He suggests warfare probably had a greater effect on population movements and disruption of communities than did natural disasters (Workman 1979: 363). Investigating the effects of volcanic eruptions on the Alaska Peninsula, Dumond (1979) observes that sometimes ashes were deposited during certain archaeological phases without corresponding changes in the artifact assemblages afterward. Other eruptions mark shifts in the archaeological cultures and may be indicative of longterm abandonment and resettlement by new groups with different material culture and different settlement patterns. Using the Novarupta eruption of 1912 on the Alaska Peninsula as an analog, Dumond (1979: 387) estimates that people could have reoccupied the region within ten to 20 years of the eruption. In a later paper, Dumond (2004) reviewed the archaeological data that had accumulated during the intervening 25 years since that estimate and concluded that while volcanic eruptions may have been disruptive at a local level, causing people in the northeast and southwest to lose contact with one another, the disruption was not sufficient to permanently separate the groups. Local cultural changes on the peninsula do not appear to correspond with the dates for the ash deposits, leading him to conclude that eruptions were locally disruptive, but were not the source for cultural shifts or extinctions (Dumond 2004). VanderHoek (2009: 302) has a different perspective. He suggests that a series of eruptions of Aniakchak and Veniaminof volcanoes around 3400 radiocarbon years ago were responsible not only for population movements and culture change in western Alaska, but also for a 1000 year separation of the cultures of the Aleutian Islands from the rest of Alaska, eventually creating linguistic, genetic, and cultural differences. This is particularly important for explaining differences between the cultures of the Aleutian Islands and mainland Alaska. Barton et al. (2012) have been conducting surveys in the northern Alaska Peninsula and confirm VanderHoek’s model, documenting a 1800-year cultural hiatus or an absence of archaeological evidence (and presumably a gap in human occupation). Only small groups ventured

Living with Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Tsunami

31

back into the region at 3200–2400 BP. By 2300–1700 BP, the northern Alaska Peninsula was recolonized, and there was a later settlement at 1700–1000 BP. The reoccupations were sometimes limited and did not necessarily take place throughout the peninsula. McCartney and Turner (1966: 37) suggest that ash-fall from volcanoes on the north side of Umnak Island onto an early site on Anangula Island may have caused the ancient site to be abandoned approximately 8000 years ago. Black (1975: 164) expanded this scenario by proposing that the occupants migrated westward to avoid the volcano: “The eruption may have provided the stimulus for those people to brave the strong tidal rips in the difficult crossing of Samalga Pass to the Islands of the Four Mountains and other islands westward in the Aleutian chain.” A pyroclastic flow was also blamed for a hiatus in Unalaska Bay at about the same time as the Anangula hiatus, when people in the communities were either killed by the flow or moved elsewhere (Dumond and Knecht 2001: 27). These events are further discussed in Chap. 4. Black (1981) states that people who survived the eruptions, earthquakes, and tsunami would move temporarily to other places because of the impacts to subsistence foods: I suggest that in the short run in a given locality geological processes may account for frequent abandonment, shifting of, and returning to previously abandoned, habitation sites. Such short term relocations would rarely appear in the archaeological record of any given site or locality, but may help explain the number of suspected settlement sites and help interpret the number of traces of habitations per site. (emphasis in original, Black 1981: 328)

This is supported in the early 1800s by Veniaminov (1984 [1840]: 111), who reports people moving in anticipation of volcanic eruptions, sometimes to places that were not as suitable, to put distance between themselves and a volcano. Sheets (1999, 2012) hypothesizes that the ability of a culture to recover from catastrophes depends in part on their social organization. Mobile egalitarian societies with social ties to communities outside of their area and a reliance primarily on available resources (rather than on agriculture) can move away from the ash-fall or lava flow and return when the vegetation re-establishes itself. Chiefdom level societies with ranked status and competition for territory may not do so well, because neighboring chiefdoms may not allow people fleeing from the volcano into their territory (or they may be killed or enslaved). Neighboring chiefdoms may also use these opportunities to acquire new, unoccupied territory (Sheets 2012). The effects on populations in the Aleutian Islands would depend on the severity of the eruption or disaster and on Unangaˆx social organization. The early populations first occupying the archipelago may have been able to move into new areas or move to live with family elsewhere. Where islands were larger or closer together, there may have been more social networks to rely on after a disaster. In these situations, the affected groups may have been able to recover quickly and reoccupy their original territory with little long-term cultural change visible in the archaeological record. Recovery may have been more difficult as populations increased, as the land became densely occupied, and as people were differentiated by ranked social status.

32

2 The Physical Environment

Applying Sheets’ (2012) model to these later conditions, fleeing populations may have been enslaved or killed, or they may have been included in neighboring communities as lower status members. Neighboring chiefdoms may have taken advantage of the vacant land and their weakened neighbors to seize the now unoccupied territory. These conditions might have been more common in the eastern islands during the late prehistoric period with Unangaˆx complex corporate organization. Farther west, dispersed populations may still have been able to absorb smaller groups fleeing disaster. Decreasing evidence of cultural gaps after mid- and late Holocene period volcanic eruptions (with the exception of the Alaska Peninsula) supports an assumption that while people in the immediate area might have been killed by an eruption or pyroclastic avalanche, the effects were not wide-spread enough to eliminate the culture, and the affected land was quickly reoccupied. Veniaminov (1984 [1840]: 226, 228) reports that during the Russian occupation people who had relocated from another village were to be treated as “travelers” for the first year after their arrival. This meant that they were to be treated as generously as any other guest, incorporated into the community, and given the things they needed for their new life. Veniaminov (1984 [1840]) was most familiar with people in the eastern Aleutian Islands and did not mention whether these same standards applied when an entire village arrived seeking help. While stories of darkened skies filled with lightning, toxic gasses, and heated mudflows rolling down mountainsides ignite the imagination, volcanic landscapes also provide advantages. People make tools for cutting or piercing from volcanic stones including obsidian, dacite, basalts, andesite, and rhyolite, because they are hard and retain a sharp edge (Workman 1979). Because obsidian was such a valuable tool material, it was traded at least 800 km (500 miles) from Akutan Island or 650 km (404 miles) from the Okmok Caldera on Umnak Island, west along the archipelago to Adak Island and east to Kodiak Island (Nicolaysen et al. 2012; Speakman et al. 2012). Controlling the source was important. Veniaminov (1984 [1840]: 203) reported that obsidian from Okmok Caldera and amber found on the north side of Umnak Island led to warfare: “As not everyone could or wanted to buy or exchange these for something, many attempted to get them by stealth. Consequently, the owners of these localities, by right of possession, guarded them and killed the trespassers.” Pumice is a foamy, glassy lava, and scoria is rough lava pocked with holes. Both were used for sharpening bone tools and sanding wood. Volcanoes also provided hot springs, sulfur for making fires, and caves used for burial places where mummies were kept and cared for. Volcanoes, caves, and geological formations created by volcanoes were recognized as sacred places by the Unangaˆx. The distinctive peaks of each island guided kayakers during long-distance trips and, of course, they create new land and islands on which people lived.

Volcanoes and Archaeology

33

Volcanoes and Archaeology The dates for volcanic ash-falls, or tephra deposits, are determined by radiocarbon dating the plants pressed beneath the ash. The ash is not dated directly because it does not contain carbon, nor is it old enough to be dated using potassium/argon, which directly dates volcanic rock or ash. The sequence of ash dates can be used to develop chronologies for archaeological sites. This is a particularly useful technique in the Aleutian Islands, where there are numerous volcanic ash-falls. Many times, the ashes are distinctive enough that one can identify the ash visually, but it is more accurate to identify the ash from the chemical composition and the characteristics of the particles (Okuno et al. 2012). While volcanic ash is an excellent way to establish chronologies, it is also acidic, and the acids destroy bone. Unless a large amount of shell has been deposited, as at coastal sites, and the calcium has altered the sediment, shifting it to a more basic soil, bone artifacts, the remains from food, and the remains of people degrade quickly, leaving only stone artifacts. Because bone and wood normally contribute about 90% of the material culture of coastal people, sites with acidic soils may offer archaeologists little with which to interpret the culture. Beginning in the middle Holocene epoch, large shell deposits accumulated in sites along the Chain, counteracting the acidic, volcanic soils. Archaeologists also use the chemical signatures of obsidian to identify the source for the rock (see sidebar). Identifying the source of obsidian artifacts can give archaeologists information that helps them trace trade routes and relationships among the different groups in the Aleutian Islands. Obsidian Sources Obsidian is a glassy volcanic rock with high silica and aluminum, but low water content. If there is high water or gas content in magma, an eruption is likely to be explosive and the glassy lava will be ejected as foamy or bubbly pumice, which is useful for sanding or grinding wood, bone, or stone. Good quality obsidian, used for knives and points, is formed when gasses escape before lava extrudes, or where the rock has low water content (Shackley 2005: 15). Rock sources for silica include quartz and alkali feldspar, which are more common in the continental crust than in an ocean plate (Nicolaysen et al. 2012: 196). Since the Aleutian Islands are the result of the oceanic crust pushing under an old block of the Pacific Plate (the Bering Block), also an oceanic crust, it is not surprising that there are few obsidian sources in the Aleutian Islands (Nicolaysen et al. 2012). With each eruption, magma is remixed underground from the rock in the magma chamber and in the fissures through which the magma pushes to the surface. Each volcano has a unique signature, and the lava that extrudes onto the ground surface also has a different chemical mixture. These chemical

34

2 The Physical Environment

differences provide an “address” once the chemical composition is determined for each lava flow. The lava source for the obsidian used to make artifacts is determined from the closest chemical match to tested obsidian outcrops. This method can also be used for basalt, dacite, andesite, and other volcanic rock. But andesite and basalt flows are more common than obsidian, and there would have to be an extensive database for every lava flow from every volcano on every island to identify all sources of basalt or andesite. X-ray florescence (XRF) is a low-cost method used to determine the chemical content of the rock. It can be done with portable equipment, does not cause the artifact to be radioactive, and does not destroy the artifact. The analysis can be done in the field, or in a small laboratory. The artifact is set over the XRF “gun,” which releases X-rays that cause atoms in the obsidian to release X-rays of their own or to fluoresce. The wavelength and intensity that bounce back to the detector differ depending on the type and amount of the elements in the rock (Malaniey 2011: 482–483). The chemical composition of the rock is then compared to the compositions in a database of samples taken from identified sources to find the closest match. If there is no match, the composition may point to a source that is not yet in the database. For small fragments or flakes that could not otherwise be analyzed, Instrumental Neutron Activation Analysis (INAA) may be used. The process requires that samples be ground into a power and placed in vials, then irradiated or bombarded with neutrons in a nuclear reactor. The purpose is to shift stable atoms to unstable or radioactive atoms that will emit gamma rays typical for that element (Malaniey 2011: 427). The more intense the emission, the more of that element is present. This is a destructive method, and after the analysis, the sample must be disposed of with other radioactive waste. The process is also expensive because it requires a nuclear reactor to conduct the analysis, and there are few facilities available (Malaniey 2011: 432; Shackley 2005: 90).

Tsunami, Earthquakes, and the Unangaˆx Some time after he had come back to his place, he heard it said that Kanuygaaxtux’s settlement began to quake. He also heard it said that the bay behind the village was getting red. Hearing it said that an octopus’s arms appeared in the middle of the bay, and that people were afraid, he began to understand that this was because of him. That octopus overturned Kanuygaaxtux’s settlement and killed him together with his men, it is said. (Legend of Kanuygaaxtuˆx by Timofey Dorofeyev of Umnak Island, in 1909 to Yachmenev. In Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 349)

This oral account uses the rolling movement of a giant octopus’s arms to represent a wave rolling over the village and killing everybody after a large earthquake. Written records of tsunami in the Aleutian Islands appear with Russian arrival. When the

Tsunami, Earthquakes, and the Unangaˆx

35

Russians visited Amchitka, they noted driftwood 12–15 m (40–50 ft) above the shoreline. This they attributed to a tsunami that had also hit the Kuril Islands and Kamchatka in 1737. In 1788, a large earthquake and a resulting 117-m (384-foot) high tsunami struck Unga Island (Lander 1996: 33–36). A magnitude 8.6 earthquake near the Fox Islands affected Hawai‘i and California in 1929. Probably the more famous tsunami hit on April 1, 1946. Two earthquakes were felt throughout the eastern islands and Alaska Peninsula. A tsunami struck the Scotch Cap Lighthouse on Unimak Island 20 min after the second earthquake, completely destroying the lighthouse and killing five men inside. The lighthouse was almost 10 m (32 ft) above sea level. The wave that destroyed it struck the bluff behind it 35 m (115 ft) above sea level. The wave also hit the communities of Ikatan, Unga, Sanak, King Cove, and Dutch Harbor (Lander 1996: 64–70) and devastated the north coast of Hawai‘i. Smaller tsunami affected the Aleutian Islands in 1949, 1952, 1953, and 1956, all generated either from Japan or Kamchatka. A large tsunami that struck in 1957 originated from the south side of the Andreanof Islands after a magnitude 8.3 earthquake. The earthquake caused structural damage at the Adak Navy Station. Later, the water rose by 3.8 m (12.5 ft) at the naval station in Sweeper Cove. Atka had a run-up wave 9 m (30 ft) above the shoreline, and there was damage at Fort Glenn on Umnak Island, and neighboring Chernofski on Unalaska. On the Pacific Ocean side of Umnak Island, run-up waves 22.8-m (75-foot) high pushed debris half a kilometer (1600 ft) inshore (Lander 1996: 71–72). In 1965, a magnitude 8.2 earthquake, this time in the Rat Islands, created a 10.7m (35-foot) tsunami on the Pacific Ocean side of Shemya Island, but only a 2-m (6.5-foot) wave on Amchitka Island and a 1.6-m (5.2-foot) wave at Massacre Bay on Attu Island (Lander 1996: 109). Since 1965, tsunami in the Aleutian Islands have been measured in centimeters rather than meters. One might think the Unangaˆx would build away from tsunami-prone shorelines, but there is no evidence that they avoided the southern coasts that received the brunt of the damage (McCartney and Veltre 1999: 511). Archaeological sites are numerous along the Pacific Ocean side of islands throughout the Chain. There is also no evidence that Pacific-fronted sites were scoured away by tsunami (e.g., Fitzhugh 2012: 31). Recent tsunami on Adak Island cast logs and driftwood well upland from the shoreline of Bay of Waterfalls, but sites several thousands of years old still line the shore (pers. obs.) Evidence of earthquakes might be visible as disruptions in the soil layers in an archaeological site. Earthquakes can cause a linear feature, such as a house wall or a ditch, to shift out of alignment, and they may push one block of strata higher than the associated strata. Sometimes ground movement will create pressure plumes of sediment that cross-cut the normal strata. Plumes may be difficult to see while excavating unless archaeologists are lucky enough to cross-cut one in the wall of the excavation unit. Subsidence where the ground surface dropped, uplift where it was pushed up, and other terrain shifts caused by large earthquakes might be identified at a landscape level by changes in vegetation and shoreline changes, in-filled bays, high bluffs once eroded by beach waves, or shellfish in “live position” embedded in soil many meters above the modern beach.

36

2 The Physical Environment

The identification of tsunami in the archaeological record can be as problematic as identifying earthquakes. Washed onto the mud and peat substrates, beach sand and intertidal debris from a tsunami can create distinct soil layers or strata (Peters et al. 2007: 376). Cliffs and rocky shores do not provide a place for sediments to accumulate from a tsunami, but wetlands and estuaries are ideal settings for such evidence. Sometimes the record of a disaster from an earthquake or tsunami may be the abandonment of a community for no discernible reason, or in human remains left in a house instead of being buried or placed elsewhere. But site damage or abandonment can be caused by many factors, including warfare, disease, religious events, starvation, or intracommunity factions or discord, none of which relate to earthquakes, tsunami, or even volcanic eruptions, so evidence of an environmental source needs to be clear. Saltonstall and Carver (2002), Johnson and Winslow (1992), Winslow (1992, and Winslow and Johnson (1989) have successfully used site abandonment associated with local shoreline subsidence to examine the effects of earthquakes regionally in neighboring Kodiak Archipelago and adjacent Shumagin Islands. Their studies can be used as models for Aleutian investigations. Saltonstall and Carver (2002) concluded that people left areas affected by coastal subsidence, then returned later. While they were away, their culture continued to change. This created the illusion that there had been an influx of new people with different settlement patterns. The shift could be interpreted as “punctuated,” or sudden, culture change within a restricted area. The ability of highly mobile people to quickly move and settle in safer places or to move with relatives elsewhere prevented cultural breaks in the Kodiak area. In so doing, these people were better able to maintain their culture when disasters struck (Saltonstall and Carver 2002). A similar response was proposed for volcanic disasters by Sheets (1999, 2012) and may have been a response chosen by the Unangaˆx under comparable catastrophic circumstances. Johnson and Winslow (1992; Winslow 1992; Winslow and Johnson 1989) dated periods of shoreline uplift to determine the most seismically active intervals in the Shumagin Islands, south of the Alaska Peninsula. During active periods, people left the islands, and their communities were destroyed by tsunami, or people moved to places elsewhere on the islands where the effects were not so great. When the earthquake activity was low, village size increased, some areas were reoccupied, or new land was made available by the change in the shoreline or relative sea level was colonized (Winslow and Johnson 1989). People were slower to return where intertidal fauna was decimated by earthquakes. Veniaminov (1984 [1840]: 81) provides a written account of human responses to natural disasters in the Aleutian Islands. He reported that in the early 1800s, the village of Tulikskoe on the east side of Umnak Island was originally on a flat parcel of land near the base of Okmok volcano. Within a generation, the bluff, now visible in modern times, was formed. Coastal uplift was not necessarily a slow process and could occur within a person’s lifetime, creating new land but also destroying shellfish beds and fishing areas. In the archaeological record, the effects on a community could appear nearly instantaneous. Using biological studies following the magnitude 9.2 Great

The Sea

37

Alaska Earthquake of 1964, Losey (2005) suggested that changes in the intertidal fauna on which people subsisted might be visible in the archaeological record as entire ecosystems were disrupted. Adaptations to frequent earthquakes along the archipelago may also be reflected in house construction and design. Modern earthquake-resistant structures tend to be round and flexible, with few side openings such as windows and doors (Minke 2006: 136–137). Unangam house shape was round, and the roof was supported by wood or whale-bone rafters with widely spaced beams. The beam distance may not have been only to conserve construction material; it may also have allowed the supporting structure to move. The entrance was traditionally through the roof and was not moved to the side of the house until after Russian arrival. A word used in the Aleutian Islands for earthquakes is yaagilix, which means swaying or moving back and forth, is also used to describe ship movement (Bergsland 1994: 463). The house frame was built much like upside-down boat ribs, with an insulating grass mat/sod roof instead of a skin cover. The construction might not have been deliberately adapted from wave movement, but after a large earthquake, houses with this sort of construction would have weathered the movement better than others, and presumably their attributes would be selected during rebuilding.

The Sea Such a large amount of water trying to pass through the narrow straits causes an extremely strong current in them, both on an incoming and an outgoing tide. When the flow changes the water rushes into the straits with a roar, producing lapping waves and eddying currents, sometimes whirlpools. This goes on until a new flow takes over from the other, then it becomes very fast, but gradually slackens off, and the waves and spray also become calmer. Such a fast current is called a suloi [rip tide] here. The local inhabitants always know when one will occur and will never venture to cross the straits then, as it seems to boil because of the great waves which are sometimes very high, and because of the opposing currents. When the wind is strong a suloi can be very dangerous for sailing ships, which are spun round and rocked violently, the waves break over the cabin and sometimes break the topmasts, and even the masts. A strong suloi can be a fearsome spectacle. (October 13, 1802 diary entry of Davydov 1977: 97–98)

Archaeologists, among others, have argued that the expanse of the seascape is more important to people living in archipelagos than are the islands themselves (e.g., Laughlin 1981: 20; Rainbird 2007: 49). Water is a dynamic space that connects neighbors and trade partners while also providing food and building materials for coastally adapted cultures. Coastal people may view the water as a complex physical space that includes currents forming trails that guide them to other islands, tides determining when one should travel through passes between islands, and complex formations of subsurface rocks, reflected waves, and eddies requiring traditional knowledge passed from elders and an experienced eye for reading water color and surface characteristics. The sea may be a different world than many of us are used to traveling, but it is a familiar setting to seafaring people of the world (Rainbird 2007).

38

2 The Physical Environment

Aleutian waters have a reputation for being some of the most dangerous seas in the world. The Arctic-cooled, shallow Bering Sea on the north side of the Chain meets the warm, deep Pacific Ocean at the archipelago. Strong currents form as the waters move through narrow island passes creating violent rip tides and whirlpools, but these same forceful currents bring nutrients through the passes that feed fishes, sea mammals, and sea birds while drawing these food sources near shore to people living on the islands. Three major currents pass along the Aleutian Archipelago (Fig. 2.1). The Alaska Coastal Current travels along the south side the Alaska Peninsula from southeast Alaska and the Gulf of Alaska, carrying the mix of saline ocean water and freshwater from large rivers draining southern Alaska of snow and glacier melt (Hunt et al. 2005: 295). When this current reaches Unimak and Samalga passes, it turns northward bringing the warmer, less saline water into the cold Bering Sea. Off-shore from the warm Alaska Coastal Current is the faster, concentrated, cold current of the Alaskan Stream. The Alaskan Stream begins near the southeastern side of the Kodiak Archipelago, moves along the wide continental shelf of the eastern Aleutian Islands, then shifts closer to the islands after Samalga Pass. It flows quickly along the archipelago westward to Amchitka Island where it widens and becomes diffuse (Hunt et al. 2005: 295). Each of these currents creates conditions that influence the kinds of animals that occupy the seas surrounding the islands. A major environmental shift in the Chain occurs at Samalga pass largely because the Alaska Coastal Current shifts northward at that point while the Alaska Stream continues on to the central islands. As the Aleutian North Slope Current travels eastward along the north side of the archipelago, beginning at Amchitka Pass, it collects the northward-flowing currents of the Alaskan Stream and the Alaska Coastal Current. When it reaches the larger eastern islands and the Alaska Peninsula, the Aleutian North Slope Current swings north to follow the shallow Bering Shelf into the Bering Sea where it becomes the Bering Slope Current (Hunt et al. 2005). The exception to the generally northward flow of the currents is the Kamchatka Current in Kamchatka Strait at the far western edge of the archipelago. There, the current turns southward and travels along the Asian mainland, returning the water to the Pacific Ocean (Reed and Stabeno 1999). Within individual island passes, the water moves northward on the east side and southward on the west side (Hunt et al. 2005: 295; Ladd et al. 2005; Stabeno et al. 2005). The currents mix the water columns creating a nutrient-rich environment for plankton that attracts other marine life. Water salinity and temperature affect plankton production along the Chain. Well-mixed waters change the concentration of nutrients in areas that would otherwise have low production (Ladd et al. 2005: 37). The effect of these inter-island currents is critical to the marine flora and fauna of the Aleutian Archipelago and the terrestrial fauna that depend on the marine organisms. The width and depth of the island passes affect the amount of mixing. The western passes are deeper and shorter because the islands are smaller than in the east, and the water does not mix as completely (Ladd et al. 2005: 36). Eastern passes extend across a wider shelf, and the water moves through narrow straits between larger islands. Mordy et al. (2005) found that nutrient concentrations were greater among

The Sea

39

Fig. 2.1 Ocean currents of the Aleutian Archipelago

the central islands in Amukta, Seguam, Samalga, and Tanaga Passes than they were in the eastern Unimak and Akutan Passes. They concluded that this was because the eastern passes are drawing from the Alaska Coastal Current which has lower salinity and poorer nutrient content as compared to the richer, colder, and saltier Alaska Stream that filters among the western islands (Mordy et al. 2005). Upwelling occurs when cool, deep waters rise to the surface. Upwelling systems near the islands are important because they bring up nutrients that support plankton, krill, fish, and all the other animals that feed on these smaller organisms such as sharks, larger predatory fishes, sea birds, sea mammals, and humans (Bakun et al. 2010). Upwelling can be caused by winds driving the warmer surface water offshore, and subsurface tidal currents (Bakun et al. 2010; Sapozhnikov et al. 2011; Swift and Aagaard 1976). Upwelling is characterized by greater salinity and cooler waters than surrounding waters. Aleutian waters have several upwelling areas that may be relatively permanent or stable because of the submarine geography. These are on the north side of Tanaga Pass between the Delarof Islands and Tanaga Island; Amukta Pass between Seguam Island and Islands of the Four Mountains; Samalga Pass between Umnak Island and Islands of the Four Mountains; Akutan Pass between Unalaska Island and Akutan Island; and Unimak Pass between Unimak and Akun Islands (Sapozhnikov et al. 2011).

40

2 The Physical Environment

Tides and Sea Levels Anyone who has lived along the ocean is familiar with tides. Low tides allow people to harvest invertebrates, edible sea weeds, and fishes. High tides bring wood, drift whales, and other treasures to the shoreline, and they allow delicate skin-covered kayaks, or bidarkas, to pass over rocks and sandbars. Changing tides or slack tides calm the water and allow travel across island passes, while rip tides, or the suloi described by Davydov at the beginning of this section, that send water rushing through narrow passes at the height of the changing tide, are dangerous for small boats. But tides are not the same everywhere. Tides on the Bering Sea side of the Aleutian Islands are generated from the Pacific Ocean. These tides push through the passes into the Bering Sea. Tidal amplitudes (the distance from mean sea level to high tide) on the north side of the islands are similar to tidal amplitudes on the south side (Kowalik 1999). The average amplitude decreases between the mainland coast and the central and western Aleutian Islands, from 90 cm (nearly 3 feet) in the southern Kodiak archipelago and 30 cm (about a foot) at Samalga Pass to 20 cm (7.9 in.) at Seguam Pass through the Near Islands (Kowalik 1999: 101, Fig. 3). Tidal amplitudes are greatest near Kvichak Bay in the northeastern corner of the Alaska Peninsula, with tidal amplitudes over 180 cm (nearly 6 ft; Mofjeld 1986: 2599). Tidal amplitude may have important implications for understanding Unangaˆx culture history. In a recent study of Mediterranean and Atlantic coasts, tidal amplitude was found to be associated with biomass, or the mass of living plants and animals in an area. For humans, this translates to the amount of food available in the intertidal zone (Fa 2008). Shorelines with greater tidal amplitude had larger intertidal zones available for exploiting important shellfish species. There are not only more individuals of a particular species, but the diversity of species present is also greater (Fa 2008: 2197). Intertidal zones are exaggerated on shorelines with lower slope angles, giving shellfish a larger area to attach to or to feed from, and therefore, more biomass was available for humans to harvest. Vertical shores have less surface area exposed, even with greater tidal amplitudes and therefore, there was less biomass available to harvest (Fa 2008). Vertical shorelines are probably also less accessible to humans. Fa (2008: 2205) predicted that people living along shorelines with greater tidal amplitude were less likely to overexploit intertidal resources because of the greater available biomass. Communities along these shorelines could have higher population densities, become more sedentary, and develop a complex social organization. Similar patterns appear in the Aleutian Archipelago, with larger populations and greater social complexity in the eastern islands compared to the central and western islands. One important variable may be something as culturally removed as tidal amplitude. Other factors need to be included to develop a model to explain these east–west differences, including but not limited to population sources, effects of water currents on available nutrients, land available for settlement, shoreline characteristics, and neighboring groups. Tidal amplitude was not constant over time. During the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) at the end of the Pleistocene, polar tides were more extreme than they are today

Tides and Sea Levels

41

because of lower sea levels and impinging ice sheets. Models show greater amplitude along the southcentral Alaska coast 20,000 years ago, decreasing toward the central Aleutian Islands, as is true today (Thomas and Sündermann 1999: 3169). As the ice sheets melted, amplitudes in the North Pacific Ocean were relatively unaffected, but tidal patterns shifted with the inundation of the Bering Land Bridge (Thomas and Sündermann 1999: 3167). If the Chain was surrounded by ice, amplitudes also may have been suppressed, because sea ice tends to dampen tidal amplitude (Mofjeld 1986). During the Neoglacial period of the Holocene, sea ice extended southward to Umnak Island in the eastern Aleutian Islands (Crockford and Frederick 2007; Davis 2001). This cooler period may have affected tidal amplitude seasonally in the eastern islands, but it would have left the central and western islands relatively unaffected. Sea levels rose worldwide at varying rates when the glaciers and ice sheets that covered the northern continents melted during the early Holocene, and the water rushed back to the oceans. Because world water mass shifts globally, there might be a lower sea level in one part of the world and higher levels in another (Mörner 2010: 7). Using geological sediment profiles, Black (1980: 234, Fig. 2) estimated that modern sea levels were established sooner on the Alaska Peninsula (11,000 radiocarbon years before present, or rcybp, at Cold Bay) and the eastern islands (8259 rcybp at Umnak Island) and later in the western islands (7500 rcybp on Adak Island, 6500 rcybp on Amchitka, and 5000 rcybp on Attu). Savinetsky et al. (2004: 347) noted that the first evidence for human occupation tends to follow sea level stabilization by about 1500 years. As an example of the complexity of interpreting past shorelines, Jordan (2001) was able to determine that since the Last Glacial Maximum, ancient shorelines on the Alaska Peninsula rose 0.25 cm (0.1 in.) year from isostatic rebound. Isostatic rebound describes the action of the ground rising after weight of glaciers on depressed ground is released by glacial melting. Later, the shoreline was submerged when water levels rose 100 m (328 ft) from worldwide glacial melting. The greatest rebound occurred at the same time as the greatest sea level rise, between 14,000 and 9000 BP (Jordan 2001). Tectonic activity also affected the coastline by raising or lowering shorelines relative to the sea level. Jordan (2001: 520) reported that from 9,600 to 6,000 years ago, shorelines on the western Alaska Peninsula were 16 m (52.5 ft) above mean modern sea level (amsl). Tectonic activity caused subsidence along the coastline 2100 years ago, dropping the shoreline to 6 m (19.7 ft) above the modern sea level, and most recently, shorelines 1800–600 years ago were 2–3 m (6.7–9.8 ft) above the modern sea level. People tended to establish their villages near the shoreline, so knowing where the shoreline was is a good predictor for site location and age.

42

2 The Physical Environment

Weather and Climate This region is the empire of the winds. During all my residence here there has not been a single day in which, from morning to night, it was entirely still. Each day, even on the finest one, in the morning or at midday, unfailingly there is some wind, although it may be a light one. Not only on land but on the sea itself, near shore, calms which last through the entire day occur but very seldom. (Veniaminov 1984 [1840]: 53)

The weather and winds in the Aleutian region are some of the most violent in the world, reaching hurricane strength with comparable barometer readings. But the archipelago also has a maritime climate with mild temperatures compared to the rest of Alaska, and it does not have permafrost. Although the Aleutian Archipelago and the Alaska Peninsula share this maritime climate, climate patterns are not uniform across the region. Average August temperatures range from 11 °C (52 °F) on Shemya Island to 15 °C (59 °F) in Unalaska, and average January temperatures are from −5 °C (23 °F) in Cold Bay on the Alaska Peninsula to −2 °C (28 °F) in Adak (Shulski and Wendler 2007: 26). The Chain has a mean cloud cover of 90%, increasing to 95% in the summer (Shulski and Wendler 2007: 27), and it is wet, though the amount of rainfall depends on the island. Shemya Island, in the far western islands, for example, receives 81.3 cm (32 in.) of rain and 211 cm (83 in.) of snow on average yearly, while Adak Island, in the middle of the Chain, receives a yearly average of 137.2 cm (54 in.) of rain and 251 cm (99 in.) of snow. In the eastern islands, Unalaska Island receives 144.8 cm (57 in.) of rain, 231 cm (91 in.) of snow, and Cold Bay, on the Alaska Peninsula, receives 101.6 cm (40 in.) of rain and 188 cm (74 in.) of snow on average each year (Shulski and Wendler 2007: 26). The position of the Aleutian Low affects North Pacific and Bering Sea weather. It is one of two major lows in the Northern Hemisphere; the other is in the North Atlantic (Shulski and Wendler 2007: 96). The Aleutian Low is an area where the atmospheric pressure at sea level of storms crossing the North Pacific is at its lowest (Rodionov et al. 2005: 5, Rodionov et al. 2007: 2560). Rodionov et al. (2007: 2560) describe it as “a statistical feature” that is determined by averaging the lows of storms charted across the North Pacific Ocean, but the average varies depending on the period used to make the calculation. The low position changes with season; it may move from one year to the next, or even have different positions between decades. It can also split in two, with an eastern and a western center, both with the same average sea level pressure. This split usually only occurs when the Aleutian Low is weak (Rodionov et al. 2007: 2560, 2565). When the position of the low changes, storm behavior changes. In the winter, the low is usually south of the archipelago and immediately west of the International Dateline (Rodionov et al. 2005: 5). In the summer, the low is so weak that it nearly disappears. The strength and the position of Aleutian Low affects the eastern and western Aleutian Islands differently. There is a shift in weather patterns approximately at Samalga Pass (Rodionov et al. 2005). During a strong Aleutian Low, the western islands become cooler and temperatures are more variable; when it is weak, the western islands are warmer. The eastern islands to the Gulf of Alaska have shown

Weather and Climate

43

an increase in surface air temperatures during strong Aleutian Lows, although sometimes the warmer temperatures will extend westward along the Chain (Rodionov et al. 2005: 20). This variance provides a caution against applying paleoclimate data collected from the eastern islands or the Alaska Peninsula to the central and western islands, and vice versa. Such caution is particularly important when archaeologists interpret the effects of climate change on people living in the Aleutian region in the distant past. The intensity of the Aleutian Low varies with El Niño patterns. El Niño and La Niña are weather patterns in the tropical Pacific that affect weather worldwide. El Niño is a period of warmer sea surface temperature and La Niña is a period of colder sea surface temperature. These patterns can last from a year to a year-and-a-half (McPhaden 2002). During El Niño-affected years, the low-pressure center in the Aleutian waters becomes more extreme and moves southeast of its normal position. Storms in the Aleutian Islands become stronger and more frequent. During a La Niña period in the South Pacific, the low is less extreme and moves westward, so storms become less frequent and not as strong (Niebauer et al. 1999: 38, 47; Rodionov et al. 2007: 2575). El Niño and La Niña events are relatively short and would be difficult to identify archaeologically. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) has more enduring weather patterns, lasting two or more decades but it may have less obvious effects on Aleutian weather. Although causes for the PDO are unclear, its effects are recorded in tree ring patterns along the west coast of North America at least to AD 1600 (Mantua and Hare 2002). Shifts in modern fish and bird productivity, and presumably the productivity of their predators show correlations with PDO phases. During warm periods, the surface temperature of the ocean water is cool in the central North Pacific while it is warm along the east Pacific coast. As would be expected, the opposite occurs during the cool phase of the PDO (Mantua and Hare 2002: 37). Precipitation and terrestrial temperatures are also affected. During the warm phase, the Asian coast and interior and the eastern Pacific coast are dry and cool, while southcentral Alaska is wet but warm (Mantua and Hare 2002: 39). The longer duration of the PDO may allow these occurrences to be observed in the archaeological record using isotopic shifts or changes in faunal or botanical representation provided the oscillations are extreme and prolonged. Given the frequency of storms associated with a strong Aleutian Low, it is not surprising that one nickname for the Aleutian Islands is Birthplace of the Winds. The air terminal at Adak, Alaska, borrowed this phrase for a sign at the entrance. The sign had “Welcome to Adak” printed on the top line and “Birthplace of the Winds” on the second line. After what must have been a particularly violent storm, half of the sign ripped away. The sign facing the incoming guests read, “Adak, The Winds.” This haiku-like introduction was an appropriate welcome for people newly arriving to the Aleutian Islands. The sign has since been replaced. Storms bringing driving rains and intense winds are most common in the winter when the Aleutian Low is strongest. Pressure differences between the low-pressure center and the surrounding areas are greater, occasionally creating hurricane force winds in the winter along the Chain (Niebauer et al. 1999: 37; Rodionov et al. 2005).

44

2 The Physical Environment

As an example of the extreme weather that can occur, on December 1, 2009, the Coast Guard station at Attu recorded a 287 km per hour (178 miles per hour) wind gust before their instruments stopped working. The people stationed there could feel the concrete walls shaking from the wind (Pemberton 2009). Sustained winds were 201 km (125 miles) per hour (Coast Guard News, 2009). Three days later, the same storm blew over a 33.5-m (110-foot) tall crane used to move cargo containers from barges in Dutch Harbor, Alaska (Anchorage Daily News 2009). Storms that come from the Pacific waters near Japan and move up and eastward along the Aleutian Islands roll along in giant, counter-clockwise swirling fronts, or cyclones, eventually reaching the Alaska mainland or grinding into the Gulf of Alaska and over Southeast Alaska. In the Aleutian Islands, there are fewer than two summer storms per month, but there are three to five storms each month in the winter (Niebauer et al. 1999: 37). As a storm system rolls over the Chain, wind directions shift relative to the eye of the low-pressure system. Knowledge of this phenomenon helps when you are trying to determine where the storm is relative to your position. If you turn your face into the wind and hold your arms straight out to the sides, your right hand is pointing to the eye of the storm. The storms move from west to east, so if your arm is pointing to the west, there is more storm coming and you should tie down your tent or boat. If your arm is pointing to the east, the storm is moving away, and you are waiting for the next storm. Localized winds can also cause severe effects. Williwaws are a local term for katabatic winds. These winds develop on the windward side of mountain ranges or on cold plateau areas, such as a glacier field. If the air temperature is warmer downslope, as over an exposed land surface or an adjacent body of warm water, the air is lighter. When there are large temperature differences between the two air masses, the heavier cold air rushes down the mountain slope, hitting the lower elevations at high speeds (Fett et al. 1993: 3–21; Li et al. 2004: 1899; Shulski and Wendler 2007: 105). The destructive potential of these winds comes from their sudden arrival and unpredictability. Williwaws usually form in the winter, frequently at night or early in the morning when differences between land and sea temperatures are greatest. They become most extreme on islands with high mountains and large differences in air temperatures (Fett et al. 1993: 3–21; Li et al. 2004). Gap winds occur when winds from the open ocean hit narrow passes between islands and mountains. These constrictions cause a Venturi effect, increasing velocity as the wind rushes through the pass (Fett et al. 1993: 3–21). Gap winds can reach 200 km per hour (125 miles; Li et al. 2004: 1900). Even the jet stream, a high-altitude air current moving many miles above the North Pacific, can create problems along the Chain. Gusts and turbulence from the polar jet stream can reach the ground and water surface, creating local air disturbances (Fett et al. 1993: 3–21). With wind and storms often come clouds. Cold Bay Airport records an average of 304 clouded days, with no clear days from June through September, and only one or two for each of the other months (Osborn 2019). Since cloud cover affects the amount of solar radiation that reaches the ground, one would expect the Aleutian Islands to also have low solar radiation levels (McCartney and Veltre 1999: 511), but cloud type affects the amount of solar radiation able to penetrate to the ground.

Climate Variation and Change in the Aleutian Islands

45

The highest clouds allow the most solar energy to pass through, while the lowest clouds allow the least. Yet with all the cloud cover, Adak Island enjoys the highest amount of solar radiation in Alaska. This is in part because of its southern latitude compared to the rest of the state; at Adak Island the angle of the sun is higher and the rays are better able to penetrate (Dissing and Wendler 1998). As one moves eastward and northward along the Chain to the Alaska Peninsula, solar radiation decreases (Dissing and Wendler 1998: 174). Fog can occur any time during the year but is most common in the summer, from June through September, when warm southern air blows over the cold water of the Bering Sea, the colder waters mixing in the straits or over upwelling cold water. Usually fog occurs after a storm has passed or before a warm front. The fog can become so thick that people have gotten lost in it, both on land and in boats. The fog may last days at a time and can remain even during high winds and rain (Fett et al. 1993: 3–17, 4–8, 4–9). Adak Island is covered by fog about 151 days a year, or nearly half the year.

Climate Variation and Change in the Aleutian Islands Old Aleuts say that in former times in winter the snows were deeper and the frosts steadier and lasted longer, but the summer was warmer and more constant also. This the Russians – the old timers – confirm. (Veniaminov 1984 [1840]: 51) There is a universal tradition that in former times and even quite recently, there had been many more calm days and dead calms than occur now; especially in spring, so that sea otter hunters, who go as far away as 50 versts (53.34 km or 33.14 miles) from shore, often spent the nights at sea. One should not reject this, the more so because many aver that they themselves remember such times. And if this is so, why has it now changed so much? Veniaminov (1984 [1840]: 55) from observations made between 1824 and 1834.

Climate in the Aleutian Islands today is not necessarily the climate that was experienced by the people of the Aleutian Islands a hundred, a thousand, or several thousand years ago. There are different scales of change, from short-term El Niño or La Niña shifts to the more moderate Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Changes of greater extremes and durations, some many hundreds of years long, may cause glacial or sea ice advances and retreats. Geologists, biologists, and archaeologists infer changes in temperature, precipitation, and sunlight by using environmental preferences of modern plants and animals to reconstruct past climates. The distributions and abundance of diatoms, plant and animal remains, isotopes, and the shapes of grains of sediment collected from ocean or lake cores or from archaeological sites, provide information about past climates. Oxygen and carbon isotopes from sedentary organisms such as shellfish are used to help recognize climate changes in the archaeological record. As a shell grows, the chemical elements in the surrounding water, including oxygen, carbon, calcium, magnesium, and strontium are incorporated into the shell, reflecting the relative proportions of these isotopes in the environment. The mollusk adds new layers to its shell as it grows, much like tree rings. Researchers can sample each layer or growth ring to determine the ratio of oxygen or carbon isotopes incorporated into the shell

46

2 The Physical Environment

during a specific period. Depending on the intertidal zone in which the bivalve lived, time intervals as refined as tidal shifts can be identified in the shell. Isotopes have different weights because of differences in the number of neutrons in the nucleus of the atom. Heavier atoms such as oxygen 18 (18 O) are likely to be left behind in the ocean water while the lighter oxygen 16 (16 O) will evaporate. Rainwater has a greater concentration of 16 O than does ocean water because rainwater originates from water that has evaporated. For the same reasons, isotopes can also be used to determine temperature changes of the surrounding water, since the 18 O will remain while 16 O evaporates as the temperature warms (Malainey 2011: 195). Expressed as 18 O values, the ratio of 16 O to 18 O isotopes is measured in parts per mil or parts per thousand (‰). A change in 18 O of 1 part per mil reflects a temperature change of 4.42 °C (7.96 °F; Hallmann et al. 2008: 119). Increasingly negative 18 O values are associated with warmer temperatures, and more positive numbers are associated with cooler temperatures. As freshwater is added to the system through runoff, melt-water, or precipitation, decreases in salinity, can also cause more negative values of 18 O‰. The source of ratio changes can be identified from stable carbon isotope ratios in the sample. If the 13 C/12 C ratios and 18 O/16 O ratios both show a shift, the environmental change may be from changes of salinity rather than temperature (McConnaughey and Gilliken 2008). Savinetsky et al. (2012) used oxygen and carbon isotopes from barnacles collected from archaeological sites on the north side of Adak Island to record changes in water temperatures, and Misarti et al. (2009) investigated ecosystem productivity using carbon isotopes from marine fauna collected from archaeological sites of Sanak Island, south of the Alaska Peninsula. This technology is sure to become more common in Aleutian Island climate research. Depending on the material sampled, radiocarbon dates used to date archaeological shell or bone sampled for environmental information can have statistical error ranges of decades or even centuries. So archaeologists might talk about environmental shifts in terms of hundreds of years. This frustrates biologists who are used to examining yearly variations in modern animal populations. That said, archaeological and geological data provide a long-term record of regional climate change, covering centuries or millennia, and this record helps biologists understand the consequences of environmental change that we cannot experience in our short lives.

Climate at the End of the Pleistocene The first people traveling between Siberia and Alaska about 20,000–15,000 years ago lived in Beringia. Connecting Asia and the Americas, this landmass had lakes, hills, willow-lined rivers, and a grassy tundra that supported a terrestrial mammal population richer and more diverse than seen today in the Arctic. The Aleutian Islands were not accessible to people then. At the time, the Alaska Peninsula was covered by glaciers that reached offshore to the Shumagin Islands and extended westward to Umnak Island covering it with a 500–600 m (about a third of a mile) thick ice cap that

The Holocene

47

left only mountain peaks exposed (Black 1975: 161; Mann and Hamilton 1995: 454; Thorson and Hamilton 1986: 178). Glaciers filled the water passes to the Bering Sea, preventing ocean currents from bringing warmer water northward from the Pacific Ocean (Tanaka and Takahashi 2005: 2134, 2142). Not only did the blockade cause the Bering Sea to cool, but it also reduced nutrients flowing northward from the Pacific Ocean during the late Pleistocene. A colder Bering Sea also caused the Polar Front to move southward, increasing the frequency of storms in the North Pacific (Mann and Hamilton 1995: 454). Sea levels were lower, but the weight of the ice sheet also depressed the ground surface on the western Alaska Peninsula (Jordan 2001: 513–514). Misarti et al. (2012) demonstrated that glacial retreat from the coastline offshore of the Alaska Peninsula was withdrawing from Sanak Island by about 17,000 BP. Sanak Island is approximately 53 km (33 miles) south of the mainland. Earlier estimates for glacial retraction on the Alaska Peninsula were during a warm period between 14,000 and 13,000 years ago (Jordan and Krumhardt 2003: 23; Thorson and Hamilton 1986). Warmer conditions and rising water would have melted the edges of the ice caps along the shoreline, opening up the coastal areas before the end of the Pleistocene (Misarti et al. 2012). While the shore edge may have been a passageway for the first people to move south and east into other parts of the northeast Pacific coast, there is no archaeological evidence of human occupation on the islands until 9000 years ago. While intriguing to archaeologists interested in coastal migrations into the Americas, this early deglaciation may have little to do with the initial occupation of the Aleutian Islands. It is more likely that people began moving onto the archipelago during the warming period at the beginning of the Holocene. The Pleistocene period of extreme cold, dry weather ended with warmer temperatures and associated glacial melting and rising sea levels. The Bering Land Bridge was breached by 12,900 years ago when ocean waters rose 50 m (164 ft), creating a narrow strait (Elias et al. 1996: 62; Hoffecker and Elias 2007: 31).

The Holocene The beginning of the Holocene Epoch 10,000 to 7000 years ago was warm. By 8500 years ago, sea levels rose sufficiently to completely cover Beringia, and water currents moved between the Beaufort and the Bering Seas much as they do now (Mann and Hamilton 1995: 453). Oceans rose nearly 91 m (300 ft) from their lowest point to near modern levels, and land released from the weight of the glaciers rebounded, raising shorelines above the encroaching oceans in some areas. The early Holocene climate approached conditions more familiar to us. Estimates for deglaciation of the eastern and central islands differ by island (Thorson and Hamilton 1986: 180, 183). Deglaciation estimates for the central islands of Adak and Kanaga vary between 8000 and 5500 years ago (Black 1976b: 292). The valleys on the east side of Attu Island were deglaciated near sea level after 7000 years ago but others not until after 5000 years ago (Black 1981: 56). The more southerly

48

2 The Physical Environment

Amchitka Island may have been one of the few large islands that was not covered by ice, nor were the small, low islands of the Chain, creating refugia or havens for plants and animals at the end of the Pleistocene (Black 1974: 131, 138). Shortly after the islands were deglaciated, people were moving westward along the Chain. Holocene environments are of greatest interest to archaeologists because climate and environmental shifts during this period directly affected people arriving into the archipelago and moving westward along the Chain (see Chap. 4). Ancestral Unangaˆx adjusted to varying storm patterns and severity, ice cover, temperature changes, and the associated effects on their ability to travel from island to island, and get food based on changing plant and animal distributions. Periods of rapid climate changes are interpreted using shifts in glacial extent in the northern hemisphere. These major changes were at “9000–8000, 6000–5000, 4200–3800, 3400–2500, 1200–1000, and since 600 cal year BP” (Anderson et al. 2007: 5). Some of these better recorded periods of rapid global climate change have common names in the literature such as the Neoglacial Period (4200–2500 BP), the Medieval Warm Period (1200–1000 BP), and the Little Ice Age (600–100 BP).

Early Holocene (9000–5000 BP) Using peat decomposition characteristics, Savinetsky et al. (2010: 75) estimated early to mid-Holocene relative precipitation rates and temperature for the western islands. Precipitation between 7900 and 4200 years ago was greater than modern levels (Savinetsky et al. 2010, 2004), and temperatures were warmer. Savinetsky et al. (2010: 81–82) identified warm periods occurring approximately every 1000 years. During the early Holocene, these warm periods were 8000–7700 BP, 6750–6250 BP, and 5750–4750 BP, “with the maximum warming period occurring between 6750 and 6250 BP” (Savinetsky et al. 2010: 81–82). In the central islands, the early Holocene (10,000–7000 years ago) is characterized as cool (Heusser 1978 using plant remains). But Savinetsky et al. (2012: 91) later refined this interpretation of the early Holocene using diatoms from lake cores and identified a warm period from 8500 to 7000 BP, followed by a shift to a severely cold climate. The cold eventually ameliorated to a warmer period similar to current temperatures. This is nearly the same time as the warm period identified for the western Aleutian Islands. In contrast, Huesser (1978) used plant remains to identify a warm period that was less windy after 7000 years ago, but his sample may be more generalized than lake core diatoms used by Savinetsky et al. (2012) in their climate change estimates. Like the western Aleutian Islands, precipitation from 9000 years ago to approximately 4000 years ago in the central islands was greater than modern levels, with stormier conditions (Krawiec 2013: 78; Krawiec and Kaufman 2014: 82). On Adak Island, remains of ferns and other plant species that prefer wet environments increase in sediment samples (Anderson in Krawiec 2014). This contradicts Heusser’s (1978) earlier interpretation of a dry climate between 10,000 and 7000 BP followed by a

Neoglacial Period (4200–2500 BP)

49

wetter climate after 7000 years ago. Anderson’s (in Krawiec and Kaufman 2014) and Krawiec’s (2013) data also may be a refinement of Heusser’s (1978) more generalized interpretation. Katsuki et al. (2009) used diatoms from sediment cores collected from the Bering Sea substrate to determine that sea ice had pulled back from a maximum coverage 7500 years ago. Jordan (2001; Jordan and Krumhardt 2003) has been examining the Holocene climate of the western Alaska Peninsula using pollens in ancient sediments. Mountain glaciers were present between 11,000 and 6700 years ago, with dwarf shrub tundra vegetation cover in the lower elevations near the coastline (Jordan and Krumhardt 2003: 21–23). Jordan and Krumhardt (2003: 23) state that after 6200 years ago, the climate became warmer and wetter. Interestingly, in the western Aleutian Islands, the climate was cooler at 6250 BP, with a noticeably warmer period preceding and also following, at 5750–4750 BP (Savientsky et al. 2010: 82). This may reflect the position and strength of the Aleutian Low, which affected archipelago-wide climate differently. Weak lows are associated with warmer temperatures in the west.

Neoglacial Period (4200–2500 BP) There is a marked change during the Neoglacial. Sea ice extended southward to Unalaska, providing the people in the eastern islands access to animals rarely found there today, such as ringed and bearded seals and polar bears, which prefer or require shorefast ice (Crockford and Frederick 2007; Davis 2001; Jordan and Krumhardt 2003). Such ice would also have blocked access for fur seals to the pupping grounds of the Pribilof Islands in the Bering Sea and altered whale migrations. Fur seals may instead have limited their northward migrations and established rookeries along Aleutian Archipelago and other North Pacific shorelines, and whale migrations may have extended only to the North Pacific coast, never reaching the Arctic Ocean (Newsome et al. 2007). Because of the presence of intertidal invertebrates in the midden, Robert Black (1981: 58) concluded that sea ice never reached Nikolski Bay. Given the identification of animals preferring sea ice from Unalaska sites, reanalysis of the invertebrate fauna may be warranted (Crockford and Frederick 2007; Davis 2001). Glaciers on Umnak Island at this time were believed to have extended nearly to the shoreline, stopping only 100 to 200 m above the current sea level (Black 1975: 162; Black 1976a: 13; Thorson and Hamilton 1986: 185). Glaciers on low-elevation islands apparently did not expand and were less affected by ice cover than were islands with higher mountains (Thorson and Hamilton 1986: 186). Compared to ice cover during the Pleistocene, the Neoglacial period was a minor event, but it may have affected subsistence patterns of people living on the central and eastern islands. The climate may not have been uniform across the archipelago. Vegetation analysis supports the conclusion that wet, cool conditions begin on the Alaska Peninsula at 3100 BP and continue to current day (Jordan and Krumhardt 2003). However, Krawiec (2013: 78; Krawiec and Kaufman 2014: 82) identified a drying trend in

50

2 The Physical Environment

the central Aleutian Islands beginning 4000 years ago that supported a shift in the plant population from ferns to crowberries. This is mirrored in the Western Islands (Savinetsky et al. 2010: 77, 79). Savinetsky et al. (2010) state that their interpretation of peat samples led them to conclude the climate was cool at the beginning of the Neoglacial Period from 4750 to 4100 BP, followed by warmer weather from 4100 to 3850 BP, with a colder period again 3850 to 3500 BP. The climate then warmed again at 3600 to 3350 BP, followed by a more consistently cool period until 1750 BP (Savinetsky et al. 2010: 79). By 3200 years ago until 560 years ago, precipitation rates in the western islands were similar to modern rates (Savinetsky et al. 2010: 75).

2500–1200 BP There are marked regional changes in climate during a span of over 1000 years between the Neoglacial and the Medieval Warm periods. An increase in offshore fish-eating birds in the western Aleutian Islands (2100–1800 BP) is interpreted as an indication of cooler temperatures (Causey et al. 2005: 271; Savinetsky et al. 2010: 79). In the central islands, Krawiec and Kaufman (Krawiec 2013: 79, 82; Krawiec and Kaufman 2014: 82) identify a peak drying trend between 2700 and 1500 BP, with high crowberry pollen counts in the sediment samples; “the least stormy conditions on record” at 2000 BP shifted to “the stormiest period on record” by 1450 BP. This lasted until 700 BP, when crowberry became less common, probably because of a wetter climate (Krawiec and Kaufman 2014). Approximately 1500 years ago, abruptly colder temperatures lasting over the next 300 years had catastrophic consequences for agricultural societies worldwide (Gunn 2000). This may be represented in the North Pacific by stormier patterns. Beginning 2100 BP, the climate is also cool and wet in the eastern islands compared to earlier periods (Jordan et al. 2003). The late Holocene after 2100 BP on the Alaska Peninsula has a vegetation cover similar to modern plant cover and presumably indicates a modern climate pattern (Jordan and Krumhardt 2003: 22). From the analysis of nitrogen isotopes in lake sediments on the neighboring Kodiak Archipelago, salmon runs decreased markedly by 2250 BP (Finney et al. 2002). Finney et al. (2002: 732) suggest that decreasing salmon abundance in the Gulf of Alaska is associated with warmer water temperatures affecting North Pacific ecosystems. While the Aleutian Islands are cool, the Gulf of Alaska seems to have been experiencing warmer temperatures that had different environmental consequences.

1000–600 BP

51

The Medieval Warm Period (1200–1000 BP) Perturbations in world climate occurred between 1200 and 1100 BP, with winters cold enough to cause the Egyptian Nile River to freeze (Gunn 2000: 11), but in northern latitudes, the opposite may have occurred. The data from the central islands of the Aleutian Archipelago is mixed for the Medieval Warm Period, also called the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. Using an understanding of the cold tolerances of barnacle species applied to specimens collected from archaeological deposits at Clam Lagoon on Adak Island, Savinetsky et al. (2012) concluded that from 1250 to 1050 BP, the central islands were warmer than the previous period, followed by a 500-year cooling period. This was confirmed using oxygen and carbon isotopes from the horse barnacle (Semibalanus cariosus). In contrast, Antipushina et al. (2009) concluded that the Medieval Climatic Anomaly was actually a cooling period in the central Aleutian Islands after they analyzed the composition of shellfish species from Sweeper Cove, also at northern Adak Island. Using sediment cores collected from Heart Lake, Krawiec and Kaufman (Krawiec 2013: 79, 82; Krawiec and Kaufman 2014: 82) concluded that 1450–700 BP was wet and also the stormiest period during human occupation of Adak Island. Butter clams (Saxidomus gigantea) were collected from sites at Takli and Mink Islands on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula to study climate change. Oxygen isotope analysis of the clam growth rings established that between 1447 and 988 BP, summer temperatures were 1–2 °C (1.8–3.6 °F) cooler than present and drier, although the summer growing season was one month longer than now (Hallmann et al. 2011: 361). It may be that the western islands were experiencing warmer, stormier climate while the eastern islands and peninsula were cool and drier, that the climate between the Gulf of Alaska and the Aleutian Islands differed, presumably because of a shifting Aleutian Low.

1000–600 BP Causey et al. (2005: 271) found that nearshore foraging birds in the Western Aleutian Islands increased between 1100 and 650 BP. This pattern is normally associated with warming periods and increased precipitation. In the Central Aleutian Islands, Savinetsky et al. (2012) used oxygen and carbon isotopes to identify a cooling period from 1050 to 500 BP, while Antipushina et al. (2009), using shellfish species present from the same island, concluded there was a warm period on Adak Island between 890 and 690 BP. This is within the wet, stormy period identified by Krawiec and Kaufman (Krawiec 2013: 79, 82; Krawiec and Kaufman 2014: 82), which ended about 700 BP, followed by decreasing precipitation through 500 BP. The data for the western and central islands are contradictory. Using measurements of nitrogen isotopes in salmon spawning lakes on Kodiak Island in the Gulf of Alaska, Finney et al. (2002) concluded more salmon visited the

52

2 The Physical Environment

lakes between 1150 and 750 BP compared to earlier periods. An increase in salmon numbers is normally associated with cooler climates. Hallmann et al. (2011) analyzed oxygen isotopes from the growth rings of butter clams collected at Takli and Mink Islands on the south side of the Alaska Peninsula and north of the Kodiak Island Archipelago. Their data indicate that from 1014 to 599 BP, summers were wetter and about 3 °C (5.4 °F) cooler than now (Hallmann et al. 2011: 361). It seems then, that while the western archipelago was warmer, the Gulf of Alaska was cooler, but the overall pattern was a stormier, wetter North Pacific climate than we are familiar with today.

The Little Ice Age (600–100 BP) In the Little Ice Age, which was less extreme than the Neoglacial period, only highaltitude glaciers advanced (Jordan and Krumhardt 2003: 24). Savinetsky et al. (2012) collected oxygen isotopes from large barnacles and concluded from the results of their analysis that the period from 600 to 300 BP in north Adak Island was warmer, contradicting Antipushina et al. (2009) determination, from the shellfish species present at Sweeper’s Cove and also on Adak Island, that the climate from 690 to 390 BP was cooler. Using sediments from cores collected from Heart Lake on Adak Island, Krawiec and Kaufman (Krawiec 2013; Krawiec and Kaufman 2014: 82) noted a drying trend and decreasing storminess that extended to at least 100 BP on the island. Krawiec and Kaufman (2014: 83) state the Little Ice Age “was likely marked by neither a temperature decrease nor precipitation increase.” Meanwhile, in the western islands, Causey et al. (2005: 271) noted a shift in the frequency of sea birds to fish-eating offshore foragers at 650 BP, a pattern normally associated with cooler periods.

Consequences of Climate Change The effects of climate change vary locally with geographic features, setting (coastal vs. interior), and latitude. The problem is trying to apply worldwide or mid-latitude patterns to the Aleutian Islands, since the effects elsewhere may be more or less severe compared to the effects in the central North Pacific, and durations may also vary. Even within the Aleutian Archipelago, the effects of climate change differ. Modern changes in climate are observed to affect the central and western islands differently from the eastern islands. Rodionov et al. (2005) found a shift in the way climate affected the Chain at Samalga Pass. Climate changes in the eastern archipelago and the peninsula had more in common with changes occurring in the Bering Sea than in the northeast Pacific. Winter surface temperatures in the west were also more variable compared to the east (Rodionov et al. 2005: 20). Studies of prehistoric climate shifts using data from sites east of Samalga Pass should not be uncritically applied to the

Consequences of Climate Change

53

central or western Aleutian Islands. These islands may not have experienced similar changes, and consequently, the fauna and the people in those areas may have reacted differently. Identification of local effects is also hampered by the scale of the information available to archaeologists. Reconstructions of local climate change are affected by error ranges of radiocarbon dates that can span a period of rapid climate change. A stratum in an archaeological site may include sediments deposited during different climates. Mann and Hamilton (1995: 449) also caution that the distance between datum points can affect the reliability of interpretations. This may explain why data about climate are contradictory. Reconstructions using diatoms in sea water may be more general compared to reconstructions using diatoms from an isolated lake that may have localized events affecting lake temperatures. Shellfish collected from a single bay may have been subject to local effects. These single analyses are then generalized to the whole archipelago as a proxy for the absent data within the study area. We expect our understanding of past climate shifts to change as the resolution is refined and more sources of data are included. Human reactions to climate change or catastrophic events vary with religious beliefs, social organization, subsistence strategies, local adaptations, and individual decisions (Anderson et al. 2007: 13). Cultural responses to climate change are even more difficult to establish than is identification of climatic conditions. A cultural shift could have nothing to do with climate change. Cultural modifications might develop from catastrophes, environmental shifts that change plant and animal abundance, influences from neighboring groups, or internal political forces, or modifications may develop from all of these simultaneously. Correlation may not identify causation when human decisions are involved. Maschner et al. (2009) link climate to major social changes. Using evidence from the Alaska Peninsula and Unimak Island, Maschner et al. (2009) suggested that the Neoglacial period was associated with a more productive maritime environment and therefore, with higher human populations, greater social complexity, and expansion of people into new territories. The start of the Medieval Warm Period, led to the abandonment of the large villages along the coastline and establishment of smaller communities along salmon streams. After about 1000 years ago, multi-room houses were built along the mouths of the salmon streams, and 100 years later, small coastal villages with multi-roomed houses appeared reflecting a population in flux (Maschner et al. 2009: 36–37): By AD 1250, the turbulence of the previous 500 years leads to systemic collapse across the peninsula. Houses fall from 30 to 40 residents to small extended families, and village size goes from hundreds of people to a few dozen. Between AD 1200 and 1400 there are only four small village sites, each with one-three houses of perhaps 8 to 12 people. This equates to a greater than 80 percent reduction in regional population. At this time the region is so depopulated that Eskimo-related people from farther north begin to make incursions into the area… (Maschner et al. 2009: 37)

This catastrophic picture of life in the eastern Aleutian region is replaced during the Little Ice Age with growing populations much like the portrayal of the Neoglacial period, with abundant resources, extensive shell middens, and coastally

54

2 The Physical Environment

located villages in addition to increasing numbers of villages along salmon streams (Maschner et al. 2009: 37). Maschner et al. (2009: 38) state that this pattern is consistent for the North Pacific region. Other variables still need to be considered including the Barton et al. (2012) proposal that volcanic eruptions may account for the depopulation and the resettlement between 1700 and 1000 years ago and interactions with neighboring groups from the Kodiak Archipelago (see Chap. 4; Knecht and Davis 2001). Climate change cannot necessarily explain all social shifts. Changing climate affects the distribution and abundance of animals important to the economy. Archaeologists used the presence of ringed and bearded seal and polar bear to infer the climate was cooler during the Neoglacial, but this also means a different suite of animals were available for subsistence. Bird and salmon abundance was used to identify precipitation and temperature fluctuations, but this also means that decreasing salmon runs would have required adjustments in subsistence or technology, or changes in bird abundance may have affected the number of birds taken for skins and egg harvesting. From volcanic eruptions to changes in weather patterns, changes in the physical environment affect the biological environment on which the Unangaˆx people depend. In the next chapter, the rich, diverse biological environment of the Aleutian Archipelago is explored. Modern rising sea levels and increased frequency and durations of storms will destroy low-lying sites near the water, sites associated with estuaries, and sites on bluffs facing the water’s edge. Between AD 2081 and 2100, sea levels are expected to rise in the central North Pacific by nearly half a meter as compared to modern levels (Carson et al. 2016). Since the preferred locations for many sites were on spits between two bays or sites positioned to be near their boats, a large number of sites will be destroyed. Low-sloping beaches and shorelines will be most affected, and high, rocky cliff faces will be the least. Given the maritime adaptation of the Unangaˆx, a large portion of the archaeological evidence of human occupation in the Aleutian Islands will disappear. Many Russian and American period villages will also disappear underwater or be washed away by waves that carve away the shorelines. Seismic uplift might raise the sites above the sea levels, but this would be a local phenomenon unlikely to outpace the changes taking place within this century along the archipelago.

References Alaska Earthquake Information Center. 2011. Notable Earthquakes in Alaska and Aleutians. Electronic document, http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/html_docs/notable_events.html, accessed December 27, 2011. Alaska Earthquake Information Center. 2002. The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964. Electronic document, http://www.aeic.alaska.edu/quakes/Alaska_1964_earthquake.html, accessed February 17, 2012. Anchorage Daily News. 2009. High Winds Topple Tall Crane at Dutch Harbor. Electronic document, http://www.adn.com/node/1363406, accessed December 30, 2009.

References

55

Anderson, David G., Kirk A. Maasch, Daniel H. Sandweiss, and Paul A. Mayewski. 2007. Climate and Culture Change: Exploring Holocene Transitions. In Climate Change and Cultural Dynamics: A Global Perspective on mid-Holocene Transitions, ed. David G. Anderson, Kirk A. Maasch, and Daniel H. Sandweiss, 1–23. Amsterdam: Academic Press. Antipushina, Zh.A., N.K. Kiseleva, R.F. Khassanov, A.V. Pakhanevich, O.A. Krylovich, B.I. Sirenko, and A.B. Savinetsky. 2009. Holocene Dynamics of Invertebrate Fauna in the Littoral Zone of Adak, the Aleutian Islands, According to Archaeozoological Data. Russian Journal of Ecology 40 (2): 128–136. Bakun, Andrew, David B. Field, Ana Redondo-Rodriguez, and Scarla J. Weeks. 2010. Greenhouse Gas, Upwelling-Favorable Winds, and the Future of Coastal Ocean Upwelling Ecosystems. Global Change Biology 16: 1213–1228. Barton, Loukas, Scott Shirar, Jeff Rasic, and James Jordan. 2012. Emerging Patterns in the Prehistoric Human Occupation of the Central Alaska Peninsula. Paper presented at the 39th Annual meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Seattle. Bergsland, Knut. 1994. Aleut Dictionary/Unangam Tunudgusii: An Unabridged Lexicon of the Aleutian, Pribilof, and Commander Islands Aleut language. Alaska Native Language Center: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Bergsland, Knut, and Moses L. Dirks. 1990. Unangam Ungiikangin Kayuxtunsangin—Unangam Uniikangis ama Tunuzangis: Aleut Tales and Narratives: Collected 1909–1910 by Waldemar Jochelson. Alaska Native Language Center: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Black, Lydia T. 1981. Volcanism as a Factor in Human Ecology: The Aleutian Case. Ethnohistory 28 (4): 313–339. Black, Robert F. 1974. Geology and Ancient Aleuts, Amchitka and Umnak Islands, Aleutians. Arctic Anthropology 11 (2): 126–140. Black, Robert F. 1975. Late-Quaternary Geomorphic Processes: Effects on the Ancient Aleuts of Umnak Island in the Aleutians. Arctic 28 (3): 159–169. Black, Robert F. 1976a. Geology of Umnak Island, Eastern Aleutian Islands as Related to the Aleuts. Arctic and Alpine Research 8 (1): 7–35. Black, Robert F. 1976b. Late-Quaternary Glacial Events, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In Project 73-124 Quaternary Glaciations in the Northern Hemisphere, ed. Don J. Easterbrook and Vladimír Šibrava. Report Number 3, IUGS–UNESCO International Geological Correlation Program, 285–301. Bellingham, Washington. Black, Robert F. 1980. Isostatic, Tectonic, and Eustatic Movements of Sea Level in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In Proceedings of Earth Rheology and Late Cenozoic Isostatic Movements, Stockholm, Sweden, July 31–August 8, 1977, ed. Nils Axel Mörner, 231–248. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Ltd. Black, Robert F. 1981. Late Quaternary Climatic Changes in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In Quaternary Paleoclimate, ed. W.C. Mahaney, 47–62. Norwich, England: Geoabstracts. Bryant, Edward. 2008. Tsunami: The Underrated Hazard, 2nd ed. New York: Springer. Carlson, Roy L. 1994. Trade and Exchange in Prehistoric British Columbia. In Prehistoric Exchange Systems in North America, ed. Timothy G. Baugh and Jonathon E. Ericson, 307–361. New York: Plenum Press. Carson, M., A. Köhl, D. Stammer, A.B.A. Slangen, C.A. Katsman, and R.S.W. van de Wal. 2016. Coastal Sea Level Changes, Observed and Projected During the 20th and 21st Century. Climatic Change 134: 269–281. Causey, Douglas, Debra G. Corbett, Christine LeFévre, Dixie West, Arkady B. Savinetsky, Nina K. Kiseleva, and Bulat F. Kassanov. 2005. The Paleoenvironment of Humans and Marine Birds of the Aleutian Islands: Three Millennia of Change. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (suppl 1): 259–276. Chang, J.M., T.C. Feeley, and M.R. Deraps. 2009. Petrogenesis of Basaltic Volcanic Rocks from the Pribilof Islands, Alaska, by Melting of Metasomatically Enriched Depleted Lithosphere, Crystallization Differentiation, and Magma Mixing. Journal of Petrology 50 (12): 2249–2286.

56

2 The Physical Environment

Chernicoff, Stanley and Hayden A. Fox. 2000. Essentials of Geology. 2nd ed. Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Company. Coast Guard News. 2009. Hurricane Winds, Winter Storm Hits Remote Coast Guard Station in Aleutian Chain. Electronic document, http://coastguardnews.com/hurricane-winds-winterstorm-hits-remote-coast-guard-station-in-aleutian-chain/2009/12/01, accessed July 17, 2014. Crockford, Susan J., and S. Gay Frederick. 2007. Sea Ice Expansion in the Bering Sea During the Neoglacial: Evidence from Archaeozoology. The Holocene 17 (6): 699–706. Davis, Brian. 2001. Sea Mammal Hunting and the Neoglacial: Environmental Change and Subsistence Technology at Margaret Bay. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. University of Oregon, 71–85. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Davydov, Gavriil I. 1977. Two Voyages to Russian America, 1802–1807, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Translated by Colin Bearne. Kingston, Ontario: The Limestone Press. Dissing, D., and G. Wendler. 1998. Solar Radiation Climatology of Alaska. Theoretical and Applied Climatology 61: 161–175. Dumond, Don E. 1979. People and Pumice on the Alaska Peninsula. In Volcanic Activity and Human Ecology, ed. Payson D. Sheets and Donald K. Grayson, 373–392. New York: Academic Press Inc. Dumond, Don E. 2004. Volcanism and history on the Northern Alaska Peninsula. Arctic Anthropology 41 (2): 112–125. Dumond, Don E., and Dennis G. Griffin. 2002. Measurements of the Marine Reservoir Effect on Radiocarbon Ages in the Eastern Bering Sea. Arctic 55 (1): 77–86. Dumond, Don E., and Richard A. Knecht. 2001. An Early Blade Site in the Eastern Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 9–34. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Elias, Scott, Susan K. Short, C. Hans Nelson, and Hilary H. Birks. 1996. Life and Times of the Bering Land Bridge. Nature 382 (6586): 60–63. Fa, Darren Andrew. 2008. Effects of Tidal Amplitude on intertidal Iesource Availability and Dispersal Pressure in Prehistoric Human Coastal Populations: The Mediterranean-Atlantic Transition. Quaternary Science Reviews 27: 2194–2209. Fett, R.W., R.E. Englebretson, and D.C. Perryman. 1993. Forecasters handbook for the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, and Gulf of Alaska. Naval Research Laboratory, Report NRL/PU/7541–93– 0006, Monterey, California. Finney, Bruce P., Irene Gregory-Eaves, Marianne S.V. Douglas, and John P. Smol. 2002. Fisheries Productivity in the Northwestern Pacific Ocean over the Past 2200 years. Nature 416: 729–733. Fitzhugh, Ben. 2012. Hazards, Impacts, and Resilience Among Hunter-Gatherers of the Kuril Islands. In Surviving Sudden Environmental Change: Understanding Hazards, Mitigating Impacts, Avoiding Disasters, ed. Jago Cooper and Payson Sheets, 19–42. Denver: University Press of Colorado. Fournelle, John H. Bruce D. Marsh, and James D. Myers. 1994. Age, Character, and Significance of Aleutian Arc Volcanism. In The Geology of Alaska, ed. George Plafker and Henry C. Berg, 723–757. The Geology of North America, Vol. G-1. Boulder, Colorado: The Geological Society of Alaska. Frisch, Wolfgang, Martin Meschede, and Ronald Blakey. 2011. Plate Tectonics: Continental Drift and Mountain Building. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Grewingk, Constantin. 2003 [1850]. Grewingk’s Geology of Alaska and the Northwest Coast of America: Contributions Toward Knowledge of the Orographic and Geognostic Condition of the Northwest Coast of America, with the Adjacent Islands, ed. Marvin W. Falk. Translated by Fritz Jaensch. Fairbanks, Alaska: The University of Alaska Press. (Originally published 1850 Beitrag zur Kenntniss der orographischen und geognostischen Beshaffenheit der Nord-WestKüste Amerikas mit den anliegenden, Inseln. Publications of the Russian Imperial Mineralogical Society at St. Petersburg, Volumes for 1848 and 1849, Carl Kray, St. Petersburg.)

References

57

Guidoboni, Emanuela, and John E. Ebel. 2009. Earthquakes and Tsunamis in the Past: A Guide to Techniques in Historical Seismology. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gunn, Joel D. 2000. A.D. 36 and its 300-year aftermath. In The Years without Summer: Tracing A.D. 536 and its Aftermath, ed. Joel D. Gunn, 5–20. BAR International Series 872. Oxford: Archaeopress. Hallmann, Nadine, Bernd R. Schöne, Are Strom, and Jens Fiebig. 2008. An Intractable Climate Archive—Sclerochronological and Shell Oxygen Isotope Analyses of the Pacific Geoduck, Panopea abrupta (bivalve mollusk) from Protection Island (Washington State, USA). Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 269: 118–126. Hallmann, Nadine, Bernd R. Schöne, Gail V. Irving, Meghan Burchell, Edward D. Cokelet, and Michael R. Hilton. 2011. An Improved Understanding of the Alaska Coast Current: The Application of a Bivalve Growth-Temperature Model to Reconstruct Fresh-Water Influenced Paleoenvironments. Palaios 26: 346–363. Heusser, Calvin J. 1978. Postglacial Vegetation on Adak Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 105 (1): 18–23. Hoffecker, John F., and Scott A. Elias. 2007. Human Ecology of Beringia. New York: Columbia University Press. Hunt, George L., Jr., and Phyllis J. Stabeno. 2005. Oceanography and Ecology of the Aleutian Archipelago: Spatial and Temporal Variation. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (suppl. 1): 292–306. Jicha, Brian R., David W. School, Brad S. Singer, Gene M. Yogodzinski, and Suzanne M. Kay. 2006. Revised Age of Aleutian Island Arc Formation Implies High Rate of Magma Production. Geology 34 (8): 661–664. Johnson, Lucille Lewis and Margaret Anne Winslow. 1992. Paleoshorelines and Prehistoric Settlement on Simeonof and Chernabura Islands, Outer Shumagin Islands, Alaska. In Paleoshorelines and Prehistory: an Investigation of Method, ed. Lucille Lewis Johnson and Melanie Stright, 171–186. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. Jordan, James W. 2001. Late Quaternary Sea Level Change in Southern Beringia: Postglacial Emergence of the Western Alaska Peninsula. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 509–523. Jordan, James W., and Andrea Krumhardt. 2003. Postglacial Climate and Vegetation of the Western Alaska Peninsula. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 1 (2): 16–33. Katuski, Kota, Boo-Keun Khim, Takuya Itaki, Naomi Harada, Hideo Sakai, Tomonori Ikeda, Kozo Takahashi, Yusuki Okazaki, and Hirofumi Asahi. 2009. Land-Sea Linkage of Holocene Paleoclimate on the Southern Bering Continental Shelf. The Holocene 19 (5): 747–756. Kay, Suzanne Mahlburg and Robert W. Kay. 1994. Aleutian Magmas in Space and Time. In The Geology of Alaska, ed. George. Plafker and Henry C. Berg, 687–722. The Geology of North America, Vol G-1. Boulder, Colorado: The Geological Society of America. Khasanov, Bulat F., Toshio Nakamura, Mitsuru Okuno, Ekaterina N. Gorlova, Olga A. Krylovich, Dixie L. West, Virginia Hatfield, and Arkady B. Savinetsky. 2015. The Marine Radiocarbon Reservoir Effect on Adak Island (Central Aleutian Islands), Alaska. Radiocarbon 57 (4): 955– 964. Kienle, J., and C.J. Nye. 1990. Volcano tectonics of Alaska. In Volcanoes of North America: United States and Canada, ed. Charles A. Wood and Jurgen Kienle, 8–17. New York: Cambridge University Press. Knecht, Richard A., and Richard S. Davis. 2001. A Prehistoric Sequence for the Eastern Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 269– 288. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Kowalik, Zygmunt. 1999. Bering Sea Tides. In Dynamics of the Bering Sea: A Summary of Physical, Chemical and Biological Characteristics, and a Synopsis of Research on the Bering Sea, ed. Thomas R. Loughlin and Kiyotaka Ohtani, 93–127. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska Sea Grant. Krawiec, Anne C.L. 2013. Holocene Tephrochronology and Storminess Inferred from Two Lakes on Adak Island, Alaska. Master’s thesis. Flagstaff: Northern Arizona University.

58

2 The Physical Environment

Krawiec, Anne C.L., and Darrell S. Kaufman. 2014. Holocene Storminess Inferred from Sediments of Two Lakes on Adak Island, Alaska. Quaternary Research 82 (1): 73–84. Ladd, Carol, George L. Hunt, Jr., Calvin W. Bordy, Sigrid A. Salo, and Phyllis J. Stabeno. 2005. Marine Environment of the Eastern and Central Aleutian Islands. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (Suppl. 1): 22–38. Lander, James F. 1996. Tsunamis affect Alaska: 1737–1996. In NGDC Key to Geophysical Research Documentation No. 31. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado at Boulder. Boulder, Colorado. Laughlin, William S. 1981. Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. Rinehart and Winston, New York: Holt. Li, Xiaofeng, Weizhong Zheng, W.G. Pichel, Cheng-Zhi Zou, P. Clemente-Colon, and K.S. Friedman. 2004. Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium. In Proceedings of the International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium, Anchorage, Alaska. Losey, Robert J. 2005. Earthquakes and Tsunami as Elements of Environmental Disturbance on the Northwest Coast of North America. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 24 (2): 101–116. McCartney, Allen P., and Christy G. Turner. 1966. Stratigraphy of the Anangula Core and Blade site. Arctic Anthropology 3 (2): 28–40. McCartney, Allen P., and Douglas W. Veltre. 1999. Aleutian Island prehistory: Living in insular extremes. World Archaeology 30 (3): 503–515. McConnaughey, Ted A., and David Paul Gillikin. 2008. Carbon Isotopes in Mollusk Shell Carbonates. Geo-Marine Letters 28: 287–299. McPhaden, Michael J. 2002. El Niño and La Niña: Causes and Global Consequences. In Encyclopedia of Global Environmental Change, ed. Michael C. MacCracken and John S. Perry, 353–370. The Earth System: Physical and Chemical Dimensions of Global Environmental Change, Vol. 1, Ted Munn, editor-in-chief. New York: John Wiley and Sons Inc. Malainey, Mary E. 2011. A Consumer’s Guide to Archaeological Science: Analytical Techniques. New York: Springer. Mann, Daniel H., and Thomas D. Hamilton. 1995. Late Pleistocene and Holocene Paleoenvironments of the North Pacific Coast. Quaternary Science Reviews 14: 449–471. Mantua, Nathan J., and Steven R. Hare. 2002. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Journal of Oceanography 58: 35–44. Marlow, Michael S. Alan K. Cooper, and Michael A. Fischer. 1994. Geology of the Eastern Bering Sea. In The Geology of Alaska, ed. George Plafker and Henry C. Berg, 271–284. The Geology of North America, Vol G-1. Boulder, Colorado: The Geological Society of America. Maschner, Herbert, Bruce Finney, James Jordan, Nicole Misarti, Amber Tews, and Garrett Knudsen. 2009. Did the North Pacific ecosystem collapse in AD 1250? In The Northern World AD 900– 1400, ed. Herbert Maschner, Owen Mason, and Robert McGhee, 33–57. Salt Lake City: The University of Utah Press. Miller, Thomas P., and Robert L. Smith. 1987. Late Quaternary Caldera-Forming Eruptions in the Eastern Aleutian Arc, Alaska. Geology 15 (5): 434–438. Minke, Gernot. 2006. Building with Earth: Design and Technology of a Sustainable Architecture. Boston: Birkhäuser. Misarti, Nicole, Bruce P. Finney, James W. Jordan, Herbert D.G. Maschner, Jason A. Addison, Mark D. Shapley, Andrea Krumhardt, and James E. Beget. 2012. Early Retreat of the Alaska Peninsula Glacier Complex and the Implications for Coastal Migrations of First Americans. Quaternary Science Reviews 48: 1–6. Misarti, Nicole, Bruce Finney, Herbert Maschner, and Matthew J. Wooler. 2009. Changes in Northeast Pacific Marine Ecosystems Over the Last 4500 Years: Evidence from Stable Isotope Analysis of Bone Collagen from Archeological Middens. The Holocene 19 (8): 1139–1151. Mofjeld, Harold O. 1986. Observed Tides on the Northeastern Bering Sea Shelf. Journal of Geophysical Research 91 (C2): 2593–2606.

References

59

Mordy, Calvin W., Phyllis J. Stabeno, Carol Ladd, Stephen Zeeman, David P. Wisegarver, Sigrid A. Salo, and George L. Hunt. 2005. Nutrients and Primary Production Along the Eastern Aleutian Island Archipelago. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (suppl. 1): 55–76. Mörner, Nils-Axel. 2010. Some Problems in the Reconstruction of Mean Sea Level and Its Changes with Time. Quaternary International 221: 3–8. National Ocean Service. 1985. Bathymetric Map: Aleutian Trench, NOS NN 3–8. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. National Ocean Service. 1988. Bathymetric Map: Middleton Island, NOS NO 6–2. Washington, DC: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Newhall, Christopher G., and Stephen Self. 1982. The Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI): An Estimate of Explosive Magnitude for Historical Volcanism. Journal of Geophysical Research 87 (C2): 1231–1238. Newsome, Seth D., Michael A. Etnier, Diane Gifford-Gonzalez, Donald L. Phillips, Marcel van Tuinen, Elizabeth A. Hadly, Daniel P. Costa, Douglas J. Kennett, Tom P. Guilderson, and Paul L. Koch. 2007. The Shifting Baseline of Northern Fur Seal Ecology in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS) 104 (23): 9709–9714. Nicolaysen, Kirsten, Taylor Johnson, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Virginia Hatfield, Dixie West, and Robert G. McGimsey. 2012. Provenance of Obsidian Artifacts Recovered from Adak Island, Central Aleutian Islands: Evidence for Long-Distance Transport of Lithic Material. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine LeFévre, and Lyn Gaultieri, 195–210. BAR International Series 2322. Oxford: Archaeopress. Niebauer, Henry, J., Nicholas A. Bond, Lev P. Yakunin and Vladimir V. Plotnikov. 1999. An Update on the Climatology and Sea Ice of the Bering Sea. In Dynamics of the Bering Sea: A Summary of Physical, Chemical and Biological Characteristics, and a Synopsis of Research on the Bering Sea, ed. Thomas R. Loughlin and Kiyotaka Ohtani, 29–59. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska Sea Grant. Okuno, Mitsuru, Keiji Wada, Toshio Nakamura, Lyn Gualtieri, Brenn Sarata, Dixie West, and Masayuki Torii. 2012. Holocene Tephra Layers on the Northern Half of Adak Island in the WestCentral Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine LeFévre, and Lyn Gaultieri, 59–74. BAR International Series 2322. Oxford: Archaeopress. Osborn, Liz. 2019. Cloudiest Places in United States. Current Results: Weather and Science Facts. Electronic document, https://www.currentresults.com/Weather-Extremes/US/clo udiest.php, accessed July 30, 2019. Pemberton, Mary. 2009. 178-mile winds slam Coast Guard Station in Remote Aleutians. Fairbanks Daily News Miner, December 2, 2009, www.newsminer.com/news/alaska_news/mile-windsslam-coast-guard-station-in-remote-aleutians/article_be969fed-24f3-5af7-b1ac-b3cacce4b b22.html, accessed July 17, 2014. Peters, Robert, Bruce Jaffe, and Guy Gelfenbaum. 2007. Distribution and Sedimentary Characteristics of Tsunami Deposits Along the Cascadia Margin of Western North America. Sedimentary Geology 200 (3–4): 237–386. Rainbird, Paul. 2007. The Archaeology of Islands. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rasic, Jeff. 2011. University of Alaska Museum of the North Archaeology Laboratory Letter Report 2011–10. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska Fairbanks. Redfield, T.F., David W. Scholl, Paul G. Fitzgerald, and Myrl E. Beck. 2007. Escape Tectonics and the Extrusion of Alaska: Past, Present, and Future. Geology 35 (11): 1039–1042. Reed, Ronald K., and Phyllis J. Stabeno. 1999. The Aleutian North Slope Current. In Dynamics of the Bering Sea: A Summary of Physical, Chemical and Biological Characteristics, and a Synopsis of Research on the Bering Sea, ed. Thomas R. Loughlin and Kiyotaka Ohtani, 177–191. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska Sea Grant.

60

2 The Physical Environment

Rodionov, Sergei N., Nicholas A. Bond and James E. Overland. 2007. The Aleutian Low, Storm Tracks, and Winter Climate Variability in the Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research Part II—Topical Studies in Oceanography 54: 2560–2577. Rodionov, Sergei N., James E. Overland, and Nicholas A. Bond. 2005. Spatial and Temporal Variability of the Aleutian Climate. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (Suppl. 1): 3–21. Ruppert, Natalia A., Johathan M. Lees, and Natalia P. Kozyreva. 2007. Seismicity, Earthquakes and Structure Along the Alaska-Aleutian and Kamchatka-Kurile Subduction Zones: A Review. In Volcanism and Subduction: The Kamchatka Region, ed. John Eichelberger, Evgenii Gordeev, Pavel Izbekov, Minoru Kasahara, and Johnathan Lees, 129–144. Geophysical Monograph Series 172. Washington, DC: The American Geophysical Union. Ruppert, Natalia A., Stephanie Prejean, and Roger A. Hansen. 2011. Seismic Swarm Associated with the 2008 Eruption of Kasatochi Volcano, Alaska: Earthquake Locations and Source Parameters. Journal of Geophysical Research: Solid Earth 116 (B2): B00B007. https://doi.org/10.1029/201 0JB007435. Saltonstall, Patrick, and Gary A. Carver. 2002. Earthquakes, Subsidence, Prehistoric Site Attrition and the Archaeological Record: A View from the Settlement Point Site, Kodiak Archipelago, Alaska. In Natural Disasters and Cultural Change, ed. Robin Torrence and John Grattan, 172– 192. New York: Routledge. Sapozhnikov, V.V., O.S. Ivanova, and N.V. Mordasova. 2011. Identification of Local Upwelling Zones in the Bering Sea Using Hydrochemical Parameters. Oceanology 51 (2): 247–254. Savinetsky, Arkady B., Nina K. Kiseleva, and Bulat F. Khassanov. 2004. Dynamics of Sea Mammal and Bird Populations of the Bering Sea Region Over the Last Several Millennia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 209: 335–352. Savinetsky, Arkady B., Nina K. Kiseleva, and Bulat F. Khassanov (contributions by Douglas Causey, Tom Corbett, Dixie West, Christine Lefèvre, and Debra Corbett). 2010. PaleoenvironmentHolocene Deposits from Shemya Island. In The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island, ed. Debra Corbett, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre, 71–82. Aurora, Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Anthropological Association. Savinetsky, Arkady B., Dixie L. West, Zhanna A. Antipushina, Bulat F. Khassanov, Nina K. Kiseleva, Olga A. Krylovich, and Andrei M. Pereladov. 2012. The Reconstruction of Ecosystems History of Adak Island (Aleutian Islands) During the Holocene. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine LeFévre, and Lyn Gualtieri, 75–106. BAR International Series 2322. Oxford: Archaeopress. Scholl, David W., Tracy L. Vallier, and Andrew J. Stevenson. 1986. Terrain Accretion, Production, and Continental Growth: A Perspective Based on the Origin and Tectonic Fate of the AleutianBering Sea Region. Geology 14: 43–47. Shackley, M. Steven. 2005. Obsidian: Geology and Archaeology in the North American Southwest. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press. Sheets, Payson D. 1999. The Effects of Explosive Volcanism on Ancient Egalitarian, Ranked, and Stratified Societies in Middle America. In The Angry Earth: Disaster in Anthropological Perspective, ed. Anthony Oliver-Smith and Susanna M. Hoffman, 36–58. New York: Routledge. Sheets, Payson D. 2012. Responses to Explosive Volcanic Eruptions by Small to Complex Societies in Ancient Mexico and Central America. In Surviving Sudden Environmental Change: Understanding Hazards, Mitigating Impacts, Avoiding Disasters, ed. Jago Cooper and Payson Sheets, 43–63. Denver: University Press of Colorado. Shulski, Martha, and Gerd Wendler. 2007. The Climate of Alaska. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska Press. Southworth, Monica. 2008. Mountain Rumbles, Darkness Falls: Mount Okmok Erupts as 10 Flee Storm of Ash. The Dutch Harbor Fisherman 16 (33): 1, 15. Speakman, Robert J., R. Game McGimsey, Richard Davis, Michael Yarborough, and Jeffrey T. Rasic. 2012. Aleutian Island and Alaska Peninsula Obsidian. Poster Presented at the 77th

References

61

meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Memphis, TN. Electronic document, www. academia.edu/1722095/Aleutian_Island_and_Alaska_Peninsula_Obsidian, accessed July 24, 2014. Stabeno, P.J., D.G. Kachel, N.B. Kachel, and M.E. Sullivan. 2005. Observations from Moorings in the Aleutian Passes: Temperature Salinity and Transport. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (Suppl. 1): 39–54. Swift, James, and Knut Aagaard. 1976. Upwelling Near Samalga Pass. Limnology and Oceanography 21 (3): 399–408. Tanaka, Seiji, and Kozo Takahashi. 2005. Late Quaternary Paleoceanographic Changes in the Bering Sea and the Western Subarctic Pacific Based on Radiolarian Assemblages. Deep-Sea Research II 52: 2131–2149. Thomas, Maik, and Jürgen. Sündermann. 1999. Tides and Tidal Torques of the World Ocean Since the Last Glacial Maximum. Journal of Geophysical Research 104 (C2): 3159–3183. Thorson, Robert M. and Thomas D. Hamilton. 1986. Glacial Geology of the Aleutian Islands: Based on the Contributions of Robert F. Black. In Glaciation in Alaska: The Geologic Record, ed. Thomas D. Hamilton, Katherine M. Reed, and Robert M. Thorson, 171–191. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Geological Society. USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2010. Volcano Hazards Program: VHP Photoglossary: Pyroclastic Flow. http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/images/pglossary/PyroFlow.php, accessed July 14, 2014. Vallier, Tracy L, David W. Scholl, Michael A. Fisher, and Terry R. Bruns, Frederic H. Wilson, Roland von Huene and Andrew J. Stevenson. 1994. Geological Framework of the Aleutian Arc, Alaska. In The Geology of Alaska, ed. George Plafker and Henry C. Berg, 367–388. The Geology of North America, Vol G-1. Boulder, Colorado: The Geological Society of America. VanderHoek, Richard. 2009. The Role of Ecological Barriers in the Development of Cultural Boundaries During the later Holocene of the Central Alaska Peninsula. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, Illinois. Veniaminov, Ivan. 1984 [1840]. Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Translated by Lydia T. Black and R.H. Geoghegan. Kingston, Ontario: The Limestone Press. Originally published as Zapiski ob ostrovakh Unalashkinskago otdela I–III, 1840. West, Dixie, Bulat Khasanov, Olga Krylovich, Virginia Hatfield, Timur Khasanov, Dmitry Vasyukov, and Arkady Savinetsky. 2019. Refining the Paleo-Aleut to Neo-Aleut Transition Using a New ΔR for the Eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Quaternary Research 91 (3): 972–982. Winslow, Margaret A. 1992. Modeling Paleoshorelines in Geologically Active Regions: Applications to the Shumagin Islands, Southwest Alaska. In Paleoshorelines and Prehistory: An Investigation of Method, ed. Lucille Lewis Johnson and Melanie Stright, 151–169. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. Winslow, Margaret A., and L. Lewis Johnson. 1989. Prehistoric Human Settlement Patterns in a Tectonically Unstable Environment: Outer Shumagin Islands, Southwestern Alaska. Geoarchaeology 4 (4): 297–318. Workman, William B. 1979. The Significance of Volcanism in the Prehistory of Subarctic Northwest North America. In Volcanic Activity and Human Ecology, ed. Payson D. Sheets and Donald K. Grayson, 339–371. New York, Academic Press, Inc.

Chapter 3

The Living Environment

We’re not simply a lone boat floating on a rolling blue surface. We’re part of a complex, largely hidden vertical life inhabited by whales the size of ships, single-celled diatoms, crab larvae and barndoor halibut, swarming schools of pollock, salmon sniffing their way home, sea stars, sea lettuce, sea lions, seagulls, sooty shearwaters, and squid. We’re traveling together, all of us – dependent, whether we know it or not, on one another and the good health of our ocean home. The puffin dives after the zooplankton, and the otter relies on the kelp for anchor, and the incoming salmon feed on the out-going salmon fry as the salmon fry eat of the old dead spawners. (Lord 1999: 64–65)

The physical environment introduced in the last chapter affects the biological environment. Ocean currents move plankton and krill that feed fishes, sea birds, and whales. Island size affects the quantity of nutrients that reach land, storms that cross the archipelago bring rain that sustain plants. Although not a focus of this chapter, humans are not outsiders but integral components affecting and affected by the natural system. Hunters joined in the melee when fish and sea mammals fed on upwelling plankton, and they gathered plants on shore to make mats, baskets, medicines, and meals. When human populations plummeted with the Russian arrival, and when commercial and industrial animal harvesting occurred, the living environment reacted with extinctions and perturbations felt today. The environment of the modern-day Aleutian Islands is a diminished and anemic version of the environment of hundreds or thousands of years ago familiar to the ancestral Unangaˆx.

Ecotones and Patches Biologists divide the living world into patches of space that are more biologically alike than others. These patches are identified by ecosystems or the interacting plants and their consumers. Sediment types, water bodies, heat, wind patterns, and precipitation, among other physical conditions, affect the patch size and boundaries. The researchers and their research questions define the patch size and characteristics (Cadenasso et al. 2003). Transitions between the patches or ecosystems are ecotones. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Corbett and D. Hanson, Culture and Archaeology of the Ancestral Unangaˆx/Aleut of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44294-0_3

63

64

3 The Living Environment

The ecotones may include plant and animal species unique to that zone, or they can include a combination of species from adjoining patches. The size of the ecotone can vary, as might its permeability to various species. The patches, or ecosystems, and their boundaries are constantly changing with predation, age of the organisms, succession of species, changes in the physical environment, and shifting climates (Strayer et al. 2003). Patches and ecotones can be created by human activities as people build their houses and deposit bones, fat, and waste from daily living onto the ground and introduce nutrients to the site. People might build windbreaks or dams, or they might disturb the intertidal zone as they gather invertebrates and seaweed. Historically, significant changes in ecosystems are created through human-caused extinctions and introductions of new plant and animal species to the islands. The plants and animals do not respect the frames biologists set around their environments, and, like humans, they cross from one setting to another to feed, or they expand and contract their ranges with changes in temperature, water salinity, precipitation, seasons, or food sources. Birds get their food from the ocean and bring it to their young stashed among grassy slopes or in crevices on rocky cliff faces. Defecating seabirds are a significant source of nutrition for terrestrial plants. If the seabirds disappear, the plant species change as this source of nutrients vanishes. Ecosystems change as cobble beaches are covered by sand or stripped bare of it during storms; as pyroclastic flows cover the ground with ash, smothering one ecosystem while creating the surface for the next; as cliff faces collapse throwing boulders onto a pebble beach and designing a new home for rock-loving invertebrates and seaweeds; as earthquakes lift up one side of an island, providing new land and submerges the other; as a once active village site is abandoned, leaving rich, fertile land for grasses, lupines (Lupinus nootkatensis), and putchki (Heracleum maximum). Fish, sea mammals, and birds may migrate from tropical environments to the Arctic, passing through or stopping in the Aleutian Islands with no regard for the patches or ecotones crossed (Cadenasso et al. 2003; Strayer et al. 2003). This dynamic environment affects people, who are also actors in the ecosystem, and provides a different approach for archaeologists trying to understand human behavior. Humans are adept at finding and exploiting the intersecting patches of their environment. There are more foods available at different times of the year and more construction and tool material when resources from several ecosystems are combined. Some patches we cannot inhabit, but we do find ways to exploit them. With technologically improved boats, fishhooks, nets, and spears, humans have used resources in the open ocean, an ecosystem that may not otherwise have been accessible. Ecotones can be major junctions, as among the ocean, air, and earth, or they can be increasingly smaller intersections: the shoreline and the ocean, kelp and eelgrass beds, sand and rock substrates, water temperature divisions, the gut flora of animals, or the boundaries between soil and plant roots (Belnap et al. 2003; Cadenasso et al. 2003; Strayer et al. 2003). For our purposes, we will discuss only major divisions as they apply to human roles in the ecosystem.

Open Ocean to Nearshore Waters (The Pelagic Zone)

65

Open Ocean to Nearshore Waters (The Pelagic Zone) The largest animals receive the greatest attention—massive whales surging through passes between islands, albatrosses gliding in the sky, bear-sized sea lions diving under a suddenly fragile-appearing skiff. But none of these could exist without the tiniest of creatures that drift with the current, nearly invisible, and certainly not generating the awe we reserve for behemoths that dwarf ourselves. The distribution of plankton and the physical characteristics of the island passes and the ocean currents affect the distribution of fish, sea birds, sea mammals, and people in the Chain. Plankton is a general term for all the microscopic, or nearly microscopic, beings that float, drift, paddle, and swirl their way through the ocean. Plankton is not a type of an organism so much as a water-living plant or animal of a general size. Phytoplankton are forms that take chemicals and minerals and transform them into energy and organic material through photosynthesis. In this category are algae. Zooplankton ingest phytoplankton and other small organisms. Zooplankton can include bacteria, protozoans, and small crustaceans, and the eggs and larval forms of invertebrates and fishes. Simultaneously, detritus consumers eat decomposing plant and animals and sloughed-off mucus, skin, and outer parts of algae. Decomposing organics or detritus provide food for plankton, large invertebrates, fish, and mammals. The more oceanic western and central Aleutian Islands have a greater portion of the energy coming from plankton, while the more shallow, less saline waters of the eastern Bering Sea have a greater detrital food base (Ortiz 2007: 80). Both plankton and detritus feeders occupy the most basic level of the food chain (Kaiser et al. 2011). Plankton abundance and species distribution are not uniform across the Chain. The wider underwater shelf extending out from the islands in the east contracts closer to the shoreline as one travels westward. The eastern passes are also narrow and shallow, and the water is less saline compared to the west (Ladd et al. 2005: 37; Ortiz 2007: 12). Therefore, the plankton in the east are species normally found in shallow waters over the continental shelf, and large copeopods and other zooplankton more commonly found in the open ocean are the primary species in the central Aleutian Islands. Their numbers and composition vary with water temperatures and changing water salinity (Coyle 2005). This in turn affects the distribution of the species that feed on particular species of phytoplankton and zooplankton. Coyle (2005: 89) found no difference in the amount of zooplankton on the open ocean or sea on the north or south sides of the archipelago but did identify more dense patches of zooplankton associated with eddies created as water flows through the passes between islands. Major upwellings on the north sides of Tanaga, Amukta, Samalga, and Akutan passes are associated with more nutrients available to phytoplankton (Sapozhnikov et al. 2011). Volcanic ash floating into the sea after eruptions also creates patches of plankton blooms in the open ocean because iron in the ash acts as a fertilizer for the phytoplankton (Hamme et al. 2010). The extent of the ash-fed blooms depends on the season of the year and water temperatures. Distributions of larger animals such as cephalopods (squid and octopus); fishes, including sharks and skates; and whales are often documented through commercial

66

3 The Living Environment

fishing records. These catch records are affected by where boats are allowed to fish, fishing seasons (poor weather, abundance, closed seasons), and gear (trawling verses trolling, crab pots), so the data are somewhat biased for the Aleutian Islands. Based on these data, there are 18 species of squids in the Aleutian Islands that primarily occupy the pelagic area. Atka mackerel (Pleurogrammmus monopterygius) are estimated to eat 40% of the squid in the region (Ortiz 2007: 77). Squids are also an important food for skates, flatfishes, sharks, and whales. While their primary food is plankton and fishes, they do consume other cephalopods. Juvenile squid contribute to the zooplankton biomass. The larger, schooling boney fishes in the open ocean are Atka mackerel, Pacific cod (Gadus macrocephalus), walleye pollock (Gadus chalcogrammus), and salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.), species on which sharks and sea mammals rely. Yunaska and Amukta passes mark a modern shift of Atka mackerel and walleye pollock dominance between the eastern and central archipelago. Atka mackerel, primarily zooplankton eaters, are found all along the Aleutian Chain, but modern catch reports show their greatest numbers in the central and western Aleutian Islands, possibly because there are more zooplankton in the west (Logerwell et al. 2005: 102, 107; Ortiz 2007: 108). Atka mackerel concentrate near upwellings at major passes such as Samalga, Seguam, and Tanaga passes, in turn attracting predatory fish and sea mammals (Logerwell et al. 2005: 109). At one time, observers thought that Atka mackerel migrated nearshore seasonally during spawning seasons, but it seems this is not accurate as they are presently taken in offshore waters year around (Lauth et al. 2007: 180). Therefore, the presence of Atka mackerel in archaeological sites cannot necessarily be used to identify the season of the site occupation based on their assumed accessibility. Pacific cod distributions are apparently unaffected at these passes although their diet changes (Ortiz 2007: 107). Pacific cod are a major predator of pollock east of Samalga Pass, and Atka mackerel, shrimp, and squid are a larger part of the Pacific cod diet west of the pass (Logerwell et al. 2005: 105). Pacific cod are a major portion of the analyzed fish assemblages from archaeological sites in the Aleutian Islands and were apparently a staple food for the people. Salmon spend much of their lives in the open ocean after leaving their natal streams. When they mature and are returning to spawn, many pass among the Aleutian Islands on their way to the mainland or to streams in the archipelago. Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) move through the Aleutian Chain to the Bering Sea in the spring and fall, migrating from Russia, the Yukon River and western Alaska, the Gulf of Alaska, and the Northwest Coast; then in the winter, they travel back to the North Pacific Ocean (Larson et al. 2013: Fig. 4). Pelagic Chinook salmon in the western islands come primarily from western Alaska and the Alaska Peninsula, followed by Russia and the Yukon River. In the eastern islands, most salmon are from Southeast Alaska and British Columbia, and also from southern Washington to Oregon. The north side of the Alaska Peninsula has fish from western Alaska and the Alaska Peninsula, as would be expected (Larson et al. 2013: 134, Fig. 3). Factors affecting salmon stocks in their natal streams in Russia or in British Columbia could affect salmon populations in the western and the eastern islands or Alaska Peninsula differently. Chinook and coho, or silver salmon (O. kisutch), depend more

Open Ocean to Nearshore Waters (The Pelagic Zone)

67

on nearshore food sources, while pink (O. gorbuscha), sockeye (O. nerka), and chum (O. keta) are pelagic feeders, more dependent on zooplankton, jelly fishes, and lower trophic foods. They become accessible to the Unangaˆx when the salmon enter spawning streams on the islands in the late summer and fall (Johnson and Schindler 2009: 861). Sharks are top predators and scavengers in the open ocean and are potential competitors to transient killer whales or orcas (Orcinus orca). Barrett-Lennard et al. (2011: 234) recorded Pacific sleeper shark (Somniosus pacificus) bite-marks on carcasses of juvenile or calf gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) that had been dispatched by killer whales. They suggested that the sharks congregate near Unimak Pass in the spring when more gray whale carcasses are available from killer whale predation (Barrettt-Lennard et al. 2011: 237). They are doubtless scavenging available carcasses, supplementing a diet that mostly consists of squids and octopuses (49.7%); walleye pollock, salmon, grenadiers (Macrouridae), and other boney fishes (46.6%); crustaceans (0.1%); and scavenged detritus that could include sea mammals (seals, gray whale, and smaller whales: 3.4%; Bizzarro et al. 2017: Table 2; Orlov and Baitalyuk 2014: 543–544; Sigler et al. 2006). But sharks may also prey on small whales, and seals (Sigler et al. 2006: 402–403), and some researchers suggest that they also hunt Steller sea lions (Eumatopias jubata; Horning and Mellish 2014). The maximum length for the Pacific sleeper shark, at 7 m (nearly 23 ft.), is slightly longer than the maximum length of the great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) at 6.4 m (21 ft.), also occupying the North Pacific (Bizzarro et al. 2017: Table 1). In contrast to most other sharks, including the Pacific sleeper shark, the great white specializes in taking sea mammals (69.8%), followed distantly by boney fish (18.1%), cartilaginous fish (sharks/rays/skates 11.1%), supplemented with the occasional crustacean (1.1%; Bizzarro et al. 2017: Table 2). The great white shark may be responsible for decapitated and de-limbed seals and sea lion kills reported recently in the Bering Sea (Dobbyn 2018). The recent northern sightings are assumed to be related to warmer ocean waters reaching into the Bering Sea and these modern distributions may not be characteristic of earlier Holocene environmental conditions (Dobbyn 2018). It is not unreasonable to imagine that great white sharks are moving through the Aleutian Islands. Since the larger sharks are taking or scavenging animals also being hunted by humans, people may have encountered them on the open ocean, nearshore in island passes, or near rookeries. The salmon shark (Lamna ditropis) is about half the size of the larger sharks, with a maximum length of 3.1 m (10 ft.), and it specializes in eating other fishes (82% of their diet), particularly salmon, Atka mackerel, walleye pollock, rockfish (Sebastes spp.), sculpins (Cottidae), some crustaceans, and squid (Bizzarro et al. 2017: Table 2; Goldman and Musick 2008: 97; Hulbert et al. 2005: 495). Nagasawa (1998: 427) estimated that the salmon shark ate “12.6 or 25.2% of the annual salmon run” for 1989 based on number of sharks and the amount of food required to maintain body weight. Salmon sharks begin moving northward from the Pacific Ocean into the Central Aleutian Islands by May, spreading into the Bering Sea and the Gulf Alaska by July and August (Hulbert et al. 2005; Nagasawa 1998: 420–421). Research in Prince William Sound demonstrated that the sharks stayed near salmon migration

68

3 The Living Environment

routes and where the salmon gather before moving upstream (Hulbert et al. 2005: 505). It would not be surprising if a similar behavior might occur offshore from Aleutian salmon stream-mouths. Salmon runs attract many species besides sharks, and there is a tendency for the roles of predator and prey to get confused or to shift quickly. Salmon sharks are also eaten by killer whales, and the large sharks in turn eat Pacific spiny dogfish (Squalus suckleyi) and other fish-eating species. These congregations of fishes and sea mammals provide an excellent opportunity for people to harvest several species simultaneously (Monks 1987). One would think that because sharks and skates are cartilaginous fishes they would not appear in the archaeological record. But the teeth are hard and can be recovered and the cartilage will sometimes ossify and preserve. The Pacific spiny dogfish is a small shark (maximum length of 1.3 m, or 4.2 ft.) that also has two hard dorsal spines that are recovered archaeologically. Large baleen whales visiting or passing through the Chain include blue (Balaenoptera musculus), north Pacific right (Eubalaena japonica), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), sei (Balaenoptera borealis), humpback (Megaptera novaeangliae), minke (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), bowhead (Balaena mysticetus), and gray whales. Baleen whales feed on zooplankton, squid, and small fishes. Most were severely affected by commercial hunting in the 1800s and early 1900s, and again by industrial whaling in the 1940s and 1950s. Because of the depopulation, original distributions are sometimes difficult to determine. The large toothed whale is the sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus; Ortiz 2007: Appendix). Large whales are not evenly distributed along the Chain, nor are large whales present during all seasons, which may explain the contradictory statements about whether or not the Unangaˆx hunted whales. Blue whales are rarely sighted in the Aleutian Islands now because of depopulation from whaling (Zerbini et al. 2006: 1785). Historic whaling records show summer harvesting after 1947 primarily in the eastern and central Aleutian Islands and from the Near Islands westward (Leatherwood et al. 1988: 18; Springer et al. 2006: 251, Fig. 19.5). After feeding on zooplankton all summer, blue whales move south in the fall to breeding areas nearer the equator (Leatherwood et al. 1988: 17). The North Pacific right whale also travels through the eastern Aleutian passes to feed on plankton blooms, although they are rarely sighted today (Leatherwood et al. 1988: 68). Leatherwood et al. (1988: 68) noted that these whales swim slowly and can be approached by boats, making them easier to hunt than fin or sei whales for example. However, Veniaminov (1984 [1840]: 357) stated that the Unangaˆx did not hunt them. On the east side of the North Pacific, fin whales were most numerous around the Kodiak Archipelago and Semidi Islands (Zerbini et al. 2006: 1777). Near the Alaska Peninsula, they were reported to be “the most commonly seen large whale species in Shelikof Strait” (Zerbini et al. 2006: 1777). Today, they occupy the north side of the archipelago, contrary to historic whaling records, which documented fin whales from Seguam Pass to Unalaska in mid-summer (Zerbini et al. 2006: 1784). They were the targeted species near Akutan Whaling Station, where they were taken in the Bering Sea. Leatherwood et al. (1988: 24) reported that their speed “kept it safe

Open Ocean to Nearshore Waters (The Pelagic Zone)

69

from most whalers until steam-propelled catcher boats were used.” The smaller sei whales are also fast (Leatherwood et al. 1988: 31). The speed and the small group sizes may have made the fin and sei whales hard to hunt by Unangaˆx traveling in kayaks sitting low in the water. Humpback whales are about the same size as sei whales and are easily identified by their knobby face. They are popular in nature videos and on whale tours because of the “bubble nets” they create to concentrate fish into a (large) mouth-sized school, followed by one or more whales rising to the surface within the net (Leatherwood et al. 1988: 40). Whaling records document that the greatest concentration of harvested animals in the west were around the Near Islands westward and in the east from Unimak Island to Umnak Island at Samalga Pass, although they were taken all along the Chain (Ferguson et al. 2015: 89, Springer et al. 2006: 251, Fig. 19.5). Normally, humpback whales did not occur in the same place as fin whale concentrations. Zerbini et al. (2006: 1784) speculated that this may be because humpbacks eat small fishes and euphausids (also called krill, a crustacean zooplankton that looks like a small shrimp), while fin whales concentrate on euphausids. Humpback whales feed nearer to shore compared to the other large whales (Springer et al. 2006: 251), and they do not appear to be disturbed by the presence of small boats. These characteristics might make them more susceptible to hunting from kayaks. Veniaminov (1984 [1840]: 358) describes a medium baleen whale that matches the characteristics of a humpback whale. Based on his experience in the eastern islands, he stated, “This kind of whale is the only one which the Aleuts hunt” (Veniaminov 1984 [1840]: 358). Turner (1886: 202) also states “The Aleuts do not attempt to capture either of the species of the Finbacks at the present time, contenting themselves with the smaller Humpback.” Humpback meat, flippers, and blubber were preferred over other whales for food (Veniaminov 1984 [1840]: 358). The minke whale is the smallest of the baleen whales found along the Aleutian archipelago, reaching 7 m (23 ft.), or about half the size of the moderately sized baleen whales in the North Pacific (Leatherwood et al. 1988: 80). This species occupies waters surrounding the eastern islands west of Unimak Pass to the central islands (Zerbini et al. 2006: 1785). The greatest concentration during 2001–2003 field observations were “in and around Seguam Pass, and around the Islands of the Four Mountains” (Zerbini et al. 2006: 1779). Occasional individuals were observed close to shore between Unalaska Island and the Shumagin Islands (Zerbini et al. 2006: 1779–1780, 1785). Gray whales move to Alaska through Unimak Pass to reach the Bering Sea and northward, reversing their trajectory in the fall (Leatherwood et al. 1988: 76). In addition to plankton, they also eat bivalves, barnacles, crabs, marine worms, small crustaceans, sea cucumbers (Cucumariae vegae), and fishes (Nerini 1984: Table II; Ferguson et al. 2015: 84). Along the soft substrate shoreline of the north side of Unimak Island and the Alaska Peninsula, from April through November, large groups of gray whales feed by lying on their sides, usually to the right, and scooping up sand shrimp (Crangon septemspinosa; Ferguson et al. 2015: 85). They may also be ingesting the eelgrass that is abundant in these lagoons and the invertebrates that live in it (Nerini 1984: 445). Dumond (1995) speculated that the lagoon system on

70

3 The Living Environment

the north side of the Alaska Peninsula may have acted as a trap for feeding gray whales. He suggested that people would drive whales to shallow water, causing them to be beached as the tide went out. The scenario is not supported by existing data and would need to be tested through archaeological field research that would include DNA or other analyses to determine the species of whale exploited for the bone in whale bone houses on the Alaska Peninsula (see Chap. 5 for a discussion of whale bone houses). Male sperm whales move along the shoreline of the Chain, then farther into open waters as they reach the Bering Sea. They are large toothed whales, and eat larger foods than do baleen whales, including cephalopods or large squids, octopus, fishes, and skates (Mizroch and Rice 2013). Originally thought to be restricted to the south, some females and juveniles have appeared in the North Pacific and are documented near Attu, Kiska, Koniuiji, and Atka Islands on the west end of the Chain in the spring and summer (Mizroch and Rice 2013: E149). Females and young sperm whales travel in large groups, while large mature males tend to be solitary. The larger female-led groups might be more attractive to human hunters as they are to predatory killer whales. Whitehead (2002: 302) estimates that modern worldwide sperm whale populations are only 32% of their numbers before commercial whaling. Veniaminov (1984 [1840]: 359) stated that toothed whale blubber was only good for lamps and could not be eaten. Pinart (2018: 233), in an 1875 lecture, added finback, porpoises, pilot whales (Globicephala spp.), and killer whales to the list of inedible whales. Large whale abundance historically is greater during cold years as zooplankton and small fish populations increase (Zerbini et al. 2016: 325). Prey species decrease during warm periods and so do their predators. This occurs in the short term and would also occur during climatic shifts. Whales were probably more abundant during the Neoglacial period and the Little Ice Age. If Neoglacial sea ice conditions prevented whales from moving into the Bering Sea, they may have concentrated nearer the islands than they did afterward (Crockford and Frederick 2007). Large whales are notoriously difficult to identify from archaeological sites because the bones are cut into fragments to make masks, wedges, house parts, bowls and other items. Vertebrae and sometimes skull fragments can occasionally be identified to species from their shapes. Even ancient DNA analysis can prove problematic because acidic soils and water percolating through the bone can remove the proteins that allow for identification (Dunning 2021). Dunning (2021) used carbon and nitrogen isotopes to determine diet and from that, identified the whale bone from ATU-014 on Attu Island as baleen whale but was unable to collect DNA from the bones to identify the species. Crockford and Frederick (2007: 702) identified humpback, fin, long-finned pilot, and beluga whales at the Amaknak Bridge site during the Neoglacial occupation using DNA analysis. Given the modern abundance of these species near Unalaska Island, this is not surprising, but the quickly swimming fin whales must have provided for an exciting chase. The bones may also have come from carcasses washed ashore. As mentioned before humpback whales were also hunted by the Unangaˆx during the historic period (Turner 1886; Veniaminov 1984 [1840]). Long-finned pilot whales (Globicephalus melaenus) are not found presently in the Aleutian Islands or even in the North Pacific, but they were identified at the Amaknak Bridge site from Neoglacial

Open Ocean to Nearshore Waters (The Pelagic Zone)

71

deposits by Crockford and Frederick (2007: 702; Crockford 2008: 117). Remains of these whales found in Japan date later, to the 1100s and 700s AD (in Crockford 2008: 120; Oremus et al. 2009: 731). This led Oremus et al. (2009: 731) to conclude that there was “a recent extinction in this ocean basin” of these whales. Beluga whales (Delphinapterus leucas) are now found on the west coast of Alaska, following the sea ice northward in the summer, or in the Cook Inlet and adjacent Prince William Sound, but they are not in the Aleutian Islands (Laidre et al. 2000). It may be that when sea ice was farther south in the winter and did not move northward until later in the summer, the beluga range was forced southward. Medium whales include beaked whales, killer whales (or orcas), and dolphins and porpoises. These are smaller toothed whales in the same order as the sperm whale but from different families. Beaked whales in the Aleutian Islands include Baird’s (Berardius bairdii), Stejneger’s (Mesoplodon stejnegeri), and Cuvier’s (Ziphius caviorostris) beaked whales (Baumann-Pickering et al. 2013: 221). They usually travel offshore and are not seen often in the Aleutian Islands. Based on the number of strandings and not because of the frequency of observations, Stejneger’s beaked whales are believed to concentrate in the central Aleutian Islands (BaumannPickering et al. 2013). Modern researchers use hydrophones or underwater microphones to confirm their presence from species-specific echolocation characteristics (e.g., Baumann-Pickering et al. 2013). These whales were probably rarely seen by the Unangaˆx unless a carcass washed ashore. Stejneger’s beaked whale is interesting because of a prominent tooth on either side of the lower jaw in males, which is why it is also called the sabertoothed whale (Leatherwood et al. 1988: 103). It is unknown whether the teeth from this frequently stranded whale were valuable to the Unangaˆx. Using DNA analysis, Crockford and Frederick (2007: 702) identified small numbers of Baird’s beaked whale bone fragments from the Amaknak Bridge site near Unalaska Island. Three varieties of killer whales, or orcas, in the North Pacific are distinguishable by behavior, range, and genetics (Krahn et al. 2007). The three killer whale types can be separated on sight by differences in mature female killer whale dorsal fin shape and the position of the white or light patches behind the dorsal fin (Ford et al. 2000: 18). Using differences in mitochondrial DNA, researchers determined that transient killer whales separated from other killer whales 700,000 years ago, and the North Pacific resident and offshore whales diverged more recently. The resident killer whales forage for cod and flatfishes in deeper waters in the central Aleutian Islands, and the eastern Aleutian resident killer whales eat more salmon and forage in shallower waters (Krahn et al. 2007: 110). The resident killer whales are divided into geographically distinct populations in the archipelago at Samalga and Buldir passes (Parsons et al. 2013: 749). Recently identified offshore killer whales occupy the open ocean and subsist primarily on predatory fishes or higher trophic fishes as shark, tuna (Thunnus orientalis), and rockfishes (Sebastes spp.; Ford et al. 2011: 222; Krahn et al. 2007: 111). The offshore killer whales are not gentle beings, killing the large Pacific sleeper shark and possibly salmon sharks, both impressive predators in their own right.

72

3 The Living Environment

The transient killer whale, or Bigg’s killer whale, is the top predator of any sized sea mammal from large whales to the ewok-like sea otter, moving in and out of bays and along shorelines as they hunt their prey (Ford et al. 2000: 20). They have been observed eating young gray whales, minke whales, northern fur seals (Callorhinus ursinus), and Steller sea lions in the spring and summer (in Krahn et al. 2007: 102, 110). Among their larger prey are humpback, right, and sperm whales (e.g., Pitman et al. 2001; Reeves et al. 2006; Saulitis et al. 2015; Steiger et al. 2008). In the summer, these killer whales take sea lions and fur seals as they migrate to their rookeries and begin to pup (Barrett-Lennard et al. 2011: 235; Parsons et al. 2013: 750). Samalga Pass does not seem to be a dividing point as it is for the other marine animals along the Chain, and one population of transient killer whales has a territory that extends from the Gulf of Alaska to Amchitka Pass (Parsons et al. 2013: 750). A separate and unique population of transient killer whales congregates near Unimak Pass in the spring as adult gray whales and calves move through the archipelago into the Bering Sea (Barrett-Lennard et al. 2011; Parsons et al. 2013: 750). The transient killer whales primarily target the calves. The young whales attempt to flee the killer whales by swimming into shallow water or near shore. Attacks end when a pursued whale reaches waters 3 m deep, too shallow for the killer whales to maneuver (Barrett-Lennard et al. 2011: 237). The killer whales might try to drive an animal close to shore where a carcass is less likely to sink below their dive limits and where they can feed on the carcass over several days instead of for a few hours (Barrett-Lennard et al. 2011: 233). In either case, this behavior by the prey whale or the killer whale may have served to bring whales nearer human hunters who were also seeking food. This discussion about the largest pelagic predators at the highest trophic level brings us full circle to the very smallest. Not every whale or fish is eaten, and in the open ocean, many carcasses sink into waters much deeper than a predator can safely follow to feed. “Whale falls,” or whale carcasses that rest on the bottom of the ocean, create their own marine environment, providing food for scavenging fishes and, eventually, for detritus eaters. …, I picture them coming down like a huge and lazy rain, like hot air balloons landing in an open field – that silence and fascination as anything meant to be suspended touches earth. It’s frightening – the arrival, the dust, the realization that this is not graceful after all. There must be a an archipelago of whalefall along some lines in the ocean – greys beside California, humpback along the Carolinas. Swimming and then falling, their bones silent and then landing and then settled. (From “Whalefall” by Bradfield 2008: 98)

Where Sea Meets Sky

73

At each stage of decomposition, even into the skeletal stage, a carcass releases energy back into the ecosystem. Smith (2006: 290) noted that large, mature whale skeletons can support many species of mussels, isopods, snails, limpets, and bacteria for up to 80 years. In shallower waters, carcasses are more accessible to other scavengers, such as sharks, fishes, and sea birds, and eventually the bones and connective tissues sink and support the subtidal fauna and zooplankton (Smith 2006: 294).

Where Sea Meets Sky From the deck of a ship, it is often possible to see swarms of reddish microcrustaceans drifting along on the surface of the water in such profusion that they impart a reddish cast to the water… Where the ocean currents cause an upwelling of water rich in plankton, shearwaters and fulmars flock to the scene and baleen whales soon appear. On one occasion at Unimak Pass, it was estimated that the surface of the ocean for 15 square miles was covered with feeding shearwaters, each separated from its neighbor by 10 or 20 ft. (Scheffer 1959: 365)

The sea surface is an ecotone that accommodates birds as much as it supports the ocean creatures underneath. We do not normally think of the sea and the air as having permeable boundaries, but sea mammals, originally terrestrial animals that evolved long ago to live in the water, must come to the surface for air. Seals and sea lions still pup on beaches or on ice, and whales and some fish burst above the watery threshold for short airborne visits. Likewise, albatross, fulmars, puffins, and diving ducks dive and swim beneath the water, coming up for air after being submerged many minutes. Some sea birds are better underwater swimmers than they are fliers. Bird interact with other ocean-dwelling animals by scavenging dead animals, eating feces of large sea mammals, competing with pelagic animals for fish or plankton, and in some cases becoming the prey (Burger 1988: 16). Barrett-Lennard et al. (2011: 234) observed that gray whale carcasses or bits of flesh and blubber left after a killer whale hunt were taken most frequently by Northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis), but Laysan albatross (Phoebatria immutabilis), bald eagles (Haliaeeetus leucocephalus), and gulls (Larus spp.) also attended the feast. Whales, porpoises, and large predatory fishes chase small fishes upward toward the surface, making them more visible and accessible to sea birds. Burger (1988: 20) also suggested that substantial flocks of sea birds taking fish from waters near the surface may in turn force the fishes back to the predators beneath. Enormous numbers of sea birds flying high over schooling fish are an unmistakable visual signal of concentrated animals to anybody on land or from a boat offshore, and certainly would have been such to Unangaˆx hunters. Monks (1987) called the phenomenon of people taking advantage of predators coming together at a single point in time to feed on a particular prey (plankton, schooling fish, etc.) “prey as bait.” He notes, “Under these circumstances, human predators can acquire large amounts of subsistence resources in a relatively small amount of time at a single location” (Monks 1987: 119). Similar conditions might occur at salmon stream mouths or when herring (Clupea pallasii) are spawning near shore. Archaeological assemblages from

74

3 The Living Environment

Shemya Island have large numbers of bones from sea birds such as shearwaters and fulmars (Procellariidae) and albatrosses (Diomedeidae) that feed in pelagic waters, primarily on fish and squid, but are not above scavenging a floating carcass. Analyzing the faunal collections, investigators came to a similar conclusion about the Unangaˆx possibly taking the birds “while hunting marine mammals at sea from kayaks or during fishing trips” (Lefèvre et al. 2010: 155). A similar observation was made based on the bird assemblages from sites on Umnak Island (Yesner 1976: 274). Albatrosses are primarily open ocean birds. Unlike other sea birds, they do not breed on the Aleutian Islands or other Bering Sea locations; therefore, they are not land-bound to nesting sites, and they spend the summer and fall feeding in pelagic waters of Alaska (Kuletz et al. 2014: 283). The short-tailed (Phoebastria albatrus), black-footed (Phoebastria nigripes), and Laysan albatrosses appear seasonally in Aleutian waters between June and the end of September when plankton blooms attract squid and fish to upwellings near island passes (Causey and Loring 2010: 99– 100; Kuletz et al. 2014: 283). Albatrosses may not have been too difficult for people to attract and harpoon or catch with a hook and line. Clark (1945: 44) observed black-footed albatross following their ship: “About 20 miles south of Unalaska I once attracted 22 astern of the ship by trailing a piece of meat in the water. A day or two before about as many had gathered to inspect a boatswain’s cap that had blown overboard.” This ease of attraction also seems to be characteristic of other albatross species (Kuletz et al. 2014: 285; pers. obs.). Brought nearly to extinction by feather hunters in the early 1900s, short-tailed albatross populations are only now recovering (Causey and Loring 2010: 100). Their ubiquitous presence in Unangam archaeological sites, and the poor showing of other albatross species, is an indication that these birds must have been abundant seasonally, once numbering in the hundreds of thousands instead of in the hundreds as they do today (Causey and Loring 2010: 101–102; Yesner 1976; see also Chap. 6). Sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus) and short-tailed shearwaters (Puffinus tenuirostris) are also common pelagic sea birds in the eastern Aleutian Islands. Like albatrosses, they migrate north midsummer to take advantage of the rich feeding grounds in the Bering Sea and the Aleutian Islands. They return south in October to reach their breeding grounds in time for their offspring to hatch when those waters are most productive (Denlinger 2006: –10; Shaffer et al. 2006: 12801). Other fish and squid-eating pelagic sea birds include northern fulmars, kittiwakes (Rissa spp.), murres (Uria spp.), and tufted puffins (Fratercula cirrhata; Byrd et al. 2005: 141, Table 1; Denlinger 2006). Plankton and fish-eaters feeding offshore include storm petrels (Oceanodroma spp.), ancient murrelets (Synthliboramphus antiquus), Cassin’s auklets (Ptychoramphus aleuticus), least auklets (Aethia pusilla), and crested auklets (Aethia cristatella; Byrd et al. 2005: 141, Table 1; Denlinger 2006). Although these species may feed far out to sea, they are somewhat constrained, compared to albatrosses and shearwaters, by the need to stay near their nests (Jahncke et al. 2005: 173). Short-tailed shearwaters are most common in the eastern Aleutian Islands, while the northern fulmars (Fulmarus glacialis) are more common in the

The Nearshore

75

central Aleutian Islands (Jahncke et al. 2005: 165–166). This is because of the differences in abundance of zooplankton species they feed on and the prey species (fishes, squid) attracted to the zooplankton blooms (Jahncke et al. 2005: 174). The food chain does not flow in only one direction, and not surprisingly, a shark or a killer whale might take a sea bird as a small meal. Fish are also documented to feast on a bird or two. Cod are notoriously opportunistic feeders, eating anything they come across. A recent article reported sea birds collected from guts of Pacific cod caught in Unimak Pass, on the west side of Unimak Island (Ulman et al. 2015). Between January and April 2011, fish processors sent in bird remains for identification, but other stomach contents were not included in the analysis. Three-quarters of the 74 birds collected from the stomachs were crested auklets. This species travels in large flocks and feeds on fish schools by diving for prey. They are present in large numbers in Unimak Pass in the winter, and this may be when the cod grabbed them. At other times, other birds might dominate. Ulman et al. (2015: 232) stated that other studies have noted that birds make up a small portion of Pacific cod diet. This is not the first report of the cod’s voracious and undiscriminating diet. Scheffer (1980: 20) noted unusual items in cod stomachs during his work in the Aleutian Islands in the late 1930s: Surprisingly, out of the stomach of a two-foot cod taken off Chuginadak Island there popped the fresh head of a cormorant; out of a cod from the shallows of Ogliuga Island, the whole body of a paroquet auklet. I thought these finds remarkable until I later learned that diving birds are not uncommonly seized by cod. Perhaps I should not have been surprised, for I once opened a cod stomach containing a turkey foot, a boiled potato, and a penny matchbox! That individual had been lurking beneath our ship, waiting for manna to descend.

This behavior is probably particularly common when plankton blooms attract predatory species, including cod, sharks, orcas, whales, and plankton- and fish-eating birds. There is bound to be some confusion during the feeding, leading to exotic culinary experiences by the animals. The practice also provides a cautionary lesson to zooarchaeologists since the gut contents of these animals may also be brought to and deposited on a site. Animal gut contents introduce “noise” into interpretations about human subsistence practices that rely on the analysis of animal bones from archaeological sites.

The Nearshore While open ocean or pelagic species seem distant, they are not irrelevant to the survival of people living in the archipelago. Pelagic plankton, invertebrates, fish, whales, and even large predators like the sharks and killer whales come near the shoreline seeking food or protection, or they may be brought in as beach cast. The offshore currents from the Pacific to the Bering Sea bring plankton, invertebrates, and everything that preys on them through narrow passes along which the Unangaˆx wait. In other physical settings, these resources are not accessible, but the Aleutian archipelago is unique.

76

3 The Living Environment

The nearshore begins where the ocean floor begins to rise toward the shoreline, or where currents parallel the shoreline, extending landward to the low tide line. The kelp forests and eelgrass meadows ring the islands; stabilize the shorelines; anchor soft substrates; protect and feed fishes, crustaceans, mollusks, and other nearshore animals; and provide a habitat for other algae. Seaweeds protect the shoreline and intertidal invertebrates from strong wave action (Steneck et al. 2002: 438). Sloughed from algae and decaying kelp, detritus feed nearshore and intertidal fauna and provides a food buffer when plankton are not available (Duggins et al. 1989: 172; Steneck et al. 2002: 438). The now-extinct sea cow (Hydrodamalis gigas), a relative of the dugong (Dugong dugong) and the manatee (Trichecus spp.), once grazed on kelp blades. Sea otters (Enhydra lutris) harvest urchins (Strongylocentrotus polyacanthus and S. droebachiensis) and fishes living among the kelp forests, wrapping themselves in the long leaf-like blades to hold themselves in place against currents. Birds depend on the fishes, invertebrates, and plankton drawn to these complex environments. This rich ecosystem entwined in the kelp forests extends from Asia to the California coast, leading archaeologists to call this luxuriant ribbon of coastline the “Kelp Highway.” Some of the first people in the Americas are believed to have traveled along this ecosystem from the Bering Land Bridge at the end of the Pleistocene (Erlandson et al. 2007, 2015). Kelp affix themselves to bedrock and large cobbles of subtidal and intertidal substrates. Their holdfasts can also be found on shells; they may have elected to grow on living animals and then drifted to shore when their hosts died. The bull kelp or bullwhip kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) in the Aleutian Islands is a dark, butterscotch to rich brown color. A long, fibrous, hollow stipe or stalk rises as much as 36 m (118 ft.) to the water surface, opening into a round, air-filled bulb called a pheumatocyst, which has several attached, thin, semi-opaque, membranous blades drifting outward with water currents. The blades blanket the water surface and shade the ocean floor. Thick kelp beds can be difficult to paddle through, and where sea otters are plentiful and urchins are few, bays can become choked with the fibrous algae. Another common forest kelp in the Aleutian Islands is the dragon kelp (Eualaria fistulosa), with broad blades, featuring central, gas-filled ribs that allow the blades to float to the water surface and orient themselves upright underwater. Bull kelp is ubiquitous along the Northwest Coast of North America to Samalga Pass, just past Umnak Island (Konar et al. 2017). Both bull and the dragon kelp form dense underwater forests in waters around the islands east of the Islands of the Four Mountains (Konar et al. 2015, 2017). West of this point, dragon kelp dominates as the forest-forming kelp. Suggestions for why the bull kelp ends so abruptly at Samalga Pass have included reduced light (although the islands to the west are more southerly or even in latitude to Samalga Pass) and colder water temperatures to the west (Konar et al. 2017: 84). Bull kelp prevents light from reaching the substrate more than does dragon kelp, and as would be expected, each of these types of kelp affects understory seaweeds and the fauna differently, just as a terrestrial open forest of deciduous trees has different understory from a dark coniferous forest (Konar et al. 2017: 85).

The Nearshore

77

Greenlings (Hexagrammos spp.) are fish that prefer kelp environments. Rock greenling or pogie (Hexagrammos lagocephalus), and kelp greenling (H. decagrammus) are two common kelp forest species. Other nearshore kelp-loving species are a variety of sculpins, including red and yellow Irish lords (Hemilepidotus hemilepidotus and H. jordani), rock fishes (Sebastes spp.), and occasionally small flatfishes (e.g., the northern rock sole Lepidopsetta polyxstra) although flatfishes are more likely to be found along sandy bottoms (Konar et al. 2015: 1941; Lauth et al. 2007; Mecklenburg et al. 2002: 390–395, 838). These fishes probably use the kelp forests as much for camouflage as for feeding, and they are well represented in archaeological sites along the Chain. A common cause for kelp forest loss in the North Pacific is overgrazing by sea urchins. When sea otter populations drop to the point that urchins are no longer kept in check, urchins proliferate, and kelp detritus is no longer enough to feed the increasing urchin population. At that point, the urchins begin to graze on live kelp, killing them and destroying the protective canopy. Eventually, the urchins modify their environment so much that they create “urchin barrens” where the nearshore substrate is denuded of the canopy algae (Estes and Duggins 1995: 92–93). Konar et al. (2017) suggested the differences in kelp species and the extent of the forests between the islands east of Samalga Pass and those on the west side might be attributed to the creation of urchin barrens in the western islands. Konar et al. (2017: 87) cautioned, however, “it is unlikely that sea otter population levels alone explain the disparity in kelp forest cover and kelp community assemblage across Samalga Pass.” Konar et al. (2015: 1941) also found few differences in fish species inhabiting kelp forests and in nearshore environments denuded of kelp. The primary differences in fish assemblages are associated more with major geographic areas, such as east and west of Samalga Pass (Konar et al. 2015: 1949). In Norway, however, Lorentsen et al. (2010) found that the number of small cods dropped where kelp was commercially harvested and cormorant feeding success decreased. So while the kinds of fishes living in kelp or barren areas may not be different, a change in abundance may affect other species dependent on kelp-inhabiting fishes. Juvenile Pacific cod live in both kelp forests and eelgrass meadows. As they grow older, they either move near shore or into pelagic waters, depending on the water temperatures (Love 2011: 181–182; Mecklenburg et al. 2002: 296). The largest cod can reach nearly 1.2 m long (approximately 4 ft.; Mecklenburg et al. 2002: 296). Judging from isotopic analysis of cod bones and their abundance in archaeological sites from Sanak Island (Maschner et al. 2008) and Aialik Bay in the Gulf of Alaska (Helser et al. 2018; Mantua and Hare 2002: 40), cod abundance seems to decreases as climate warms and increase with cooler climates. This attribute is important for interpreting the effect of climate change on the people living along the Island Chain. During periods in which cod numbers dropped, other fishes such as salmon and halibut (Hippoglossus stenoleps) seem to have been substituted to replace the cod (Mantua and Hare 2002: 40). A close relative of the Pacific cod is the saffron cod (Elginus gracilis), another cold-loving fish that has been recovered in sites on the north side of Adak Island (Savinetsky et al. 2012: 84–85).

78

3 The Living Environment

Sand and mud substrates support a nearshore community that is different from the bedrock, cobble beaches dominated by kelp forests. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) meadows have a similar effect, holding subtidal sediments in place and producing detritus for intertidal fauna. Eelgrass is different from kelp, rockweed (Fucus spp.), and the other algae sea weeds. Eelgrasses are plants with flowers and pollen; they have rhizomes or roots that grow horizontally and vertically into mud substrates (Lindeberg and Lindstrom 2010: 164). The grass-like leaves allow eelgrass to bend with the waves. When the grasses die in the fall, the roots still live, producing new leaves in the spring (ADF&G 2006: 700). The dead leaves wash on shore as sea wrack, or the detritus feeds nearshore and intertidal fauna. One of the largest eelgrass communities in the world is in Izembek Lagoon on the north side of the Alaska Peninsula, covering approximately 16,000 ha, with a total of 30,000 ha of nearshore waters in the lower peninsular region that includes the Izembek Lagoon (Hogrefe et al. 2014: 12464, 12466). In addition to eelgrass beds along the peninsula, eelgrass beds are found adjacent to the eastern islands, the Shumigan and Sanak Islands south of the Alaska Peninsula, and Atka and Adak Islands (McRoy 1968: Fig. 1, Table 1, 509). The Adak Island beds are believed to be from a transplanting experiment and may not be native to the island (McRoy 1968: 509–510). No beds are recorded in the western islands. With the exception of the bed reported on Atka Island, the natural boundary again appears to be at Samalga Pass. Jordan (2001: 514, Fig. 4) documents silts and sands associated with lagoons or marshes on the Alaska Peninsula by 8600 radiocarbon years BP. Although there is no direct evidence for eelgrass beds, the environment may have been suitable on the peninsula and possibly among associated islands during the early Holocene. Eelgrass environments are highly productive. They attract large numbers of geese and ducks that feed on the grass and disperse the seeds (McRoy 1966: 109, 1968: 510). Black brant (Branta bernicla) and Canada goose (Branta canadensis) populations alone are estimated to consume approximately 17% of the eelgrass in Izembek Lagoon before flying south (McRoy 1966: 110). When bird populations were greater, there would have been incredible gatherings of geese and ducks, creating excellent opportunities for hunters, as there would have been at eelgrass beds elsewhere. Eelgrass beds support many of the same fish as kelp forests. In Prince William Sound, and likely in waters of the Aleutian Chain, fishes associated with eelgrass environments are primarily Pacific cod and greenlings, particularly juvenile fishes, but other fishes also found in kelp and algal seaweed beds used the eelgrass meadows as well (Dean et al. 2000: 278). Herring lay eggs in the grass. Sea urchins, sea cucumbers, soft shelled clams (Macoma spp.), cockles (Serripes, sp., Clinocardium sp.), several types of gastropods, and dungeness (Cancer magister) and small crabs (Pugettia gracilis, Telmessus chieragonus) depend on eelgrasses environments (ADF&G 2006: 700; McRoy and Helfferich 1980: Table 1). Identifying the existence of ancient kelp or eelgrass beds nearshore is difficult in the archaeological record because algae and seagrasses are not apt to preserve in archaeological sediments. Archaeologists have used fauna to infer the presence of these environments. Since birds and fish do not live exclusively in one particular ecosystem, archaeologists use the small gastropods and crabs that live in the blades,

The Nearshore

79

holdfasts, or rhizomes and travel to shore with the seaweeds and seagrasses which were gathered for food, cooking (steaming), or manufacturing (making rope). These small shells in archaeological sites are used to identify seaweed use and nearshore environments (Ainis et al. 2014; McRoy and Helfferich 1980: 298–300). Sand and mud substrates support numerous soles and flounders (Pleuronectidae) that rest on the bottom, where they eat fish, invertebrates, and plankton. The largest flatfish is the halibut, which can reach hundreds of pounds. Smaller flatfishes with remains in archaeological sites along the Chain are starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus), Alaska plaice (Pleuronectes quadrituberculatus), yellow fin sole (Limanda aspera), and rock sole (Lepidopsetta bilineata; Crockford 2012). Unlike cod, halibut numbers increase with warming water (Mantua and Hare 2002: 40). Another interesting fish in sandy nearshore and intertidal environments is the Pacific sand lance (Ammodytes hexapterus). These small fishes are eaten by other fishes, sea birds, seals, porpoises, and whales (Hauser 2011: 147; Love 2011: 473– 474). It is not clear if their presence in archaeological sites comes from stomach contents, or if they were collected in intertidal areas while spawning in the sand and then possibly eaten whole. Either way, the tiny bones from these small fish are underrepresented in archaeological sites because they fall through the screens used to recover animal bones, ending back in the dirt (Crockford 2012). This is a problem with all small fishes in archaeological sites. Because nearshore-feeding birds either feed on plants or fishes that inhabit the nearshore seaweeds and shallower waters, or because they nest on land and cannot fly far from their young, these birds are limited to the coastline. Common nearshore fish eaters include, among others, cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae), glaucous-winged gulls (Larus glaucescens), Arctic and Aleutian terns (Sterna paradisaea and Onychoprion aleuticus), pigeon guillemots (Cepphus columba), some murrelets (Brachyramphus spp.), and horned puffins (Fratercula corniculata; Byrd et al. 2005: Table 1). Plankton-eating nearshore birds include parakeet and whiskered auklets (Aethia psittacula and A. pygmaea; Byrd et al. 2005: Table 1). Birds that concentrate in protected waters such as bays, lagoons, and estuaries include gulls and terns (Laridae), cormorants, geese, sea ducks, guillemots, and murrelets (Gibson and Byrd 2007: 231). Birds that can be found near shore in sheltered waters include loons (Gavia spp.), grebes (Podicipedidae), scoters (Melanitta spp.), eiders (Somateria spp.), and harlequin ducks (Histrionicus histrionicus; Gibson and Byrd 2007: 233). During the spring, when people have fewer accessible food sources, nearshore-feeding birds are particularly vulnerable to human predation. Because nearshore birds are bound to their nesting sites, they are not so free ranging as pelagic birds, and suitable nesting sites affect their distributions as much as food sources. Byrd et al. (2005: 152) noted that Samalga Pass is less a demarcation point for bird distributions than for distributions of other kinds of fauna, or even for distributions of sea weeds and eelgrass. Nearshore-feeding, cliff-nesting bird distribution is influenced by island size and the availability of ledges or crevices. Surface and burrow nesters are less limited in available nesting areas, and therefore they are distributed throughout the Chain (Byrd et al. 2005: 152–153). Bryd et al. (2005: 153) suggested that historic introductions of fox have probably affected nesting bird

80

3 The Living Environment

distributions, and modern distributions do not reflect those of the past. They stated, “Overall, there were no fundamental patterns that would suggest substantial differences in the ‘quality’ of the regions from the viewpoint of breeding marine birds” (Byrd et al. 2005: 153). By depositing nitrogen-rich guano into the water and beaches adjacent to their colonies, nesting birds (and nearshore sea mammals and seal rookeries) contribute nutrients to the nearshore and intertidal areas they exploit. The nitrogen is taken up by seaweed, further stimulating kelp forest and phytoplankton growth (Polis and Hurd 1996: 411–412; Wainright et al. 1998: 68). Wootton (1991) found that some seaweeds, such as rockweed, reacted poorly to a guano-rich environment, so not all seaweeds may grow well adjacent to bird rookeries. Sea otters are associated with healthy kelp forest environments. They have gained a reputation as a “keystone” species over the past 30 or 40 years of research in the Aleutian Islands. A keystone species is an animal important for maintaining a particular ecosystem. If that species, usually a predator, is removed, the ecosystem shifts catastrophically to a simpler organization as prey species’ numbers surge with the release of their primary predator, eventually dominating the ecosystem. These changes are described as a trophic cascade, occurring when the removal or introduction of one species affects other species linked as either predators or prey, or when these changes affect animals with symbiotic relationships (see Paine 2010 for definitions and examples). Sea otters are marine-adapted, eating clams, mussels, various gastropods, chitons, urchins, crabs, and fishes. Sea otters occupied the entire archipelago before intensive harvesting for their furs during the Russian and early American occupation of Alaska. After they were extirpated from parts of the archipelago, large kelp forests also disappeared these areas. In addition to the loss of the protective overstory and the reduced environmental complexity in rocky ecosystems, kelp-dwelling fish numbers drop, gulls shift from a fish diet to eating intertidal animals, and eagles switch from a varied diet of sea mammal carcasses, birds, and fish to eating sea birds. Sea otters also exploit sand and mud nearshore fauna. They are significant predators of clams, including butter clams (Saxidomus giganteus), little neck clams (Leukoma staminea), and softshell clams. Kvitek et al. (1992: 420) reported that 30–96% of the empty shells found on Kodiak Island sea beds were from sea otter predation, and most were butter clam shells. Sea otters tended to select larger clams, and the average shellfish size decreases the longer sea otters exploit a region (Kvitek et al.1992: 421, 423). Before Russian arrival, large numbers of humans were part of this ecosystem, and sea otters competed with people for urchins, clams, chitons, and nearshore fishes. Sea otter populations may have been limited through hunting near large villages, but humans were also undoubtedly harvesting the largest urchins, bivalves, and intertidal invertebrates in substantial quantities, reducing sea otter food sources (Corbett et al. 2008: 61–62, 69). Tending to stay close to shore, the sea cow was a large sea mammal that grazed on kelp forest blades and other seaweeds (Domning 1976, 1981). They lived among the Aleutian Islands before the Russians appeared and were extinct shortly after. Weighing up to 10 metric tons (22,046 pounds), the sea cow was twice the size of any of its living relatives (Scheffer 1972: 913). Their geographic range extended into

The Nearshore

81

the North Pacific while their ancestral and recent relatives lived or live in tropical or temperate waters. Steller (1988: 163) described the sea cow as having a thick, black or dark brown hide “with a consistency almost like cork, around the head full of grooves, wrinkles, and holes.” The head was described as being similar to a buffalo head, with ears hidden among the skin folds, bristly whiskers around the lips, and flat teeth for grazing on seaweed (Steller 1988: 160, 161). The feet had “outermost ends rather like a horse’s hoof. Underneath, these are furnished with many short and densely set bristles like a scrub brush” (Steller 1988: 161). Steller stated that the feet were used to remove the seaweed from the rocks. The tail was described as flat and long (Steller 1988: 161). The sea cows’ slow movements and their tendency to graze along near-shore kelp beds, occasionally beaching at low tide, would have made them easy targets for hunters. During storms, the animals sought shelter on the beaches in protected bays (Turner 2008: 107). This behavior would have made sea cows available during storms, when no other large sea mammals would have been accessible unless seals and sea lions were calving at rookeries. Turner (2008: 106) was told that because the animal was not considered dangerous, it was hunted from shore on Attu Island by women who would spear them from the side. Sea cows once occupied the entire North American west coast, but they became extinct after the first people settled along the shoreline even while the kelp forests were still present. Given the simple hunting technology required to kill sea cows and the ease with which the animals were approached, Domning (1972, 1978: 133) views the extinction of sea cows over most of their former range a result of simple over hunting. An archaeological bone dated to 915–990 BP demonstrates that sea cows continued to live in the Aleutian Islands during the late Holocene even while they had become extinct along the rest of the American coast (Domning et al. 2007: 980). Sharko et al. (2021) concluded that the sea cow populations were already declining before humans arrived during the Late Pleistocene, based on the DNA analysis of the remains. By the mid-1700s, sea cows seem to have been limited to the Commander Islands, between the Near Islands and Kamchatka Peninsula of northeast Asia, although they were also reported at Attu Island (Turner 2008: 106–107). The Commander Islands may have been a refugium for the sea cows because the islands were unoccupied by humans, although the location was not an optimal climate at the northern limit of their range (Domning 1972). Sea cows may already have been on the verge of extinction before the Russians arrived. Nordenskiöld and Brandt (in True 1884: 135) in the mid-1880s concluded; the Sea-cow had gotten out of harmony with his environment many years before the Russians discovered it, and that its extermination would have occurred within a comparatively short time without the intervention of man. The fact that in Steller’s time the range of the animals was much circumscribed, seems to give weight to the latter view.

More refined versions of this hypothesis are presented by Savinetsky et al. (2004: 349) who concluded that the cooler climate during with the Little Ice Age reduced sea cow populations. Savinetsky et al. (2004: 349; Savinetsky 1993) noted that populations increased during warmer periods and dropped with cooling temperatures in the Commander Islands. They proposed that cooling temperatures during the Little

82

3 The Living Environment

Ice Age combined with hunting pressures on an already stressed population led to their eventual extinction after European arrival in 1741. Savinetsky (1993) used the frequency of radiocarbon dates from collected bones as a proxy for population numbers, but the sample size and variation of a single radiocarbon date are interpreted as a population reduction, so additional data are needed to determine the effects of climate on sea cow populations. Steller (in True 1884: 131) noted that sea cows had problems with sea ice choking bays and limiting their access to kelp. The animals he observed had lost so much weight that their vertebrae and ribs showed under their skin. This may support the hypothesis that cooler temperatures caused population declines, particularly in the northern limit of their range, although it does not explain why the animals would not have disappeared during the colder Neoglacial period. Haley (1980) and Anderson (1995) sought another explanation for sea cow extinction, arguing that the kelp-dependent sea cow relied on sea otters to limit sea urchin populations. By over hunting sea otters, the Indigenous people living along the Pacific coast also destroyed the kelp forests required by the sea cows, leading to their extinction everywhere but the uninhabited Commander Islands. They argued that when sea otters were exterminated from the Commander Islands, similar conditions caused the sea cows to starve and eventually become extinct. Corbett et al. (2008: 68–69) expand on this scenario by suggesting that sea cow populations may have been low because Unangaˆx hunters were taking sufficient numbers of sea otters to affect kelp beds locally. But they argue that the sea cow survived in the Aleutian Islands until Russian arrival, when the commercial harvest of sea otters led to widespread loss of the kelp forests in the western Aleutian Islands. The first recorded Europeans on the Commander Islands were members of Bering’s expedition stranded over the winter of 1741 and 1742. The Bering Expedition was the first documented European exploration of Alaskan shores. The crew slaughtered many sea cows for meat while on Bering Island, the largest of the Commander Islands. After this, explorers would overwinter on Bering Island to provision their ships with sea cow meat and meat from other marine animals (Coxe 1966 [1780]: 52, 54). Stejneger (1887: 1053) estimated that to supply 400 men on a two-year voyage, a ship would need about 290 animals, and to support the men who overwintered on the islands, another 205 animals would be required. This does not include estimates of the animals lost through inefficient hunting. Stejneger estimated five animals were lost for each one killed. Using the number of ships landing in the Commander Islands, he calculated that 2470 animals would have been killed following the arrival of Bering’s expedition. Yakalov (in Domning 1978: 164) was already raising alarms in 1755 about wasteful hunting. He noted that by 1754, there were no sea cows on the neighboring Copper, or Medny, Island in the Commander Islands. Steller (1988: 162), a naturalist for the Bering Expedition, described the sea cow hunt in 1741/1742, and likely the horrifying end of this species: …they have indeed an extraordinary love for one another, which extends so far that when one of them was cut into, all the others were intent on rescuing it and keeping it from being pulled ashore by closing a circle around it. Others tried to overturn the yawl. Some placed themselves on the rope or tried to draw the harpoon out of its body, in which indeed they

The Nearshore

83

were successful several times. We also observed that a male two days in a row came to its dead female on the shore and inquired about its condition. Nevertheless, they remained constantly in one spot, no matter how many of them were wounded or killed.

Turvey and Risley (2006: 95) state that the immediate cause for the extinction of the sea cow is obvious. Based on reproduction rates and life expectancy, they estimate that historical hunting rates were 7.5 times greater than the sustainable limit for sea cows. Their estimate for sustainable harvesting rates is 17 sea cows each year, well below the number of animals taken to support overwintering crews and the estimated 5 additional animals not retrieved for each one taken (Stejneger 1887). Turvey and Riseley (2006) do support the hypothesis that early Holocene hunting affected sea cow range before the 1700s, but they are not convinced that sea otter over hunting and extermination would have affected sea cow populations, stating, “hunting was more than sufficient to exterminate the sea cow without invoking a further collapse of offshore ecosystems” (Turvey and Riseley 2006: 96). Given their already small numbers and low birthrates, the sea cows may have been doomed, but their extinction would have come much later had wasteful hunting not hastened the event (Turvey and Risley 2006: 97). Whatever the reason, by 1754 there were no sea cows on Copper Island, and by 1768, they were exterminated on neighboring Bering Island (Sauer 1972 [1802]: 181; Stejneger 1887: 1051). By the time Stejneger (1883, 1887) arrived in the Commander Islands, the sea cow was extinct. In the Aleutian Islands, Pacific walrus (Family Obodenidae: Odobenus rosmarus), northern fur seals and Steller sea lions (Family Otariidae), and true seals (Family Phocidae: Phoca spp.) formed the basis of subsistence for a nearly exclusive maritime culture. People could not have survived without seals and sea lions. These animals provided hides for clothing, boat construction, intestines for waterproof clothing and bags, meat, and, most importantly, oil that allows people to eat plant roots (for example, lupines), clams, fish, and dried sea mammal meat. A high-protein diet is not possible without fat or oil. Lean protein takes a quarter to a third of the calories gained to digest the meat; oil supplies the additional needed calories and lubrication for digestion. Some roots that were collected by the Unangaˆx also had a “binding” effect on the intestines unless fat was consumed (also see Chap. 6). Walrus males average 3 m (10 ft.) long and weigh about 1179 kg (2600 pounds) and females are slightly shorter and lighter at 907 kg (2000 pounds; Wynne 1997: 64). Historical distributions are primarily on the north side of the Alaska Peninsula where males haul out, and they occasionally appear on the south side of the peninsula to Shelikof Strait, in Cook Inlet, eastward, to Southeast Alaska and westward to Atka, Amchitka, and Attu Islands (Abegglen 1977: 506; Fay 1982: 23; Hudson in Turner 2008: 25; Murie 1959: 311–312). Populations plunged in the late 1880s when intense commercial harvesting began. After bowhead whale numbers dropped from whaling, commercial whalers shifted their attention to walrus to maintain oil and blubber production and to take ivory (Faye 1982: 241). Walrus populations dropped nearly to the point of extinction by 1950. Modern geographic distributions may be

84

3 The Living Environment

reduced from the pre-Russian period. To date, walrus bones from Aleutian Island archaeological sites are limited to the eastern islands and the Alaska Peninsula. Northern fur seals are another large seal that shifted their range and habits during the Holocene, affecting people who relied on these animals. Fur seal males reach about 272 kg (600 pounds) and females about 45 kg (100 pounds; Wynne 1997: 50). They are usually described as a species that migrates through the Aleutian Islands, but until recently, they were not believed to breed there. The primary modern northern rookeries are on the Commander and Pribilof Islands, and another is near San Francisco (Lloyd et al. 1981: 318; Muto et al. 2017: 27). Between October and December, the adults travel southward with the young seals, and the males stop in the Gulf of Alaska, while the young and females move south to waters offshore of Oregon and California. Some non-breeding animals will haul out on beaches along the way. In the spring, the animals return by May or June to breed at the rookeries (Muto et al. 2017: 27). Murie (1959: 306) reported that seals walk across spits to reach adjacent bays in the False Pass and Morzhovoi Bay area of the western Alaska Peninsula. These treks would make them vulnerable to bears and human hunters. A recently documented rookery on Bogoslof Island was established in 1980 by a male, two females, two pups, and two bachelor male fur seals (Lloyd et al. 1981: 318). Before this, only lone males were observed on the island. By 1988, 400 seals were hauled out on Bogoslof Island, and the population included “80+ pups, 159 adult females, 22 territorial males, and 188 subadult males” (Loughlin and Miller 1989: 369). There were 5096 pups by 1997. The fur seal population is increasing at an average of 59% each year since the initial colonization in 1981, and Bogoslof Island now accommodates 8.5% of the world’s breeding fur sea population (Lee et al. 2018: Table 1, 1532). Murie (1959: 306–307) was told by people at Attu and Bill Dirks at Atka that there were breeding fur seals on Buldir Island. The Buldir Island rookery was also documented by Captain Shoemaker with the Revenue Cutter Service in the early 1900s. Fur seals can establish rookeries that grow to large populations, and they can also abandon them in a short time. These quick shifts could appear in the archaeological record as a short-term increase of fur seal bones within individual strata. There is archaeological evidence that fur seal rookeries were once more widespread than now, and hunters exploited these rookeries along the Northwest Coast into the Aleutian Islands through the Holocene. From archaeological sites in the eastern North Pacific, Etnier (2002) was able to identify nearby rookeries by using bone morphology and determining the age at death of fur seal pup remains. Young animals are not likely to migrate with the adults until they are four to six months old. A small portion of animals taken at Oglodax’ and Chaluka on Umnak Island in the Aleutian Chain were zero to three months old, indicating that while a rookery might not have been in the immediate vicinity, it was still within harvesting distance of the sites (Etnier 2002: 136, 143). Based on remains recovered from the Amaknak Bridge site, there was a fur seal rookery near Unalaska Island during the colder Neoglacial period (Crockford and Frederick 2011: 79). Crockford and Frederick (2011: 79) argue that the more extensive sea ice during the Neoglacial made the Pribilof Islands inaccessible to the seals and forced them south onto the Aleutian

The Nearshore

85

Chain and the mainland coast to breed and give birth. They suggest that the northern fur seal returned to the Pribilof Islands between 2700 and 2500 BP. This would have reduced the numbers of rookeries accessible to the Unangaˆx after the Neoglacial. Fur seal rookeries are often established near or adjacent to sea lion rookeries (Lloyd et al. 1981: 319). Loughlin and Miller (1989: 371) suggest that fur seal rookeries expand at the expense of sea lion rookeries as sea lion populations continue to decrease, particularly since fur seals will aggressively defend their territories. Additional fur seal rookeries during the Neoglacial period may also have affected sea lion rookery distributions and numbers. In contrast to the walrus and the fur seal, Steller sea lions are resident to the Aleutian Islands, establishing rookeries and breeding near where they were born. Sea lions are large pinnipeds, with males averaging 680 kg (1500 pounds) and females 270 kg (600 pounds; Wynne 1997: 48). Veniaminov’s (1984 [1840]: 353–354) admiration for sea lions in particular is apparent: The strongest bear is not at all dangerous to a sea lion. Woe to anyone who dare approach close to a sea lion. The sivuch fears only the killer whale...All the might and sole weapon of sea lions is in their teeth, which are so strong that they can bite through a stone. A large sivuch can pick up and throw his eighty pud [1310 kg or 2889 pounds] comrade very easily. (Veniaminov 1984 [1840]: 353)

Sea lions have received much attention recently because their numbers had declined to a quarter of their 1970s population by 2000 (Muto et al. 2017: 2). More recently, regions east of Samalga Pass started seeing an increase in sea lion numbers while the western island populations continued to decline (Muto et al. 2017: 3). Archaeologists weighed in on discussions focused on determining the source for the population fluctuations in the Aleutian Islands. Zooarchaeological data with ranges of hundreds of years are not refined enough to identify short-term shifts which biologists measure in decades. Archaeological assemblages from eastern island and Alaska Peninsula sites led to speculation that sea lions become more abundant during cooler periods, and their populations decrease during warmer climate intervals (Maschner et al. 2014). The marked fluctuations in modern populations indicate that something other than climate-driven causes are affecting the animals today, and prehistoric shifts may have had a different source. During boat and aerial surveys in 1959 and 1960, Kenyon and Rice (1961) recorded 98 sea lion rookeries and haul-out points in the Aleutian Islands and the islands south of the Alaska Peninsula. The haul-outs with ten individuals to several thousand animals, most accommodating a few hundred sea lions, were on nearly every major island, and many islands had two or more. This would mean that people did not need to travel far from their villages to reach a rookery or haul-out. Sea lions are also nearshore feeders (Sinclair and Zeppelin 2002: 985). The sea lions’ large size, their predictable summer rookery locations, their tendency to cruise along nearshore waters or haul out individually onto intertidal rocks, and their year around residence in the islands would make them attractive to hunters. Sea lion bones are a large component in Unangaˆx archaeological sites, reflecting their important role in subsistence (see Chap. 6).

86

3 The Living Environment

Elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) are members of the family Phocidae, or true seals. Phocids are identified by their skull shape, lack of an external ear, and rear-facing flippers that cannot turn underneath to push themselves forward on land. Instead, seals in this family tend to pull themselves forward with their front limbs. Elephant seals are larger than walrus, with males averaging 1814 kg (4000 pounds), and females about 806 kg (1800 pounds; Wynne 1997: 52). The males have distinctively large noses that earned the species their English name. These seals are rarely spotted in the Aleutian Islands, tending to stay in pelagic waters, although males will forage for food along the southern Alaska Peninsula to the western Aleutian Islands, where they remain for one to three months in the spring and again in the fall until they return through the open ocean to haul-outs between San Francisco and Baja California, Mexico, to breed (Le Boeuf et al. 2000: 358; McGinnis and Schusterman 1981: 333). Most males tracked between 1995 and 1997 traveled to Amukta Pass, but two moved farther west to the Kanaga and Adak Island area, and then between Kiska and Amchitka Islands (Le Boeuf et al. 2000: 359, 366). Females, on the other hand, forage in the open ocean, not near land (Le Boeuf et al. 2000: 361). No elephant seal bones have been identified from archaeological sites in the Aleutian Islands, and hunters probably did not encounter them in the spring and fall when they were in the area. Ice-loving, or pagophilic, seals which have appeared in Aleutian archaeological sites but do not normally appear in Aleutian waters include, the bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus), ribbon seal (Histriophoca fasciata), and ringed seal (Pusa hispida). Diminutive compared to its distant relative the elephant seal, the bearded seal is the largest of these ice-loving seals, with both sexes averaging 227 kg (500 pounds), while ribbon seals average 68 kg (150 pounds), and ringed seals average 54 kg (120 pounds; Wynn 1997: 54, 58, 62). These seals require sea ice to raise their pups (Boveng et al. 2013: 8). Unlike the gregarious fur seals and sea lions, pagophilic seals are mostly solitary except when mothers travel with their pups, and when males and females interact during breeding. This solitary behavior requires different hunting strategies and technologies than those used to hunt the larger walrus, sea lions, and fur seals that haul out on land in herds of hundreds or thousands. Ice seals are not necessarily limited to sea ice in the summer, however. The modern bearded seal range during the summer extends into Bristol Bay along the north shore of the Alaska Peninsula where they have been reported to haul out on land. There, juveniles also appear in nearshore waters and even swim up rivers (Burns 1981a: 153; Muto et al. 2017: 58). In the winter on the sea ice, bearded seals prefer being near shallow water, open leads, polynyas (large ice-free holes in the winter sea ice), and broken ice (Burns 1981a: 153). Ribbon seals stay with the sea ice while breeding in the spring, from March through June, and do not haul out on land (Boveng et al. 2013: 8–9; Burns 1981b: 96). In the summer and early fall, ribbon seals disperse across the Bering Sea, some making their way along the Aleutian Chain and into the pelagic waters of the North Pacific, south of the archipelago (Boveng et al. 2013: 11–12, Fig. 5). An occasional animal can travel well southward, with individual ribbon seals reported in Cook Inlet, Cordova, Yakutat, and even as far as the Strait of Georgia in southern British Columbia, to the outer coast of Washington, and Morro

The Nearshore

87

Bay, California (Boveng et al. 2013: 14; Burns 1981b: 96). Subadult ringed seals are more likely to appear in the southern Bering Sea and Bristol Bay region in January as they follow the sea ice southward while adults tend to stay near breeding territories in the Bering Strait and Chukchi Sea (Crawford et al. 2012: 248). During aerial surveys made in 1976, Braham et al. (1984: 32, 39, 40, Fig. 7 and 9) recorded subadult ringed seals in Bristol Bay in April. If the occasional ice-loving seal is found in prehistoric deposits in the Aleutian Islands, it is not necessarily an indication of a cooler climate. Crockford and Frederick (2007: 702, 2011) recorded bearded, ringed, and small numbers of ribbon seal in the Neoglacial period Amaknak Bridge site (3500– 2500 years ago) assemblages on Amaknak Island, adjacent to Unalaska Island. Likewise, Davis (2001: 74; Crockford and Frederick 2007, 2011) identified ringed seals at Margaret Bay, also on Amaknak Island, slightly earlier (4700–4100 years ago) but still during the early Neoglacial period. These ice-loving species were also identified from sites on the Alaska Peninsula 4500 years ago and between 2000 and 2571 years ago, near the end of the Neoglacial period (Maschner et al. 2014: Table 1). In these cases, there are multiple animals from the sites and a suite of cold-adapted species that support the conclusion that the Neoglacial period between 4700 and 2500 BP was cooler than now, with sea ice extending farther south than experienced in recent memory. Bearded seal bones at Amaknak Bridge included some from newly born pups and juvenile animals that were recently weaned (Crockford and Frederick 2011: 77). Crockford and Frederick (2011: 77) interpreted these data to mean that the animals were taken when the pack ice was near shore in the spring, while the pups were still young (between March and May). The ringed seal pups from the Amaknak Bridge site were primarily three to four months old, with a range of two to six months, or after the pups are weaned following sea ice break-up (Crockford and Frederick 2011: 77; Frost and Lowry 1981: 39). If the birth period was in April, as it is now, these animals were taken between June and October, or during the summer months while the ice was receding, which requires a different hunting strategy than taking animals on the ice from their snow dens. Spotted (Phoca largha) and harbor (Phoca vitulina) seals are closely related resident seals in the Aleutian Islands. They will interbreed and are difficult to separate osteologically, making identification difficult, particularly when trying to analyze bone fragments from archaeological assemblages. They are similarly sized, with spotted seals averaging 95 kg (210 pounds) and harbor seals slightly larger, at 113 kg (250 pounds; Wynne 1997: 56, 60). Harbor seal distribution extends from the west coast of North America along the Aleutian Chain to the Kamchatka Peninsula, while the spotted seal range extends northward to the Chukchi Sea and the Siberian coast and down the Kamchatka Peninsula, then southward along the north Asian coast (Bigg 1981: 6, Fig. 2). Their ranges overlap in the eastern Aleutian Islands (Muto et al. 2017: 52; Wynne 1997: 57, 61), and both species and their hybrids will probably appear in archaeological sites there, while in the central and western islands, the harbor seal is more likely. Harbor seals travel near shore, eating fishes, shellfish, crustaceans, and cephalopods, hauling out on shore or even pursuing migrating fish

88

3 The Living Environment

up rivers. Spotted seals also move along the nearshore in the summer after the ice has melted, eating similar foods (Bigg 1981: 7). Other nearshore sea mammals important to the Unangaˆx were small whales, dolphins, and porpoises. Smaller whales that travel or feed near shore in the Aleutian Islands or the Alaska Peninsula include the beluga whale, Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens), Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), and the harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena). The beluga is nearly twice as large as the others in this group, with males averaging 4 m and female averaging only slightly smaller (Wynne 1997: 26). Dolphins and porpoises are small, toothed whales averaging 2.3–1.5 m long (Wynne 1997: 36–40). Many people think of the beluga whale as a northern species found in the Chukchi Sea, but there are groups living in Cook Inlet and Yakutat Bay in southeast Alaska that are isolated from their Bering Sea relatives. Another small group is in Bristol Bay, at the junction of the upper Alaska Peninsula and the rest of mainland Alaska (Ferguson et al. 2015: 93), their range extending westward to Port Heiden on the north side of the peninsula. Dumond (1995: 58) describes kayakers chasing beluga up the Naknek River into a lagoon where the whales were beached at low tide and killed by the hunters. Belugas from the Chukchi Sea and northern waters move southward in the late fall before the advancing sea ice and winter in the Bering Sea, remaining there until the ice begins receding in the late spring and summer (Leatherwood et al. 1988: 134). Belugas seen in the Aleutian Archipelago would come from these more northern groups. DNA was used to identify fragmented beluga bones from Neoglacial deposits in the Amaknak Bridge site. The range of belugas probably extended farther south into the archipelago during this cold period, particularly if the Bering Sea was blocked by ice and not accessible (Crockford and Frederick 2007). Reported around Amchitka and Kanaga Islands, with greater concentrations in the eastern islands to Port Moller on the north side of the Alaska Peninsula, east to the Kodiak archipelago, and in the Gulf of Alaska year around, Pacific whitesided dolphins travel in large groups and are sometimes joined by Dall’s porpoises (Leatherwood et al. 1988: 169, 171, 201; Waite and Shelden 2018: 81, 85). Occupying the Bering Sea in the summer and year-around in the northern North Pacific, Dall’s porpoise is more common in the Aleutian archipelago (Leatherwood et al. 1988: 203). They tend to feed near the shoreline or in shallow water, and they are particularly numerous near passes (as at Samalga Pass) where their prey is concentrated (Suzuki et al. 2016: 495). Harbor porpoises live year-around along the entire archipelago. Is it a dolphin or a porpoise? When it comes to arguments about the difference between a dolphin and a porpoise, people nearly come to blows. In common language, we use the terms interchangeably even when we know we are making a mistake (present company included). To compound the confusion, there is a tropical fish called a dolphin (Coryphaena hippurus) or mahi-mahi in Hawai‘i (because no visitor to

The Liminal Littoral and Adjacent Shorelines

89

Hawai‘i would ever think of eating something called a dolphin). Some people call this a dolphinfish. Both dolphins and porpoises are in the order Cetacea (whales) and the suborder Odontoceti, which includes all toothed whales, such as the sperm whale, but they are in different families. Dolphins are members of the family Delphinidae (along with killer whales), and porpoises are members of the family Phocoenidae. Based on DNA analysis, these two families separated about 16 million years ago (Chen et al. 2011). There are 36 species of dolphins, but only the Pacific white-sided dolphin is common in Aleutian waters. There are six porpoise species in the world, of which two are in Alaska (the Dall’s porpoise and the harbor porpoise). Dolphins and porpoises have different vocalizations and their appearances also differ. Dolphins have longer noses or beaks and therefore longer mouths than porpoises. Porpoises are more compactly built than dolphins with more triangular dorsal fins compared to the more curved or semi-lunar-shaped dorsal fin of dolphins. Finally, dolphins have cone-shaped teeth (like their relative, the killer whale), and porpoises have flat teeth (Birdsall 2013). The nearshore kelp forest-dominated environment of the North Pacific supports a diverse suite of species, from edible algae to innumerable invertebrates, many kelp associated fishes, and large mammals such as whales, sea lions, and harbor seals, and in the past sea cows. Kelp forests from Japan to California supported similar life forms. If the first people traveling from Beringia into North America moved along this nearshore “kelp highway,” they would have had access to abundant food that could be gathered by family members of any age or skill. Without need to learn to survive in a new environment or develop new technology, they could have hauled their belongings and children in a boat (Erlandson et al. 2007, 2015). This same kelp highway extends into the Aleutian Islands, having supported the Unangaˆx from the first arrivals through today.

The Liminal Littoral and Adjacent Shorelines A rocky coast, even though it is swept by surf, allows life to exist openly through adaptations for clinging to the firm surfaces provided by the rocks and by other structural provisions for dissipating the force of the waves. The visible evidence of living things is everywhere about – a colorful tapestry of seaweeds, barnacles, mussels, and snails covering the rocks – while more delicate forms find refuge in cracks and crevices or by creeping under boulders. Sand, on the other hand, forms a yielding, shifting substratum of unstable nature, its particles incessantly stirred by the waves, so that few living things can establish or hold a place on its surface or even in its upper layers. All have gone below, and in burrows, tubes, and underground chambers the hidden life of the sands is lived (Carson 1998: 12).

90

3 The Living Environment

Twice a day, the land becomes the ocean, and the ocean becomes the land along the edges of every island on the Chain. In some cultures, this shifting land/seascape is a zone owned by nobody and used by everybody. In others, it is a recognized territory, and all of its resources are controlled by the community or by certain families within the community (McCay 2008: 7–8; Rainbird 2007: 22). The littoral or intertidal zone is an ecotone, a place where the sea, land, and sky meet in a region extending from the land’s edge at the highest tide point to the lowest tide mark. McCay (2008) describes it as a liminal area with poorly defined and changing boundaries. The narrow strip from the adjacent land, to the littoral zone, and the nearshore waters, is one of the richest ecotones that fosters a network of interactions among the marine and terrestrial ecosystems that enrich both. It supports approximately 60% of humans and 25% of marine productivity on only 8% of the Earth’s area (Polis and Hurd 1996: 396; Ray and Hayden 1992: 403). Carrying fertilizer from the sea, birds and tides support terrestrial plants. Land animals feast on sea wrack, the masses of seaweed braided amongst carcasses, wood, and other flotsam washed to the high tide line. Sea birds, seals, and sea lions create rookeries on adjacent cliff faces and rocky shores and fishes move up stream to their spawning grounds leaving their sea-fed bodies in rivers in lakes (Polis and Hurd 1996: 397). In turn, the abundant streams wash sediments and nutrients back to the sea, and plants and animals dying on shore supply nearshore plankton, algae, fauna, and detritus-eaters in the sea (Ray and Hayden 1992: 406). It is not surprising that most archaeological sites, including the largest sites and houses in the Aleutian Islands, are concentrated near the coastal edge. The importance of the intertidal zone to humans can be seen in the middens lining the shore. Humans are skilled intertidal gatherers, and their role in the nearshore and intertidal ecosystem needs to be considered. Unangam villages are literally built on the accumulated bones and bodies of the intertidal creatures they collected and consumed. Bands of white, blue, and green shell-filled strata mark deposits of clams, mussels, and urchins interwoven among layers of fish, bird, and sea mammal bones, all sandwiched between dark, rich, organic sediments and orange and red volcanic ash. The sites are topped by lush, dark green grasses, flowering purple lupines, small orchids, and yellow buttercups thriving on nutrients brought from the sea. The intertidal zone is one of the harsher environments for plants and animals. Cool, nutrient rich waters inundate the zone. Then as the waters pull back, the flora and fauna in on the intertidal beaches become dehydrated; depending on the season, they may also be exposed to either freezing or near tropical air temperatures. Yet the biomass (the amount of living plants and animals) available from the shoreline can be greater than that of terrestrial environments. Biomass in all beach types is supported by rich offshore plankton blooms, augmented by detritus produced from kelp forests in the fall when plankton are not so plentiful (Ricciardi and Bourget 1999: 28). Both conditions are met in the Aleutian Islands, providing the Unangaˆx with abundant intertidal resources. Rocky intertidal zones have fourteen times more biomass than sedimentary (sand or mud) shores (Ricciardi and Bourget 1999: 25). Rocky beaches are also easier to forage for gastropods, urchins, small fishes, and seaweeds because these creatures are either perched on top of bedrock or just under the beach cobbles, making beach food

The Liminal Littoral and Adjacent Shorelines

91

accessible to people of most ages and abilities (Fa 2008: 2202). Sandy shores with the greatest biomass are low-sloping, compact sand or mud beaches where waves can deposit plankton and detritus that feed awaiting clams and other burrowing invertebrates without eroding sediments from seaweed holdfasts and sea grass roots (Ricciardi and Bourget 1999: 29). Beaches with the least intertidal biomass are those with an unstable substrate, whether gravel or sand (Ricciardi and Bouret 1999: 29). During the Neoglacial, when shorefast ice is assumed to have reached to Unalaska Island, winter ice scouring the shoreline might have affected intertidal biodiversity, but intertidal organisms would repopulate beaches quickly in the summer after the ice retreated (Ricciardi and Bourget 1999: 28). Rocky Beach Intertidal Zones Plants and animals are not uniformly distributed on the coast. On rocky beaches within the intertidal zone there are general patterns of animal and algae distribution. In the 1940s, ecologists established a nomenclature to describe these internal zones, and it has since been used with relatively little modification (Stephenson and Stephenson 1949). The intertidal or littoral zone was divided into three zones, each identified by the fauna and algae growing within and not by the water levels at high or low tide. These zones are affected by slope angle, the intensity of wave-action, and sunlight (Stephenson and Stephenson 1949: 293). Aleutian rocky beaches display the same intertidal zones as other beaches around the world. The supralittoral zone is above the high tide level; on bedrock shores it is called the splash zone. This zone is subject to storm surges during high water, and it is affected by spray from waves and receives the beach cast from debris washed to shore. The supralittoral fringe is the intermediate area, from high tides into the splash zone. This zone marks the limit of intertidal fauna such as barnacles (Superorder Thoracica), blue mussels (Mytilus trossulus), and small snails (Littorina spp.). The midlittoral zone is the most accessible portion of the beach for people gathering food at low tide. It is marked at the upper limit by barnacles, gastropods, blue mussels, and rockweed, and at the lower end by brown sea weed. Kelp extend into the infralittoral fringe, which is only exposed at the very lowest spring tides. Below this is the portion of the infralittoral zone that is never exposed to air but is still accessible to people wading into shallow water at low tide (Stephenson and Stephenson 1949: Fig. 3, 304). Tidal amplitude, or the range between high and low tide, also affects biodiversity. The greater the amplitude, the more area is available to intertidal animals and seaweed, and the greater the amount of time these resources are accessible to terrestrial predators that include bears, foxes, and wolves, on the peninsula and eastern islands, and birds and humans coast-wide (Fa 2008: 2197). As mentioned in Chap. 2,

92

3 The Living Environment

tidal amplitude is greater in the eastern islands than in the central and westward islands. Amplitude is also affected by beach slope; for instance, a vertical cliff will have less area exposed (and be less accessible) than a beach with a gentle slope (Fa 2008: 2197; Stephenson and Stephenson 1949: 302). In the Aleutian Islands, the long exposure also reduces biomass in the winter as algae die with the colder temperatures, but this die-off also provides more detritus for intertidal filter feeders in the winter when there are no plankton blooms (ADFG 2006: 697; Duggins et al. 1989). In addition to the barnacles and mussels near the high tide mark, common animals in the intertidal zone are chitons, particularly one called a bidarki (boat) or the Black Katy chiton (Katharina tunicata); also mossy chitons (Mopalia spp.) and the large gumboot chiton (Cryptochiton stelleri); and several species of limpets (Acmaeidae), snails (Fusitriton spp., Nucella spp., Buccinum spp., Neptunea spp.), sea urchins, small crabs, worms, sea cucumbers, sea stars (Asteroidea), and octopuses (Octopus spp.); and clams that live in mixed cobble/sand substrates such as little neck clams. Rocky shore intertidal vertebrate feeders include sea ducks, oyster catchers (Haematopus bachmani), sandpipers (Scolopacidae), and gulls; sea otters; and small fishes including small sculpins, pricklebacks (Stichaeidae), and gunnels (Pholidae) that live in tide pools, under rocks, or in seaweeds. (ADFG 2006: 697–698; Gibson and Byrd 2007: 234, Table 10). Algae or seaweeds such as brown kelp, sea cabbage (Hedophyllum sessile), rockweed, and sea sac (Halosaccion glandiforme) communities cover the rocks and cobbles, making for treacherous walking (O’Clair 1977: 405). Anybody trying to make their way up a slippery rock or cobble beach at low tide can testify to the dominance of brown kelps and rockweed in the intertidal zone. Kelp in nearshore and intertidal zones are an important characteristic of the rocky shore environment. Sea Urchins Urchins are related to sea stars and sea cucumbers but have needle-like spines sticking out from a hard, round shell. They move across rocks in the intertidal and subtidal zone on top of spines that terminate in “tube feet,” eating algae and detritus. Their mouths consist of five sharp, intersecting shells shaped like scissor-blades that open and close as they cut their food and draw it in. These jaws are part of a larger structure called Aristotle’s lantern. The species of urchin can be identified by these specialized structures and other characteristics of the housing surrounding the animal (Campbell 2008). Urchins are served in grocery stores and sushi restaurants as uni, but evidence of their desirability and importance to the Unangaˆx is demonstrated by entire strata of urchin shells and spines in Aleutian middens, with few other shells mixed in. The edible parts are five gonads which line the inside of the shell and store fat and protein. The gonads taste best and have the best texture two or three months before the urchins spawn. A quick search of the internet reveals many sites touting the health benefits of uni, with 100 g providing

The Liminal Littoral and Adjacent Shorelines

93

120 cal of lipids (4.8 g) and carbohydrates (3.3 g). They are also high in potassium (340 mg), B Vitamins, Vitamin E (3.6 mg), and folic acid (360 mcg), among other nutrients (Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan 2015). In Kachemak Bay of southcentral Alaska, the ideal period for harvesting during warm sea surface temperatures in 1983 was between September and November (Paul and Paul 1984: 2). Although gonad weight continued to increase until March, the gonads were no longer firm. Based on studies between 1986 and 1988, Munk (1992: 253) recommended the best time to harvest urchin gonads in northeastern Kodiak Island waters was October through December. Spawning was between March and April in Kachemak Bay and Kodiak Island (Himmelman 1978: 1829; Munk 1992: 247; Paul and Paul 1984: 2). Harvest times may have been similar in the Aleutian Islands, but the Unangaˆx ate the animals in the shell and did not require that the gonads be firm as do uni gourmands today. This extends the harvesting season into spawning periods, providing the more mature and more nutritious gonads. Jochelson (1975: 106) observed during 1909–1910, collection seasons varied between Umnak and Attu Islands. On Attu Island, some urchins still had eggs in June; meanwhile, on Umnak Island, eggs were available in April and May, and again in September and October, but not during February and March. As modern conditions are not the same as those before European contact, harvesting likely occurred in the fall and winter in the Aleutian Islands, with local variation based on water temperature, latitude, and local phytoplankton blooms (Walker et al. 2013: 37). After spawning, green sea urchin body weight decreases by 20–35% until they begin storing sperm and eggs again (Paul and Paul 1984: 5, Table 2; Scheibling and Hatcher 2013: 393). Sand and mud beaches also have biological zones, but they are not as marked as rocky intertidal shoreline environments. Mud and sand beaches also have a vertical zone in which burrowing animals create cavities and other organisms tunnel in the sand to hide from predators (Peterson 1991). Other advantages of burrowing into the sand and mud is that the sediments prevent the animals from drying out at low tide, protect them from exposure to sunlight, and provide insulation from surface temperature fluctuations at low tide (Peterson 1991: 239). Subsurface fauna are also not so exposed to terrestrial predators at low tide as rocky beach invertebrates are (Peterson 1991: 244–245). However, the long bills of yellowlegs (Tringa melanoleuca), curlews (Numenius spp.), and sandpipers are ideal for harvesting buried invertebrates in Aleutian sand and mud beaches. Grain-size sorting by waves can create different beach types, with larger grains toward the high tide line, and finer grains in hollows and nearer low tide. Animals that eat foods deposited on the substrate will be found at lower tides, while filter feeders that sweep food particles from the water live where there is more wave activity and at higher tide levels (Peterson 1991: 243).

94

3 The Living Environment

Among the animals gathered on sand or mud beaches are cockles, which can be collected with a quick scoop of the hand. Cockles push a cap of sand above the surrounding beach level, an immediately recognizable sign on an otherwise smooth beach. Soft-shelled clams burrow into the sand, revealing only a small hole where their siphon protrudes to inhale food from the water. Pools in the beach shelter crabs and fishes such as sculpins, pricklebacks, and flatfishes. Sand lances burrow in the sand while breeding and can be harvested simply by plucking them out the sand or gathering them where they wash up. Birds that seek food in sand and gravel shores are sandpipers, gulls, passerines (song birds), geese, ducks, cranes (Gruidae), plovers (Charadriidae), terns, and ravens (Corvus corax; Gibson and Byrd 2007: 234, Table 10). Vermeij et al. (1990: 351, Fig. 2) determined that the number of North American gastropod species decreases the farther the islands are from the Alaska mainland. There is a drop in the number of American species at Samalga Pass, another decrease at Amchitka Pass, then another at the Near Islands. Meanwhile, Asian gastropod species counts decrease the farther the islands are from the Asian coastline. Asian species numbers are highest in the Near Islands, with species numbers dropping at Amchitka Pass and at Umnak Pass. The diversity is not less in the west or the east, since the numbers of American species are replaced by Asian species in the west and Asian species are replaced by American species in the east. The number of bivalve species does not change much across the archipelago, with a small decrease in the western Rat Islands and the Near Islands (Vermeij et al. 1990: 351). The number of intertidal species available and the environments are similar archipelago-wide, and the Unangaˆx would have been familiar with the intertidal foods available from one end of the Chain to the other. While intertidal invertebrates, whether clams and cockles in mud and sand beaches, or snails, chitons, urchins, and sea cucumbers on rock beaches, are relatively small, they are abundant and their locations are predictable. To humans gathering food, they present the same advantages as plants. Harvesting beach foods was less like hunting and more like gathering nuts, roots, or greens in a terrestrial environment. In addition to being found in the same places year after year, intertidal invertebrates repopulate rapidly and they are highly nutritious. Also, gathering beach foods requires no special tools or skills, so small children and the elderly can contribute to their personal nutritional needs and to their family’s food supply. Seaweeds, particularly brown algae, provide fiber, carbohydrates, minerals, fatty acids, and vitamins B, C, and E. Combined with shellfishes, these plants provide a nutritious intertidal meal that supplies most dietary requirements in the short term (Burtin 2003). In most north coastal cultures, shellfish is a staple food essential to maintaining the population, although it is normally supplemented with oil or fat. Its importance is apparent in the shell-laden strata of North Pacific coastal sites from Japan to California.

Islands of Lakes

95

Islands of Lakes Polis and Hurd (1996: 409–411) argue that when nearshore biomass is high, organics from marine sources supply more nutrients on islands in temperate and subarctic environments than do terrestrial sources. This is particularly true if there are abundant nearshore sea weeds such as kelp forests or eelgrass beds, or when the substrate or sediment cover on land is poor. Poor terrestrial substrates occur on islands with exposed bedrock and little vegetation, and on islands that are volcanically formed (Polis and Hurd 1996: 411). One or all of these conditions is present on each of the Aleutian Islands, underscoring the importance of marine sources of nutrients to the terrestrial ecosystem. The size of the island also influences the relative contribution of marine sources of nutrients. Small islands have less area relative to the margin or shoreline than do large islands; therefore, they are affected more by the introduction of marine organics. The inland portion of small islands is also closer to the edges than the inland portion of large islands. Convoluted or irregular shorelines provide more coastline than does a smooth perimeter. A long, narrow island like Amchitka Island will have more accessible coastline than a round, “thick” island with the same surface area (Polis and Hurd 1996: 412–413). Given the rocky intertidal environment and the small, highly crenulated shorelines, marine nutritional sources are important for terrestrial life in the Aleutian Islands, particularly in the smaller central and western islands, and less so in the large eastern islands and the Alaska Peninsula. Sources for this marine abundance are birds and detritus that wash onto the beach in the supralittoral zone. Birds provide an intersection between the sea and the land. Around their nesting sites, millions of sea birds deposit guano, regurgitated food, dead chicks, and unhatched eggs. They also drop fishes and items brought from the beach. This is in addition to their carcasses and the parasites on their bodies. When the source of this marine nutrition is blocked, as occurred when sea bird colonies were diminished after foxes and rats were introduced to the islands, the vegetation cover changes. Savinetsky et al. (2014) used the nitrogen content in peat to identify the arrival of the first people in the western Aleutian Islands. The stable nitrogen isotope 15 N has high values in seabird guano. The researchers interpreted a precipitous drop of 15 N in ancient peat deposits as a reflection of a reduction in the sea bird population on Shemya Island. In peat samples, 15 N values dropped between 3400 and 2500 BP. Interestingly, the earliest archaeological site identified so far on Shemya is also from about 2800 years ago. The 15 N drop is not associated with a climate shift, and the correlation between hypothesized sea bird population reduction and human arrival to the island led the authors to conclude that the nutritional drop and human arrival are related (Savinetsky et al. 2014: 84). Humans are presumed to have been the source for the drop in sea bird populations. Sea birds nest in cliffs at an island’s edge and in long grasses, hiding their young from ravens, falcons, hawks, and eagles scanning the island for prey. Birds nesting

96

3 The Living Environment

along the cliffs are a mix of sea birds using coastal resources and passerines living on terrestrial plants: Species such as Whiskered Auklet, Horned Puffin, Winter Wren, and Gray-crowned RosyFinch used crevices in cliffs for nesting. Northern Fulmar nested on cliffs and on steep vegetated slopes. Raptors such as Bald Eagle, Peregrine Falcon, and Rough-legged Hawk, and Common Raven, nested on broad ledges, cliff tops, and sea stacks. (Gibson and Byrd 2007: 234)

Birds are not the only coastal animals introducing marine nutrients. Sea lions, seals, and sea otters also come to shore and likewise deposit feces, birth their young, die, and add to the nearshore nutrients above the intertidal zone. Storms cast seaweed, animal carcasses, dead trees, and other debris ashore. The beach cast supports insects such as flies, sand fleas, small crustaceans, and snails that are in turn eaten by shorebirds and small passerines. This portion of the beach attracts avian scavengers such as eagles, gulls, and ravens that feed on washed-up carcasses (Gibson and Byrd 2007: 234). Whales that wash onshore support intertidal fauna for years from the oil and proteins imbedded in the sediments (Smith 2006: 294). When the carcass is fresh, it can provide meat and oil for human consumption, and later, the bones provide construction material for houses, tools, and other items. During their study in May/ June 2003 through 2006, Barrett-Lenard et al. (2011: 234) recorded 12 whale carcasses in the eastern islands, most of which were scavenged by bears (Ursus arctos) and red fox (Vulpes vulpes). They noted that bears may be attracted to the shoreline in the spring because there is little else to eat (Barrett-Lennard et al. 2011: 237). The same can be said of people: the spoils from a killer whale hunt may have saved many Unangaˆx families from a hard spring. Sea wrack is formed of seaweed and sea grasses that die and are washed up to the high tide line, sometimes in large rolls twisted by waves. With each high tide, the waves add a new supply. The wrack line can accumulate a thick layer of dead seaweed. On the West Coast, kelp-dominated sea wrack tends to accumulate most where there are rocky nearshores and upwelling; it is most abundant in the fall as storms move through (Reimer 2014: 20). This pattern is expected to be similar in the Aleutian Islands. As the seaweed dries out and breaks off in the wind, the fragments scatter on shore, creating a fertile organic mulch mixed with sand and volcanic sediments. While Sardinia, Italy, is not an Aleutian Island, Del Vecchio et al. (2017: 33) found that where sea wrack was left along the beach, there were more plant species and greater vegetation cover on adjacent sand dunes. The effect was less as one moved inland, where terrestrial sources of nutrition dominated. There were generally more species close to the shoreline in all locations than there were upland (Del Vecchio et al. 2017: 35). In an environment like the Aleutian Islands, with predominantly volcanic ash or bedrock substrates, the organic contribution could be particularly important for plant nutrition. As sea wrack rolls into large mounds of entwined algae mixed with beach-cast logs, wood, and carcasses, it may be covered by wind-blown sediments on sand beaches, creating hummocks. These new hummocks in turn create sheltered areas that protect new plant growth while the buried seaweed provides nutrition (Del Vecchio et al. 2017: 35).

Islands of Lakes

97

Terrestrial plants have zones similar to intertidal zones, but these terrestrial zones are much broader and related to elevation, soil type, and available moisture. More specific patches described by Talbot et al. (2010) are distinguished by a combination of ground moisture and plant types that are found throughout the archipelago. The differences may be particular species that appear in the plant community, but the overall patterns hold. At the most general level, these patches were dry coastal meadows, wet tall meadows, meadows and fellfields (sparsely vegetated high elevations), and mire (bog or marshy) types. The dry coastal meadows were divided into dune and beach types. The beach meadow begins on sandy beaches at the supralittoral zone and is dominated by mats of thick-leaved flowering plants called seabeach sandwort or sea chickweed (Honckenya peploides). This plant does well in the surf zone because the roots are strong enough to withstand salt splash from waves and high tides. Another surf zone plant is the sea beach senecio (Senecio pseudoarnica), also called a seashore sunflower because of its yellow, daisy-like flower. It has large, serrated, dark green leaves that can also withstand salt water waves (Golodoff 2013a, b: 198). Sand dunes had more grasses (Leymus mollis) mixed with senecio flowers and purple flowering vetches (Lathyrus spp.). Meadows on steep and moderate slopes at the base of mountains tend to be wet. Their vegetation includes ferns (Polypodiopsida), mosses (Bryophyta), monkshood (Aconitum delphinifolium), grasses (Gramineae), and a mix of flowers, putchki, and fireweed (Chamerion angustifolium). Moderate slopes have more grasses than do steep slopes, and they include geraniums (Geranium erianthum). Above these slopes are meadows with shorter grasses, geraniums, flea bane (a light purple daisy; Erigeron peregrinus), grasses and reeds, blueberry bushes (Vaccinium ovalifolium), and mosses. Wet snow bed meadows are at high elevations near the base of steep slopes, where water pools or snow cover extend into the early summer. These are covered by numerous flowering plants, some grasses and sedges (Cyperaceae), mosses, and a species of dwarf willow (Salix arctica) that hugs the ground (Talbot et al. 2010: 372). While the species do not differ markedly among meadows, the grass and sedge contribution varies, as does the grass height. Moss and fern abundance varies with the amount of water available in the local environment. In contrast to meadows, heaths have mostly low brush or shrubs, particularly crowberry (Empetrum nigrum) at lower elevations, while Aleutian mountain heather (Phyllodoce aleutica) with their small, white, lantern-shaped flowers and evergreen needle-shaped stems dominate at upper elevations, particularly on steep slopes. Upper elevations also have lichens. Heaths have some mosses and grasses mixed with dwarf shrub species. There is little plant cover in fellfields, where the ground is exposed to high winds at high elevations. Plants that are hardy enough to withstand the wind and cling to thin soils usually include blue-berries, crow-berries, and lichens. Some dwarf willows and a smattering of alpine flowers can also be found in the fellfield environment at high elevations (Talbot et al. 2010: 373). Terrarium-like environments develop within stream-eroded bowls, caves, and overhangs. It is dangerous to walk on ground undercut by the streams because the concealed tunnels can collapse under a person’s weight, dropping one several feet

98

3 The Living Environment

into a newly formed earthen crevasse. Sheltered from the wind, the wet environment attracts a multitude of ferns, flowers of every color, and broad-leafed plants. Along stream beds, open ponds, bogs, and lakes, and also in valleys, grasses and sedges might dominate, mixed with fireweed, cotton grass (Eriophorum angustifolium), various mosses, and dwarf shrubs. The ground tends to be flat or slope only slightly in these environments (Talbot et al. 2010: 373). The final group of plants is the deciduous shrub thicket, dominated by willow shrubs. These thickets are usually in places that are protected from the wind, such as mountain valleys and gentle slopes at the base of mountains at moderate elevations. Shrubs are more common than grasses and sedges, and there are also ferns, some mosses, and the usual scatter of brightly colored flowers (Talbot et al. 2010: 373, 381). These shrub thickets are on Unalaska and Unimak Islands and the Alaska Peninsula, but they are not characteristic of the central and western islands. Alder (Alnus viridis) thickets are present on the Alaska Peninsula and from the Alaska mainland eastward (Talbot et al. 2010: 385). Garroutte et al. (2018) assembled data from vegetation studies along the Aleutian Chain to determine if there were patterns of plant distribution affected by proximity to the mainland or by isolation. As expected, larger islands had more species than smaller islands, and since the larger islands are in the east and adjacent to the mainland, they also had more plant species than did the western islands and the isolated islands (Garroutte et al. 2018: 487). Talbot et al. (2010: 367) reported that 70% of the species in the Aleutian Islands are also found in Alaska and Kamchatka. Endemic or spatially restricted species tend to be limited to the central and western islands (Garroutte et al. 2018: 491). The first archaeologists noticed a difference in vegetation cover on archaeological sites (Dall 1970: 45; Jochelson (1975: 21). Dall (1970: 43) said sites could be identified “by their brilliant green covering of herbage, which is only dimmed when covered by snow.” These archaeologists attributed the phenomenon to soils richly fertilized by the animal bones and shells. Jochelson (1975: 21) likewise described the characteristic vegetation of coastal sites: In and about these the decay of the accumulated organic refuse of centuries has in the past and will in the future so fertilize the soil as to foster a luxuriant growth of native grasses, which in their turn add to the filing of the [house] pits. Very often long-stemmed wild barley (Elymus), wild pea (Lathyrus maritimus), lupines, some grasses as tall as a man, and flowerlike anemones, orchids, marguerites, and other flowers completely concealed the pits where the old dwellings once stood. Depressions concealed by these luxuriant growths were very often not discovered until we tumbled into them when walking.

Bank (1953: 253) noted that the plants that normally occurred together in what he called an “association-aggregate” were putchki, angelica (Angelica lucida), petruski (Ligusticum scoticum hultenii), monkshood, yarrow (Achillaea borealis), purslane (Claytonia sibirica), ferns, grasses, and sedges. Bank (1953: 259) suggested that well-vegetated plant cover was owing to abundant calcium, phosphorus, and nitrate in the sites, deposited by decaying organic material and bone and shell minerals. Bank (1953: 262), McCartney (1972: 6, 8), Frohlich and Kopjanski (1975: 5), among many other archaeologists, used the thick grass to identify sites remotely by air or

Islands of Lakes

99

boat when they were unable to walk to a site. The dark green vegetation can be misleading, however, since other variables can create lush growth, such as a spring or water seep (or even a dead cow), so site presence needs to be confirmed by visiting the location. At the same time, upland sites do not tend to have this characteristic vegetation change, and so they can be missed, although grass cover appears taller than the vegetation off-site. Ancient plant cover is difficult to determine because the microscopic remains are often not recovered, but charcoal, seeds, phytoliths (the silica mold of grass cells), and pollens can preserve in acidic soils common to the Aleutian Islands. Much of the information about climate change described in Chap. 2 is from pollen analyses. The assumption is that physical conditions required for modern species was the same in the past, so when crowberry became increasingly abundant, for example, climates were presumably drier, and when ferns were more common, the climate was wetter. Between ten and 25 million-year-old, petrified Sequoias or conifer tree logs and stumps are found on the northwest side of Unga Island in the Shumigan Islands near the Alaska Peninsula and the mainland. These trees probably grew in a low moist area, and as the climate cooled, the northern limits of their range pushed southward to Oregon (Eakins 1970). During the time humans have occupied the islands, Aleutian trees have been dwarf versions of willows, alders, ash, and the shrublike crowberries. Early Russian arrivals were probably more interested in exploiting the existing resources of Alaska that included sea otters and fur seals, but when they began to settle and establish communities, they became concerned about establishing tree groves and farm-lands (Bruce 1993: 396). The early explorers and settlers from forested parts of Europe and North America seemed befuddled by the absence of trees compared to southcentral or southeast Alaska. Veniaminov (1984 [1840]: 31), like many who followed him, seemed to feel it was more a lack of opportunity than an unfavorable environment: It is worth inquiry by scholars as to why, in this latitude and on such apparently excellent soil, there are not forests? Some think that this is because of the strong and incessant winds, which do not permit trees to grow and cite as evidence the habits of growth of the willow, which in other places similar to this spreads so easily and grows wide and tall, while here it is scarcely visible above the ground. It would appear, however, that it is not because of the winds that there are not trees, but that because of lack of forest the winds are so strong. That the winds cannot be the obstructing cause for the absence of woods here is demonstrated by several spruce trees transplanted here from Sitkha (and which being coniferous, stand transplantation only with great difficulty). These now grow here in spite of the winds are of considerable height and thickness, and even have borne fruit from which new trees will probably grow in the future.

Spruce seedlings from Sitka were planted on Amaknak Island between 1807 and 1813 (Bruce 1993: 397). Three trees from these early attempts survived at least 100 years, but most died from fire or harsh weather, while others were killed by imported cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats (Bruce 1993: 395). Cedar seeds were sent to Atka in 1838, and trees were planted in about 1843 on Hog Island, a small island near Unalaska Island (Bruce 1993: 400, 401). After Alaska was purchased by the USA, a similar obsession to plant trees took hold of the Americans. Based on annuli counts

100

3 The Living Environment

from tree cores, the trees on Expedition Island, now part of Amaknak Island, were planted between 1867 and 1877 (Bruce 1993: 403). More trees were planted by the Coast Guard in 1934 and 1935 on Expedition Island and Unalaska Island. Seedlings were sent to Akutan and Kashega in 1932 and to Unalaska, Dutch Harbor, Umnak, Atka, and Attu in 1936. Other places that received tree seedlings were Unga, False Pass, Sanak, and Sand Point (Bruce 1993). Over the years, the trees planted during the nineteenth century on Amaknak Island and Hog Island were burned or cut down for firewood immediately before and during World War II. The next major effort to establish trees in the Aleutian Islands was by the US military during World War II and the Cold War on bases at Cold Bay on the Alaska Peninsula, Amaknak Island, on Fort Glenn on Umnak Island, Atka, Adak, Amchitka, and Attu Islands. The delivery of seedlings and their planting was sporadic and unreliable. Bruce (1993: 415) was confident that the only trees left from the program are on Shemya and Adak Islands. The remains of that effort include the “Adak National Forest”, a small grove of evergreens on the former Adak Naval Air Station. Promoted as the smallest national forest in the country, it is not technically a forest in any sense. Trees never did cover the islands as the Russians and American military had once imagined. Indigenous large mammals are as scarce as indigenous trees in the Aleutian Archipelago, and like the trees, the large mammals in the islands today were introduced from the mainland or elsewhere. The Alaska Peninsula and adjacent Unimak Island have the same mammals as southern mainland Alaska: brown bear, caribou (Rangifer tarandus), wolves (Canis lupus), red foxes, river otters (Lontra canadensis), wolverines (Gulo gulo), ground squirrels (Citellus parryii), and voles (Microtus spp.; Murie 1959). Until Europeans accidentally introduced rats from visiting ships or began importing domestic animals, there were no indigenous large mammals west of Umnak Island. Fox (and canids generally), caribou, and rodents appear in archaeological contexts on Unalaska, Akun, and Unimak Islands, and in sites on the Alaska Peninsula, but the only sites in which these animals have been recovered in appreciable numbers are on the Alaska Peninsula. Red foxes reached as far west as Umnak Island. Beyond this point, there were no indigenous land mammals. Neoglacial sites on Amaknak Island are unusual because they have polar bear (Ursus maritimus), caribou, Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus), and the Unalaska collared lemming (Dicrostonyx unalascensis; Crockford and Frederick 2007: 702). The most common birds occupying meadows and heath areas are Lapland longspurs (Calcarius lapponicus) in the summer. When they migrate south, the number of tundra birds drops dramatically on Amchitka Island (White et al. 1977: 297–238). Other common small birds in the Aleutian meadowlands and heath are small passerines, including sparrows, swallows, wrens, and thrushes. Bank swallows (Riparia riparia) build their burrows into hillsides along creeks, and murrelets, puffins, auklets (Alcidae), and storm-petrels (Hydrobatidae) dig into hillsides in meadow areas. Gulls, passerines, owls (Strigiformes), ducks, and ptarmigan (Lagopus sp.) nest in grasses and shrubs on the ground surface (Gibson and Byrd 2007: 238). Rock ptarmigans (Lagopus muta), parasitic jaegers (Stercorarius parasiticus), snowy owls (Bubo scandiacus), murrelets, and small passerines will nest in

Islands of Lakes

101

unvegetated areas on mountains and high elevations with loose rocks (Gibson and Byrd 2007: 239). Raptors can also be found on unvegetated mountain peaks. Freshwater fish are not well studied in the Aleutian Islands. This may be because they have little modern commercial value compared to marine resources and the few species compared to the diverse fishes of the coast. Biologists who try to reach inland lakes and streams also face logistical difficulties. Kenney and von Hipple (2017) sampled lakes from Attu Island to the smaller islands of the eastern Aleutian Chain and south of the Alaska Peninsula. Only six species were recorded, one of which was the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) introduced near the military base on Adak Island, and documented there in only one stream. Indigenous species include the threespine (Gasterosteus aculeatus) and the ninespine stickleback (Pungitius pungitius), Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma), coho (silver salmon), and the small freshwater coast-range sculpin (Cottus aleuticus). Threespine stickleback and Dolly Varden were the most common fishes, occurring on nearly every island sampled but not in all streams. Interestingly, the islands with the most species were Attu and Alaid Islands, two of the Near Islands, and Adak Island in the central Aleutian Islands, but not the eastern islands (Kenney and von Hipple 2017: 47). The low diversity overall might have been a factor affecting this pattern. On Amchitka Island, Valdez et al. (1977: 294) reported pink and sockeye salmon. Salmon eggs and salmon fry live in freshwater until they move to sea. They return to spawn as adults in the summer and fall. Aleutian Island creeks host sockeye, coho, pink, and chum salmon, but no Chinook (king) salmon (Tschersich 2007: 3). The 1970s description of lake ecology on Amchitka Island by Valdez et al. (1977) is probably typical of the other islands. Along streams and lake edges, the thick vegetation provides protective cover for small fishes and for the invertebrates they eat. Fish prey include small isopods, mysid shrimps, and a number of insects that live in freshwater, including larval forms of mayflies, “Trichoptera (caddis flies), Diptera (blackflies and midges), Hemiptera (water boatmen), and Coleoptera (diving beetles)” many of which provide food for freshwater fishes (Valdez et al. 1977: 293). There were no mosquito larvae (Culicidae), which supports observations that mosquitoes are absent from the islands. Algae growing in ponds and detritus in lake bottoms are also food for fish and invertebrates (Valdez et al. 1977: 293). Lake bottoms support small invertebrates and clams. Kenney and Von Hipple (2017: 48) observed that on Aleutian lakes, the most common fish-eating birds were glaucous-winged gulls and common loons (Gavia immer). On Amchitka, the red-throated loon (Gavia stellata), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), pintail (Anas acuta), green-winged teal (Anas carolinensis), greater scaup (Aythya marila), red-breasted merganser (Mergus serrator), and Northern phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus) nest around lakes (White et al. 1977: 248). Gulls will also nest beside small lakes and will rest there (Gibson and Byrd 2007: 229). Other birds associated with Aleutian wetlands, lakes, and streams include a variety of sandpipers, gulls, kittiwakes, terns, belted kingfishers (Megaceryle alcyon), and small passerines (Gibson and Byrd 2007: 8). The most abundant birds on Amchitka are ducks, particularly the green-winged teal. During the bird censuses, taken between 1967 and 1969, also on Amchitka, geese were not particularly numerous. White et al.

102

3 The Living Environment

(1977: 249) noted that while there was a spring migration of ducks, the numbers were greatest in the fall. The few geese reported on Amchitka Island during the survey in the 1960s are not typical of most islands. Bill Dirks, of Atka, stated that geese nested at Tanadak, Unak, and Tanaklak (all near Great Sitkin), as well as Amchitka, Ulak, Tanadak (the one near Kavalga), and Kiska. He also stated that at one time there had been a native village on Buldir and that the villagers used to pinion young geese to prevent them from migrating in the fall so that they would be available later in the winter. (Murie 1959: 63)

Most geese on the islands nest in low marshy areas and lakes. Geese and ducks are particularly vulnerable after they have established nests in June and July. Not only can eggs and young birds be taken at this time, but the adults molt and are unable to fly. Geese are fattest in the fall before they begin to migrate southward. Turner (2008: 123) reported that in the fall, people camped overnight in small camps or cabins near lakes to which geese returned in the evening after feeding in meadows during the day.

Modern Environmental Changes and the Loss of an Analogue The Aleutian Island environment now is not the environment of the people living there before Russian arrival. Archaeologists today may be limited to using the modern environment as an analogue for the ancient world, but it is a warped and pale image. Climate change and its effects on plants and animals is an obvious source for many of the differences, but the human depopulation of the islands also removed an important member from the ecosystem. Human populations today are nowhere near the estimated 40,000 people that once lived along the archipelago, exploiting each bay and shoreline. Modern industrial fishing by trawlers, commercial crab fishing, historic whaling, and sea otter hunting to meet the needs or desires of populations far from the Aleutian Islands have decimated sea life and affected all the other relationships in the food chain. Even hunting and coastal development in Asia, South America, and throughout North America affects migratory bird and marine mammal populations in the islands. The modern environment might be recognizable to past people, but it would be a marred, faded image, with fewer animals and a depauperate vegetation cover, compared with the world they knew. The current environment could probably no longer support large populations of Unangaˆx people who once contributed to that living environment. The living world of the Aleutian Islands today is diminished by industrial harvesting of fish, seals, and whales, and through the introduction of invasive species. There have been attempts to estimate populations of large animals either before Russian arrival or before commercial exploitation. Pfister and DeMaster (2006: 120) estimated that marine mammal biomass has dropped by about 80% in the summer and 63% in the winter between the early 1880s and today. When sperm whales were

Modern Environmental Changes and the Loss of an Analogue

103

removed from the equation, the drop was closer to 50–40%. In the Aleutian and Bering Sea area, seal and sea lion populations are 49% lower than precommercial summer populations, and winter populations are 18% lower than in the early 1880s. But the effect is not all subtractive. New plants and animals were brought from elsewhere and have thrived. Some were introduced from shipwrecks early in the historic period, and others are more recent intentional transplants by Russians and Americans who tried to modify the environment or the economy to make it more familiar, bringing food plants, flowers, trees, cats, dogs, cattle, sheep, horses, fox, caribou, and bison to the islands. The decisions to bring these species to the Aleutian Islands led to unanticipated effects that may be irreversible. Rats and foxes on the islands receive the most attention, in part because of their effect on bird populations. It was not until European arrival that rats, coming with the first ships, became a factor in Unangaˆx life. The village of Atka on Atka Island, moved their gardens to neighboring Amlia Island because rats were destroying their crops (Murie 1959: 325). Rat Island was populated by rats that escaped a shipwrecked Japanese fishing boat in 1778 (Brechbill 1977: 261). It was probably not long before the rats had spread to adjacent islands in the island group. Vasil’ev (in Black 1984: 159) visited the islands in 1811 and 1812, noting that because of the infestation, the entire group of islands was called Krys’ia, after the Russian word for rat. A new supply of rats was brought to the Chain during World War II on American (and undoubtedly Japanese) military ships. The rats were first reported near the docks on Amchitka and Adak Islands. By 1960, they were also wide spread on Amchitka Island and the islets surrounding it (Brechbill 1977: 262). Stowaway rats on fishing vessels were transported from island to island, where they established new colonies. Bailey (1993: 52) reported rats on 18 islands, and they appeared as recently as 1990 on Little Kiska Island. The severe impact of rats on the environment comes from their rapid reproductive rate, their omnivorous diet, their ability to move into crevices and up cliff faces, and their ability to swim to places normally safe from other predators. Nesting birds, chicks, and eggs are at greatest risk, whether they are cliff-nesting sea birds or groundnesting waterfowl, shorebirds, and ptarmigan. The US Fish and Wildlife Service is making an intense effort to remove rats from the islands. After rat eradication, Rat Island’s name was returned to its original name of Hawadax, but their effects remain (Bergsland 1994: 651). Red foxes are indigenous to the eastern islands, but Arctic foxes were introduced intentionally to the western and central islands so that people could “farm” them for their pelts. Arctic foxes indigenous to the Commander Islands were moved to Attu in 1750 by Russian investors. By 1790, Arctic foxes were transported to Atka in the Central Aleutian Islands (Bailey 1993: 12; Black 1984: 75, 101). Arctic foxes were also shipped from the Pribilof Islands into the central islands in the early 1800s. Red foxes from the eastern islands were transplanted to islands without foxes although some of the central islands already had foxes which had been brought from Siberia (Bailey 1993: 16). By the end of the Russian occupation, fox were placed onto seven islands (Isto 2012: 21). The foxes were left to fend for themselves until somebody came to trap them and sell their furs. If both species were placed on the same island,

104

3 The Living Environment

one would sometimes out-compete the other. In other cases, one species was removed and replaced with species whose fur was more valuable. During the American period, fox farming intensified. In the 1920s, when fur prices were high, foxes were placed on new islands unaffected by the industry until then (Merritt 1977: 12). By 1923, fox farming leases for 55 islands were recorded, although many islands were being used without the benefit of federal oversight. Unangaˆx were also fox farming on various islands (Isto 2012: 71). Isto (2012: 71) states, “Eight out of every ten islands in the Aleutian Chain would at some point be used as fur farms.” Rabbits and rodents including marmots, mice, and voles were released on the islands to supplement the fox diet of sea birds, intertidal fauna, and washed-up carcasses of sea mammals and fish (Bailey 1993: 39). During the Great Depression of the 1930s, fur prices dropped, and fox farmers turned to other ways of making a living. On some islands, the foxes were abandoned; on small islands with few food sources, they starved or were trapped to extinction before the fox farmer left (Bailey 1993: 29). Some low islands were perhaps swept clean of the foxes by tsunami (Bailey 1993: 31). Healthy, breeding populations of foxes remained on many larger islands. The adverse effect of fox introductions on bird populations was noted as early as 1811 by the people of Atka, and by 1812 on Attu Island (Bailey 1993: 32–36; Black 1984: 157, 161). Vasil’ev (in Black 1984: 157) stated that because of the foxes brought to Atka from the Commander Islands, “…the Aleuts complain that the foxes drive away the birds, which formerly were very numerous and served as a source of feathers for clothing. Nowadays, to get birds they must travel to other islands.” The impact of foxes on bird life was immediately apparent during Murie’s (1959: 297) investigations from 1936 through 1938 when he inspected fox winter caches. At Kasatochi Island, a fox created a cache under a rock where it had stored, 65 crested auklets, 37 least auklets, 1 whiskered auklet, 1 parakeet auklet, and 1 pigeon guillemot, and there were more birds farther back under the rock. On Bobrof Island, we found remains of 103 petrels, 6 tufted puffins, 4 least auklets, and 1 pigeon guillemot. On Semisopochnoi, we listed remains found at dens as follows: 107 least auklets, 18 crested auklets, 3 tufted puffins, 1 horned puffin, 1 murre, and 7 forked-tailed petrels. (Murie 1959: 297)

After Murie’s report, the federal government decided to stop new introductions of fox (Bailey 1993: 16). World War II made fox removal a low priority in the Aleutian Islands, but after the war, concerted eradication efforts began (Bailey 1993: 39, Merritt 1977: 123). After 1945, fox farming permits were no longer issued. Between 1949 and 1992, foxes were no longer seen on 21 islands, and by 2002, foxes had been removed from 39 islands (Bailey 1993: 41; Ebbert and Byrd 2002: 103; Isto 2012: 158, 159). On Amchitka Island, feral cats and dogs left behind by the military were also killed (Merritt 1977: 124). Multiple environmental effects created by the introduction of a single species can cause trophic cascades. Recent studies of islands that once had foxes (since exterminated) but not rats demonstrate that not only were sea bird populations reduced significantly, but vegetation patterns changed (Maron et al. 2006). Maron et al. (2006: 10) suggested that by removing important plant-eating birds such as geese, the foxes

Modern Environmental Changes and the Loss of an Analogue

105

affected plant growth and soil nutrients. On the islands that had never had foxes, the soil had higher levels of phosphorous, and the plant leaves had more nitrogen. The assumption is that when foxes decimated sea bird populations, soil nutrients introduced from the sea bird guano also declined (Maron et al. 2006: 18). This shift in soil nutrients also caused changes in the amount and type of vegetation cover. Compared to islands that never had foxes, islands that formerly had fox populations had reduced grass and sedge cover (graminoids), greater shrubby ground cover, more flowering broad-leafed plants (forbs), and mosses and lichens (Maron et al. 2006: 18). Caribou and reindeer were also intentionally transplanted from the Arctic to the Aleutian Islands. As part of a state-wide program initiated by Sheldon Jackson to encourage economic independence among Alaska Natives and reduce starvation in the villages, Siberian reindeer were introduced to the Alaska Peninsula, Unalaska, Amaknak, Umnak, and Atka Islands (Ebbert and Byrd 2002: 105; Murie 1959: 331– 332; Swanson and Barker 1991). The first reindeer were brought from Siberia to Unalaska and Amaknak Islands in 1891. Only 16 animals were introduced, and they did not live long. A herd of 86 animals was released on neighboring Umnak Island in 1913 (Swanson and Barker 1991: 38), and 40 additional reindeer were brought from the Alaska Peninsula and released on Atka Island in 1914. Numerous descendants of these animals still occupy Umnak and Atka Islands (Swanson and Barker 1991: 39, Veltre and Veltre 1983: 23). Caribou, a close relative to the reindeer, are indigenous to Unimak Island and the Alaska Peninsula but not to the islands to the west (Murie 1959: 329–330). In 1958 and 1959, caribou were brought to Adak Island to give military residents stationed there something to hunt for recreational purposes. Caribou populations were limited through hunting pressure, but by 1997, when the base closed, the numbers had risen from the original 23 caribou shipped from southcentral Alaska to about 1000 animals (Ricca 2013: 8; Ricca et al. 2012a: 1780). With fewer hunters and no other predators, caribou populations on Adak Island rose to 2800 animals by 2005. The population appears to have stabilized although caribou are spreading east to nearby Kagalaska Island (Ricca et al. 2012b; Williams and Tutiakoff 2005 in Ricca et al. 2012a: 1780). The caribou on Adak Island are overgrazing the lichens; when the lichens are gone, the caribou eat grasses (Ricca 2013: 88). On hillocks stripped of grass, mosses become established, preventing new grass growth. Even with the contribution of fertilizer by the caribou, soil fertility declines in heavily frequented areas, except where caribou carcasses create rich patches of vegetation called hotspots (Ricca 2013). Other effects of high caribou numbers have been the formation of well-compacted trails and hillside terraces, and the erosion of coastal beaches, hillsides, and archaeological sites (Ricca et al. 2012b; personal observation). Since Russians began settling in the Aleutian Islands in the 1800s, domesticated sheep, cattle, horses, pigs, chickens, and ducks have all been brought to the islands with varying success (Veniaminov 1984 [1840]: 42). Explorers viewed the islands’ grassy slopes as ready-made pastures, and accounts include speculation about the islands being good rangelands or the grasses being able to support cattle (e.g., Sauer 1972 [1802]: 267; Veniaminov 1984 [1840]: 28, 40–41). The first cattle were brought

106

3 The Living Environment

to Unalaska, Belkofski, and Unga in 1795 from Kodiak primarily to provide milk and butter, but the work involved in caring for the animals was considerable (Veniaminov 1984 [1840]: 40). Veltre (2011: 128) noted that the remains of the Russian Period gardens at Korovinski on Atka Island were encircled by high, well-built walls. As the gardens were expanded, new walls were built to keep cattle out. Petroff (1884: 22) described some of the issues of having cattle introduced to Atka: The Russians introduced cattle and goats here as an experiment in those days. The latter became very unpopular with the timid Aleuts on account of their pugnacious disposition and a morbid propensity for feeding upon the grasses and flowers that grew on the earthen roofs of the barabaras, frequently breaking them in or causing serious leaks. Though there is an abundance of nutritious grasses all over the island, the stock-raising experiment was allowed to lag, and finally, a short time after the transfer of the country to the United States, the last of the bovine race found its way into the soup-kettle and to the tables of the traders.

Discounting characterizations of people who hunt sea lions from skin boats as “timid,” one also notes obvious problems with raising marginally feral cattle among semi-subterranean houses covered by grass sod and the difficulties of drying hay in places with high snowfall and heavy rains. Nevertheless, the Russians felt it was important to demonstrate the benefits of agriculture. The advantages were perhaps not apparent to people who sustainably and efficiently exploited a rich maritime environment that had supported far more people over thousands of years than cows ever would. Introduced in 1825 in Unalaska, goats also did not last long. Because they climbed over the sod-covered houses, the goats were unceremoniously slaughtered in 1830. Likewise, pigs introduced to the islands dug through houses and gardens. In some places, the problem was solved by marooning the pigs on small islands where they could not cause damage within the communities (Veniaminov 1984 [1840]: 42). The Homestead Act, which allowed a homesteader to buy 160 acres of land, was applied to Alaska in 1898. This brought sheep-farming to the eastern islands during the early American Period. Cattle-ranching also appeared by the late 1800s and is still practiced on some islands. Large scale, commercial ranching operations began with the 1927 Alaska Grazing Bill, which allowed the government to permit commercial operations on federal land. It was not until after World War II that cattle ranching became widespread in the Aleutian Chain, extending to eight islands (Ebbert and Byrd 2002: 105; Reedy 2016). In many cases, the herds are not fenced. Because of high shipping cost of groceries to the islands, many Unangam communities are also bringing cattle, caribou, and sheep to supplement their food supply, (Reedy 2016). Bison and reindeer, or caribou, are also providing entrepreneurial opportunities to communities that accommodate trophy hunters. The consequences of introducing hooved animals to the islands are predictable, however. Overgrazing and trails cut into hillsides lead to erosion in the wet, windy environment, on the coast. “Blow-outs,” or bare sandy areas, develop; these expand into large dune fields on previously vegetated shorelines. Next to human construction and digging, cattle and sheep have caused the most harm to the archaeological sites of the Aleutian Islands (Wooley 2008). As archaeological sites are exposed and deflated, one layer collapses onto another. Winds blow sediments from around artifacts and features, and context is lost. Large blocks of soil cut out by hill side cattle trails break

References

107

away and tumble downhill or onto beaches spilling artifacts, burials, and house frames onto the surface, and the process repeats with newly exposed soils. From the arrival of the first people until the appearance of Europeans, the richness of the biological environment of the Aleutian region is apparent. This bounty was not restricted to one place; the entire archipelago had access to each major category of biological resources. The redundancy of food sources for each island was as important a feature as the high biomass archipelago-wide. The staggeringly rich biological environment described in this chapter likely brought the first Unangaˆx into the Aleutian Archipelago. Those first people are the subject of the next chapter.

References Other Resources About Aleutian Island Biology Brewer, Reid, Heloise Chenelot, Shawn Harper, and Stephen Jewett. 2011. Sea Life of the Aleutians: An Underwater Exploration. Alaska Sea Grant College Program: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks, Alaska. Estes, James A. 2016. Serendipity: An Ecologist’s Quest to Understand Nature. Oakland: University of California Press. Golodoff, Suzi. 2013a. Wildflowers of Unalaska Island: A Guide to the Flowering Plants of an Aleutian Island, 2nd ed. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.

References Cited Abegglen, Carl E. 1977. Sea Mammals: Resources and Population. In The Environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska, ed. Melvin L. Merritt and R. Glen Fuller, 493–510. National Technical Information Service, Energy Research and Development Administration, Springfield, Virginia. ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2006. Our Wealth Maintained: A Strategy for Conserving Alaska’s Diverse Wildlife and Fish Resources. Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Ainis, Amira F., Rene L. Vallanoweth, Queeny G. Lapena, and Carol S. Thornber. 2014. Using Nondietary Gastropods in Coastal Shell Middens to Infer Kelp and Seagrass Harvesting and Paleoenvironmental Conditions. Journal of Archaeological Sciences 49: 343–360. Anderson, Paul K. 1995. Competition, Predation, and the Evolution and Extinction of Steller’s Sea Cow. Hydrodamalis gigas. Marine Mammal Science 11 (3): 391–394. Bailey, Edgar P. 1993. Introduction of Foxes to Alaska Islands—History, Effects on Avifauna, and Eradication. Washington, DC: United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 193. United States Department of the Interior. Bank, Theodore P. 1953. Ecology of Prehistoric Aleutian Village Sites. Ecology 34 (2): 146–264. Barrett-Lennard, Lance G., Craig O. Matkin, John W. Durban, Eva L. Saulitis, and David Ellifrit. 2011. Predation on Gray Whales and Prolonged Feeding on Submerged Carcasses by Transient Killer Whales at Unimak Island, Alaska. Marine Ecology Progress Series 421: 220–241. Baumann-Pickering, Simone, Anne E. Simonis, Sean M. Wiggins, Robert L. Brownell, and John A. Hildebrand. 2013. Aleutian Islands Beaked Whale Echolocation Signals. Marine Mammal Science 29 (1): 221–227.

108

3 The Living Environment

Belnap, Jane, Christine V. Hawkes, and Mary K. Firestone. 2003. Boundaries in Miniature: Two Examples from Soil. BioScience 53 (8): 739–749. Bergsland, Knut. 1994. Aleut Dictionary/Unangam Tunudgusii: An Unabridged Lexicon of the Aleutian, Pribilof, and Commander Islands Aleut Language. Alaska Native Language Center: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Bigg, Michael A. 1981. Harbour Seal: Phoca vitulina Linnaeus, 1758, and Phoca largha Pallas, 1811. In Seals, Vol. 2, ed. Sam H. Ridgway and Richard J. Harrison, 1–27. Handbook of Marine Mammals. New York: Academic Press. Birdsall, Caitlin. 2013. Dolphin versus Porpoise: What’s the difference? B.C. Cetacean Sightings Network. Vancouver Aquarium, Vancouver, British Columbia. Electronic Document, http:// wildwhales.org/2013/06/17/dolphin-vs-porpoise-whats-the-difference/, accessed September 3, 2018. Bizzarro, Joseph J., Aaron B. Carlisle, Wade D. Smith, and Enrick Cortés. 2017. Diet Composition and Trophic Ecology of Northeast Pacific Ocean Sharks. Advances in Marine Biology 77: 111– 148. Black, Lydia T. 1984. Atka: An Ethnohistory of the Western Aleutian Islands, ed. R.A. Pierce. Kingston, Ontario: The Limestone Press. Boveng, P.L., J.L. Bengtson, M.F. Cameron, S.P. Dahle, E.A. Logerwell, J.M. London, J.E. Overland, J.T. Sterling, D.E. Stevenson, B.L. Taylor, and J.L. Ziel. 2013. Status Review of the Ribbon Seal (Histriophoca fasciata). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-255. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce. Bradfield, Elizabeth. 2008. Interpretive Work: Poems. Los Angeles: Arktoi Books. Braham, Howard W., John J. Burns, Gennadii A. Fedoseev, and Bruce D. Krogman. 1984. Habitat Partitioning by Ice-Associated Pinnipeds: Distribution and Density of Seals and Walruses in the Bering Sea, April 1976. In Pinnipeds, ed. Francis H. Fay and Gennadii A. Fedoseev, 25– 47. Soviet-American Cooperative Research on Marine Mammals: Volume 1, NOAA Technical Report NMFS 12. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce. Brechbill, Raymond A. 1977. Status of the Norway Rat. In The Environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska, ed. Melvin L. Merritt and R. Glen Fuller, 261–267. Virginia: National Technical Information Service, Energy Research and Development Administration, Springfield. Bruce, David. 1993. History of Tree Planting on the Aleutian Islands. In Forest Development in Cold Climates, ed. John Alden, J. Louise Mastrantonio, and Søren Ødum, 393–426. New York: Plenum Press. Burger, Joanna. 1988. Interactions of Marine Birds with Other Marine Vertebrates in Marine Environments. In Seabirds and other Marine Vertebrates: Competition, Predation, and Other Interactions, ed. Joanna Burger, 3–28. New York: Columbia University Press. Burns, John J. 1981a. Bearded Seal: Erignathus barbatus Erxleben, 1777. In Seals, ed. Sam H. Ridgway and Richard J. Harrison, 145–170. Handbook of Marine Mammals: Volume 2. New York: Academic Press. Burns, John J. 1981b. Ribbon Seal: Phoca fasciata Zimmermann, 1783. In Seals, ed. Sam H. Ridgway and Richard J. Harrison, 89–109. Handbook of Marine Mammals: Volume 2. New York: Academic Press. Burtin, Patricia. 2003. Nutritional Value of Seaweeds. Electronic Journal, Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2 (4): 498–503. Byrd, G. Vernon., Heather M. Renner, and Martin Renner. 2005. Distribution Patterns and Population Trends of Breeding Seabirds in the Aleutian Islands. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (Supplement 1): 139–159. Cadenasso, Mary L., Steward T.A.. Pickett, Kathleen C. Weathers, and Clive G. Jones. 2003. A Framework for a Theory of Ecological Boundaries. BioScience 53 (8): 750–758. Campbell, Greg. 2008. A Preliminary Study of Methods for Identifying Archaeological Sea Urchin Remains in the Pacific Northwest. Canadian Zooarchaeology 25: 15–35. Carson, Rachel. 1998. The Edge of the Sea. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Origianlly published 1955. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

References

109

Causey, Douglas, and Stephen Loring. 2010. Short-tailed Albatross (Diomedea [Phoebastria] albatrus). In The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island, ed. Debra Corbett, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre, 99–105. Aurora Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series, Volume 8. Anchorage. Chen, Zhuo, Shixia Xu, Kaiy Zhou, and Guang Yang. 2011. Whale Phylogeny and Rapid Radiation Events Revealed Using Novel Retroposed Elements and Their Flanking Sequences. BMC Evolution Biology 11:314. https://bmcevolbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/14712148-11-314, accessed September 3, 2018. Clark, Austin H. 1945. Animal Life of the Aleutian Islands. In The Aleutian Islands: Their People and Natural History (With Keys for the Identification of the Birds and Plants), ed. Henry B. Collins, Jr., Austin H. Clark, and Egbert H. Walker, 31–61. Smithsonian Institution War Background Studies, Number 21, Publication 3775. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Corbett, Debra G., Douglas Causey, Mark Clementz, Paul L. Koch, Angela Doroff, Christine Lefèvre, and Dixie West. 2008. Aleut Hunters, Sea Otters, and Sea Cows: Three Thousand Years of Interactions in the Western Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Ecosystems: A Global Perspective, ed. Torben C. Rick and John M. Erlandson, 43–75. Berkeley: University of California Press. Coxe, William. 1966 [1780]. Account of the Russian Discoveries between Asia and America. 2nd ed., ed. T. Cadell, in the Strand, London. 1966 facsimile ed. New York: Readex Microprint Corporation. Coyle, Kenneth O. 2005. Zooplankton Distribution, Abundance and Biomass Relative to Water Masses in Eastern and Central Aleutian Island Passes. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (Supplement 1): 77–92. Crawford, Justin A., Kathryn J. Frost, Lori T. Quakenbush, and Alex Whiting. 2012. Different Habitat Use Strategies by Subadult and Adult Ringed Seals (Phoca hispida) in the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Polar Biology 35: 241–255. Crockford, Susan J. 2008. Be Careful What You Ask For: Archaeozoological Evidence of MidHolocene Climate Change in the Bering Sea and Implications for the Origins of Arctic Thule. In Islands of Inquiry: Colonization, Seafaring and the Archaeology of Maritime Landscapes, Vol. 29, ed. Geoffrey Clark, Foss Leach, and Sue O’Connor, 113–131. Terra Australis. Crockford, Susan J. 2012. Archaeozoology of Adak Island: 6000 Years of Subsistence History in the Central Aleutians. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gualtieri, 107–143. England: Archaeopress, British Archaeological Reports International Series 2322, Oxford. Crockford, Susan J., and S. Gay Frederick. 2007. Sea Ice Expansion in the Bering Sea During the Neoglacial: Evidence from Archaeozoology. The Holocene 17 (6): 699–706. Crockford, Susan J., and S. Gay Frederick. 2011. Neoglacial Sea Ice and Life History Flexibility in Ringed and Fur Seals. In Human Impacts on Seals, Sea Lions, and Sea Otters: Integrating Archaeology and Ecology in the Northeast Pacific, ed. Todd J. Braje and Torben C. Rick, 65–91. Berkeley: University of California Press. Dall, William Henry. 1970. On Succession in the Shell-Heaps of the Aleutian Islands. Washington: The Shorey Book Store, Seattle. Originally published. 1877. Contributions to North American Ethnology, Vol. 1, 41–91. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior. Davis, Brian. 2001. Sea Mammal Hunting and the Neoglacial: An Archaeofaunal Study of Environmental Change and Subsistence Technology at Margaret Bay, Unalaska. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 58–85. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Dean, Thomas A., Lewis Haldorson, David R. Laur, Stephen C. Jewett, and Amy Blanchard. 2000. The Distribution of Nearshore Fishes in Kelp and Eelgrass Communities in Prince William Sound, Alaska: Associations with Vegetation and Physical Habitat Characteristics. Environmental Biology of Fishes 57: 271–287.

110

3 The Living Environment

Denlinger, Lynn M. 2006. Alaska Seabird Information Series. Unpublished Report. Alaska: US Fish and Wildlife Service, Migratory Bird Management, Nongame Program, Anchorage. Dobbyn, Paula. 2018. Sharks may be Eating More Northern Seals, Sea Lions. University of Alaska Fairbanks News and Information, July 3, 2018. https://news.uaf.edu/sharks-may-beeating-more-northern-seals-sea-lions/, accessed August 1, 2018. Domning, Daryl P. 1972. Steller’s Sea Cow and the Origin of North Pacific Aboriginal Whaling. Syesis 5: 187–189. Domning, Daryl P. 1976. An Ecological Model for Late Tertiary Sirenian Evolution in the North Pacific Ocean. Systematic Zoology 25 (4): 352–362. Domning, Daryl P. 1978. Sirenian Evolution in the North Pacific Ocean. In University of California Publications in Geological Sciences, Vol. 118. Berkeley: University of California Press. Domning, Daryl P. 1981. Sea Cows and Sea Grasses. Paleobiology 7 (4): 417–420. Domning, Daryl P., James Thomason, and Debra G. Corbett. 2007. Steller’s Sea Cow in the Aleutian Islands. Marine Mammal Science 23 (4): 976–983. Duggins, D.O., C.A. Simnstad, and J.A. Estes. 1989. Magnification of Secondary Production by Kelp Detritus in Coastal Marine Ecosystems. Science (new Series) 245 (4914): 170–173. Dumond, Don E. 1995. Whale Traps on the North Pacific? In Hunting the Largest Animals: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic and Subarctic, ed. Allen P. McCartney, 51–62. Studies in Whaling No. 3, Occasional Publication No. 36. Edmonton: The Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta. Dunning, Samantha M. 2021. Identifying Marine Mammal Remains in the Western Aleutian Islands using Zooarchaeology and Stable Isotope Analysis. Master’s thesis. Anchorage: Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Anchorage. Eakins, Gilbert R. 1970. A Petrified Forest on Unga Island, Alaska. Special Report No. 3. Division of Mines and Geology, Department of Natural Resources, State of Alaska, College. Ebbert, S.E. and G.V. Byrd. 2002. Eradications of Invasive Species to Restore Natural Biological Diversity on Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. In Turning the Tide: The Eradication of Invasive Species, ed. C.R. Veitch, and M.N. Clout, 102–109. Switzerland and Cambridge, UK: IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group, IUCN, Gland. Erlandson, Jon M., Todd J. Braje, Kristina M. Gill, and Michael H. Graham. 2015. Ecology of the Kelp Highway: Did Marine Resources Facilitate Human Dispersal from Northeast Asia to the Americas? The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 10 (3): 392–411. Erlandson, Jon M., Michael H. Graham, Bruce J. Bourque, Debra Corbett, James A. Estes, and Robert S. Steneck. 2007. The Kelp Highway Hypothesis: Marine Ecology, the Coastal Migration Theory, and the Peopling of the Americas. The Journal of Island and Coastal Archaeology 2 (2): 161–174. Estes, James A., and David O. Duggins. 1995. Sea Otters and Kelp Forests in Alaska: Generality and Variation in a Community Ecological Paradigm. Ecological Monographs 65 (1): 75–100. Estes, James A., Charles H. Peterson, and Robert S. Steneck. 2010. Some Effects of Apex Predators in Higher-Latitude coastal Oceans. In Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey, and the Changing Dynamics of Nature, ed. John Terborgh and James A. Estes, 37–53. Washington, DC: Island Press. Etnier, Michael A. 2002. The Effects of Human Hunting on Northern Fur Seal (Callorhinus ursinus) Migration and Breeding Distributions in the Late Holocene. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Fa, Darren Andrew. 2008. Effects of Tidal Amplitude on Intertidal Resource Availability and Dispersal Pressure in Prehistoric Human Coastal Populations: The Mediterranean-Atlantic Transition. Quaternary Science Reviews 27: 2194–2209. Fay, Francis H. 1982. Ecology and Biology of the Pacific Walrus, Odobenus rosmarus divergens Illiger. North American Fauna, Number 74. Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of Interior, Washington, DC.

References

111

Ferguson, Megan C., Janice M. Waite, Corrie Curtice, Janet T. Clarke, and Jolie Harrison. 2015. Biologically Important Areas for Cetaceans within US Waters—Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea Region. Aquatic Mammals 41 (1): 79–93. Ford, John K.B., Graeme M. Ellis, and Kenneth C. Balcomb. 2000. Killer Whales, 2nd ed. Vancouver, British Columbia: UBC Press. Ford, John K.B., Graeme M. Ellis, Craig O. Matkin, Michael H. Wetklo, Lance G. Barrett-Lennard, and Ruth E. Withler. 2011. Shark Predation and Tooth Wear in a Population of Northeastern Pacific Killer whales. Aquatic Biology 11: 213–224. Frohlich, B., and D. Kopjanski. 1975. Aleutian site survey 1975, Preliminary Report. Storrs: Laboratory of Biological Anthropology, University of Connecticut. Frost, Kathryn J., and Lloyd F. Lowry. 1981. Ringed, Baikal and Caspian Seals: Phoca hispida Schreber, 1775; Phoca sibirica Gmelin, 1788 and Phoca caspica Gemlin, 1788. In Seals, ed. Sam H. Ridgway and Richard J. Harrison, 29–53. Handbook of Marine Mammals: Volume 2. New York: Academic Press. Garroutte, Monte, Falk Huettmann, Campbell O. Webb, and Stefanie M. Ickert-Bond. 2018. Biogeographic and Anthropogenic Correlates of Aleutian Islands Plant Diversity: A Machine-Learning Approach. Journal of Systematics and Evolution 56 (5): 476–497. Gibson, Daniel D., and G. Vernon Byrd. 2007. Birds of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Series in Ornithology, No. 1, series editor Douglas Causey, Nuttall Ornithological Club, and the American Ornithologists’ Union, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Goldman, Kenneth J., and Joahn A. Musick. 2008. Biology and Ecology of the Salmon Shark, Lamna ditropis. In Sharks of the Open Ocean: Biology, Fisheries and Conservation, ed. Merry D. Camhi, Ellen K. Pikitch, and Elizabeth A. Babcock, 95–104. Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Publishing. Golodoff, Suzi. 2013b. Wildflowers of Unalaska Island, 2nd ed. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Haley, Delphine. 1980. The great Northern Sea Cow: Steller’s Gentle Siren. Oceans 13 (5): 7–11. Hamme, Roberta C., Peter W. Webley, William R. Crawford, Frank A. Whitney, Michael D. DeGrandpre, Steven R. Emerson, Charles C. Eriksen, Karina E. Giesbrecht, Jim F. R. Gower, Maria T. Kavanaugh, M. Angelica Peña, Christopher L. Sabine, Sonia D. Batten, Laurence A. Coogan, Damian S. Grundle, and Deirdre Lockwood. 2010. Volcanic Ash Fuels Anomalous Plankton Bloom in Subarctic Northeast Pacific. Geophysical Research Letters 37 (19): L19604. Hauser, William J. 2011. Fishes of the Last Frontier: Life Histories, Biology, Ecology, and Management of Alaska Fishes. Anchorage, Alaska: Publication Consultants. Helser, Thomas, Craig Kastelle, Aron Crowell, Takayuki Ushikubo, Ian J. Orland, Reinhard Kozdon, and John W. Valley. 2018. A 200-Year Archaeozoological Record of Pacific Cod (Gadus macroephalus) Life History as Revealed Through Ion Microprobe Oxygen Isotope Ratios in Otoliths. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 21: 1236–1246. Himmelman, John H. 1978. Reproductive Cycle of the Green Sea Urchin, Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56 (8): 1828–1836. Hogrefe, Kyle R., David H. Ward, Tyrone F. Donnelly, and Niels Dau. 2014. Establishing a Baseline for Regional Scale Monitoring of Eelgrass (Zostera marina) Habitat on the Lower Alaska Peninsula. Remote Sensing 6: 12447–12477. Horning, Markus, and Jo-Ann E. Mellish. 2014. In Cold Blood: Evidence of Pacific Sleeper Shark (Somniosus pacificus) Predation. Fishery Bulletin 112 (4): 297–310. Hulbert, L.B., A.M. Aires-da-Silva, V.F. Gallucci, and J.S. Rice. 2005. Seasonal Foraging Movements and Migratory Patterns of Female Lamna ditropis Tagged in Prince William Sound, Alaska. Journal of Fish Biology 67: 490–509. Isto, Sarah Crawford. 2012. The Fur Farms of Alaska: Two centuries of History and a Forgotten Stampede. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Jahncke, J., K.O. Coyle, and George L. Hunt. 2005. Seabird Distribution, Abundance and Diets in the Eastern and Central Aleutian Islands. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (Supplement 1): 160–177.

112

3 The Living Environment

Jochelson, Waldemar. 1975. Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands. New York: AMS Press Inc. Originally published 1925, Publication 367, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC. Johnson, Susan P., and Daniel E. Schindler. 2009. Trophic Ecology of Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in the Ocean: A Synthesis of Stable Isotope Research. Ecological Research 24: 855–863. Jordan, James W. 2001. Late Quaternary Sea Level Change in Southern Beringia: Postglacial Emergence of the Western Alaska Peninsula. Quaternary Science Review 20: 509–523. Kaiser, Michel J., Martin J. Attrill, Simon Jennings, David N. Thomas, David K.A.. Barnes, Andrew S. Brierley, Jan Geert Hiddink, Hermanni Kaartokallio, Nicholas V.C.. Polunin, and David G. Raffaelli. 2011. Marine Ecology: Processes, Systems, and Impacts, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Kenney, Leah A., and Frank A. Von Hippel. 2017. Freshwater Fish Inventory of the Aleutian Archipelago. Alaska. American Midland Naturalist 177 (1): 44–56. Kenyon, Karl W., and Dale W. Rice. 1961. Abundance and Distribution of the Steller Sea Lion. Journal of Mammalogy 42 (2): 223–234. Konar, Brenda, Matthew S. Edwards, Aaron Bland, Jacob Metzger, Alexandra Ravelo, Sara Traiger, and Ben Weitzman. 2017. A Swath Across the Great Divide: Kelp Forests Across the Samalga Pass Biogeographic Break. Continental Shelf Research 143: 78–88. Konar, Brenda, Matthew S. Edwards, and Terril Efird. 2015. Local Habitat and Regional Oceanographic Influence on Fish Distribution Patterns in the Diminishing Kelp Forests Across the Aleutian Archipelago. Environmental Biology of Fishes 98: 1935–1951. Korsun, Sergei A. 2013. Fieldwork on the Commander Islands Aleuts. Translated by Ryan Tucker Jones. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 11 (1 and 2): 169–181. Krahn, Margaret M., David P. Herman, Craig O. Matkin, John W. Durban, Lance Barrett-Lennard, Douglas G. Burrows, Marilyn E. Dahlheim, Nancy Black, Richard G. LeDuc, and Paul R. Wade. 2007. Use of Chemical Tracers in Assessing the Diet and Foraging Regions of Eastern North Pacific Killer Whales. Marine Environmental Research 63: 91–114. Kuletz, Kathy J., Martin Renner, Elizabeth A. Labunski, and George L. Hunt. 2014. Changes in the Distribution and Abundance of Albatrosses in the Eastern Bering Sea: 1975–2010. Deep Sea Research II 109: 282–292. Kvitek, R.G., J.S. Oliver, A.R. DeGange, and B.S. Anderson. 1992. Changes in Alaskan Soft-Bottom Prey Communities Along a Gradient in Sea Otter Predation. Ecology 73 (2): 413–428. Ladd, Carol, George L. Hunt, Calvin W. Mordy, Sigrid A. Salo, and Phyllis Stabeno. 2005. Marine Environment of the Eastern and Central Aleutian Islands. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (Supplement 1): 22–38. Laidre, Kristin L., Kim E.W.. Shelden, David J. Rugh, and Barbara A. Mahoney. 2000. Beluga, Delphinapterus leucas, Distribution and Survey Effort in the Gulf of Alaska. Marine Fisheries Review 62 (3): 27–36. Larson, Wesley A., Fred M. Utter, Katherine M. Myers, William D. Templin, James E. Seeb, Charles M. Guthrie, Alexander V. Bugaev, and Lisa W. Seeb. 2013. Single-Nucleotide Polymorphisms Reveal Distribution and Migration of Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Bering Sea and North Pacific Ocean. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic Sciences 70: 128– 141. Lauth, Robert R., Scott W. McEntire, and Harold H. Zenger. 2007. Geographic Distribution, Depth Range, and Description of Atka Mackerel Pleurogrammus monopterygius Nesting Habitat in Alaska. Alaska Fishery Research Bulletin 12 (2): 165–186. Leatherwood, Stephen, Randall R. Reeves, William F. Perrin, and William E. Evans. 1988. Whales, Dolphins, and Porpoises of the Eastern North Pacific and Adjacent Arctic Waters: A Guide to Their Identification. New York: Dover Publications. Le Boeuf, B.J., D.E. Crocker, D.P. Costa, S.B. Blackwell, P.M. Webb, and D.S. Houser. 2000. Foraging Ecology of Northern Elephant Seals. Ecological Monographs 70 (3): 353–382. Lee, Derek E., Ryan W. Berger, James R. Tietz, Pete Warzybok, Russell W. Bradley, Anthony J. Orr, Rodney G. Towell, and Jaime Jahncke. 2018. Initial Growth of Northern fur seal

References

113

(Callorhinus ursinus) Colonies at the South Farallon, San Miguel, and Bogoslof Islands. Journal of Mammalogy 99 (6): 1529–1538. Lefèvre, Christine, Debra Corbett, Susan Crockford, Jessica Czederpiltz, Megan Partlow, and Dixie West. 2010. Faunal Remains and Intersite Comparisons. In The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island, Vol. 8, ed. Debra Corbett, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre, 133–157. Aurora Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series. Anchorage. Lindeberg, Mandy R., and Sandra C. Lindstrom. 2010. Field Guide to Seaweeds of Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant College Program: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Lloyd, Denby S., C. Peter McRoy, and Robert H. Day. 1981. Discovery of Northern Fur Seals (Callorhinus ursinus) Breeding on Bogoslof Island, Southeastern Bering Sea. Arctic 34 (4): 318–320. Logerwell, E.A., K. Aydin, S. Barbeaux, E. Brown, M.E. Conners, S. Lowe, J.W. Orr, I. Ortiz, R. Reuter, and P. Spencer. 2005. Geographic Patterns in the Demersal Ichthyofauna of the Aleutian Islands. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (supplement 2): 93–112. Lord, Nancy. 1999. Green Alaska: Dreams from the Far Coast. Washington, DC: Counterpoint. Lorentsen, Svein-Håkon., Kjersti Sjøtun, and David Grémillet. 2010. Multi-trophic Consequences of Kelp Harvest. Biological Conservation 143: 2054–2062. Loughlin, Thomas R., and R.V. Miller. 1989. Growth of the Northern Fur Seal Colony on Bogoslof Island, Alaska. Arctic 42 (4): 368–372. Love, Milton, S. 2011. Certainly More Than You Want to Know About the Fishes of the Pacific Coast: A Postmodern Experience. Santa Barbara, California: Really Big Press. McCartney, Allen P. 1972. An Archaeological Site Survey and Inventory for the Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, 1972. Report submitted to the Wilderness Studies Branch, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. McCay, Bonnie J. 2008. The Littoral and the Liminal: Challenges to the Management of the Coastal and Marine Commons. MAST 2 (2): 7–28. McGinnis, Samuel M., and Ronald J. Schusterman. 1981. Northern elephant seal: Mirounga angustirostris Gil, 1866. In Seals, ed. Sam H. Ridgway and Richard J. Harrison, 329–349. Handbook of Marine Mammals: Volume 2. New York: Academic Press. McRoy, C. Peter. 1966. The Standing Stock and Ecology of Eelgrass (Zostera marina L.) in Izembek Lagoon, Alaska. Master’s thesis. Seattle: University of Washington. McRoy, C. Peter. 1968. The Distribution and Biogeography of Zostera marina (Eelgrass) in Alaska. Pacific Science 22 (4): 507–513. McRoy, C. Peter, and Carla Helfferich. 1980. Applied Aspects of Seagrasses. In Handbook of Seagrass Biology: An Ecosystem Perspective, ed. Ronald C. Phillips and C. Peter McRoy, 297– 343. New York: Garland STPM Press. Mantua, Nathan J., and Steven R. Hare. 2002. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Journal of Oceanography 58: 35–44. Maron, John L., James A. Estes, Donald A. Croll, Eric M. Danner, Sarah C. Elmendorf, and Stacy L. Buckelew. 2006. An Introduced Predator Alters Aleutian Island Plant Communities by Thwarting Nutrient Subsidies. Ecological Monographs 76 (1): 3–24. Maschner, Herbert D.G., Matthew W. Betts, Katherine L. Reedy-Maschner, and Andrew W. Trites. 2008. A 4500-Year Time Series of Pacific Cod (Gadus macrocephalus) Size and Abundance: Archaeology, Oceanic Regime Shifts, and Sustainable Fisheries. Fisheries Bulletin 106: 386– 394. Maschner, Herbert D.G., Andrew W. Trites, Katherine L. Reedy-Maschner, and Matthew Betts. 2014. The Decline of Steller Sea Lions (Eumetopias jubatus) in the North Pacific: Insights from Indigenous People, Ethnohistoric Records and Archaeological Data. Fish and Fisheries 15: 634–660. Mecklenburg, Catherine W., T. Anthony Mecklenburg, and Lyman K. Thorsteinson. 2002. Fishes of Alaska. Bethesda, Maryland: American Fisheries Society.

114

3 The Living Environment

Merritt, M.L. 1977. History, 1741–1967. In The Environment of Amchitka Island, ed. Melvin L. Meritt and R. Glen Fuller, 115–140. Virginia: National Technical Information Center, US Department of Commerce, Springfield. Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology, Japan. 2015. Documentation and Table. Standards Tables of Food Composition in Japan. Seventh Revised Edition. Japan. Electronic document, www.mext.go.jp/en/policy/science_technology/policy/title01/detail01/sdetai l01/sdetail01/1385122.htm, accessed October 15, 2018. Mizroch, Sally A., and Dale W. Rice. 2013. Ocean Nomads: Distribution and Movements of Sperm Whales in the North Pacific Shown by Whaling Data and Discovery Marks. Marine Mammal Science 29 (2): E126–E165. Monks, Gregory C. 1987. Prey as Bait: The Deep Bay example. Canadian Journal of Archaeology 11: 119–142. Munk, J. Eric. 1992. Reproduction and Growth of Green Urchins Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis (Müller) Near Kodiak, Alaska. Journal of Shellfish Research 11 (2): 245–254. Murie, Olaus J. 1959. Fauna of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula. North American Fauna, Number 61. Washington, DC: Fish and Wildlife Service, US Department of Interior. Muto, M.M., V.T. Helker, R.P. Angliss, B.A. Allen, P.L. Boveng, J.M. Breiwick, M.F. Cameron, P.J. Clapham, S.P. Dahle, M.E. Dahlheim, B.S. Fadely, M.C. Ferguson, L.W. Fritz, R.C. Hobbs, Y.V. Ivashchenko, A.S. Kennedy, J.M. London, S.A. Mizroch, R.R. Ream, E.L. Richmond, K.E.W. Shelden, R.G. Towell, P.R. Wade, J.M. Waite, and A.N. Zerbini 2018 Alaska Marine Mammal Stock Assessments. 2017. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-378. Washington, DC: Department of Commerce. Nagasawa, Kazuya. 1998. Predation by Salmon Sharks (Lamna ditropis) on Pacific Salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.) in the North Pacific Ocean. In Assessment and Status of Pacific Rim Salmonid Stocks, ed. David W. Welch, Douglas M. Eggers, Kiyoshi Wakabayashi, and Vladimir I. Karpenko, 419–433. Vancouver, British Columbia: North Pacific Anadromous Fish Commission Bulletin Number 1. Nerini, Mary. 1984. A Review of Gray Whale Feeding Ecology. In The Gray Whale: Eschrichtius robustus, ed. Mary Lou Jones, Steven L. Swartz, and Stephen Leatherwood, 423–450. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, Inc. O’Clair, Charles E. 1977. Marine invertebrates in Rocky Intertidal Communities. In The Environment of Amchitka Island, ed. Melvin L. Meritt, and R. Glen Fuller, 395–449. Virginia: National Technical Information Center, US Department of Commerce, Springfield. Oremus, Marc, Rosemary Gales, Merel L. Dalebout, Naoko Funahashi, Tetsuya Endo, Takahiro Kage, Debbie Steel, and Scott C. Baker. 2009. Worldwide Mitochondrial DNA Diversity and Phylogeography of Pilot Whales (Globicephala spp.). Biological Journal of the Linnean Society 98: 729–744. Orlov, A.M., and A.A. Baitalyuk. 2014. Spatial Distribution and Features of Biology of Pacific Sleeper Shark Somniosus pacificus in the North Pacific. Journal of Ichthyology 54 (8): 526–546. Ortiz, Ivonne. 2007. Ecosystem Dynamics of the Aleutian Islands. PhD dissertation. University of Washington, Seattle. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Paine, Robert T. 2010. Food Chain Dynamics and Trophic Cascades in Intertidal Habitats. In Trophic Cascades: Predators, Prey, and the changing dynamics of Nature, ed. John Terborgh and James A. Estes, 21–35. Washington, DC: Island Press. Parsons, Kim M., John W. Durban, Alexander M. Burdin, Vladimir N. Burkanov, Robert L. Pitman, Jay Barlow, Lance G. Barrett-Lennard, Richard G. LeDuc, Kelly M. Robertson, Craig O. Matkin, and Paul R. Wade. 2013. Geographic Patterns of Genetic Differentiation Among Killer Whales in the Northern North Pacific. Journal of Heredity 104 (6): 737–754. Paul, J.M., and A.J. Paul. 1984. Reproductive Cycle and Gonad Yield of Green Sea Urchins in Lower Cook Inlet, Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant Report 84–2. Fairbanks: Alaska Sea Grant College Program, University of Alaska. Peterson, Charles H. 1991. Intertidal Zonation of Marine Invertebrates in Sand and Mud. American Scientist 79 (3): 236–249.

References

115

Petroff, Ivan 1884 Report on the Population, Industries, and Resources of Alaska. Report to the United States Census Office, Volume 8 of Tenth Census of the United States, 1880, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Pfister, Bete, and Douglas P. DeMaster. 2006. Changes in Marine Mammal Biomass in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands Region before and after the period of commercial whaling. In Whales, Whaling, and Ocean Ecosystems, ed. James A. Estes, Douglas P. Demaster, Daniel F. Doak, Terrie M. Williams, and Robert L. Brownell, Jr., 116–133. Berkeley: University of California Press. Pinart, Alphonse Louis. 2018. The Hunting of Marine Animals and Fishing Among the Natives of the Northwest Coast of America. Translated by Richard L. Bland. Journal of Northwest Anthropology 52 (2): 231–240. Pitman, Robert L., Lisa T. Ballance, Sarah I. Mesnick, and Susan J. Chivers. 2001. Killer Whale Predation on Sperm Whales: Observations and Implications. Marine Mammal Science 17 (3): 494–507. Polis, Gary A., and Stephen D. Hurd. 1996. Linking Marine and Terrestrial Food Webs: Allochthonous Input from the Ocean Supports High Secondary Productivity on Small Islands and Coastal Land Communities. The American Naturalist 147 (3): 396–423. Rainbird, Paul. 2007. The Archaeology of Islands. New York: Cambridge University Press. Ray, G. Carleton, and Bruce P. Hayden. 1992. Coastal Zone Ecotones. In Landscape Boundaries: Consequences for Biotic Diversity and Ecological Flows, ed. Andrew J. Hansen and Francesco di Castri, 402–420. Ecological Studies, Vol. 92, series ed. O. Lange, H.A. Mooney, and H. Remmert. New York: Springer. Reedy, Katherine. 2016. Kelp-Fed Beef, Swimming Caribou, Feral Reindeer, and Their Hunters: Island Mammals in a Marine Economy. Sustainability 8 (2): 113. Reeves, Randall R., Joel Berger, and Phillip J. Clapham. 2006. Killer Whales as Predators of Large Baleen Whales and Sperm Whales. In Whales, Whaling, and Ocean Ecosystems, ed. James A. Estes, Douglas P. DeMaster, Daniel F. Doak, Terrie M. Williams, and Robert L. Brownell, 174–187. Berkeley: University of California Press. Reimer, Jessica N. 2014. Patterns of Macrophyte Wrack Deposition on Sandy Beaches of the Pacific Northwest Coast, USA. Master’s thesis. Corvallis: Oregon State University. Ricca, Mark Antone. 2013. Introduced Caribou and Reindeer in the Aleutian Archipelago of Alaska: Irruptive Population Dynamics and Interactions with Aboveground-Belowground Ecosystem Processes. PhD dissertation. University of California, Davis. ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Ricca, Mark A., Floyd W. Weckerly, Adam Duarte, and Jeffery C. Williams. 2012a. Range Expansion of Nonindigenous Caribou in the Aleutian Archipelago of Alaska. Biological Invasions 14: 1779–1784. Ricca, Mark A., Jeffrey C. Williams, Floyd W. Weckerly, and Vincent Tutiakoff. 2012b. Aerial Survey of Barren-Ground Caribou at Adak and Kagalaska Islands, Alaska in 2012b: Data Summary. US Geological Survey-Western Ecological Research Center and US Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Maritime National Refuge, Aleutian Islands Unit. Report 2012b/03. Alaska: Davis, California and Homer. Ricciardi, Anthony, and Edwin Bourget. 1999. Global Patterns of Macroinvertebrate Biomass in Marine Intertidal Communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 185: 21–35. Sapozhnikov, V.V., O.S. Ivanova, and N.V. Mordasova. 2011. Identification of Local Upwelling Zones in the Bering Sea Using Hydrochemical Parameters. Oceanology 51 (2): 247–254. Sauer, Martin. 1972 [1802]. An Account of a Geographical and Astronomical Expedition to the Northern Parts of Russia. London: A Strahan, Printers Street. 1972 facsimile ed. Expedition to the Northern parts of Russia. Richmond, Surrey, England: The Richmond Publishing. Saulitis, Eva, L.A. Holmes, Craig Matkin, Kate Wynne, David Ellifrit, and Cy St-Amand. 2015. Biggs Killer Whale (Orcinus orca) Predation on Subadult Humpback Whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Lower Cook Inlet and Kodiak, Alaska. Aquatic Mammals 41 (3): 341–344.

116

3 The Living Environment

Savinetsky, Arkady B. 1993. Ancient Population Dynamics of the Sea Cow (Hydrodamilis gigas Zimm., 1780) in the Late Holocene. Dkolady: Biological Sciences 326 (1–6): 403–405. Savinetsky, Arkady B., Bulat F. Khasanov, Dixie L. West, Nina K. Kiseleva, and Olga A. Krylovich. 2014. Nitrogen Isotope Composition of Peat Samples as a Proxy for Determining Human Colonization of Islands. Arctic Anthropology 51 (1): 77–85. Savinetsky, Arkady B., Nina K. Kiseleva, and Bulat F. Skassanov. 2004. Dynamics of Sea Mammal and Bird Populations of the Bering Sea Region Over the Last Several Millennia. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 209: 335–352. Savinetsky, Arkady B., Dixie L. West, Zhanna A. Antipushina, Bulat F. Khassanov, Nina K. Kiseleva, Olga A. Krylovich, and Andrei M. Pereladov. 2012. The Reconstruction of Ecosystems History of Adak Island (Aleutian Islands) During the Holocene. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gualtieri, 75–106. British Archaeological Reports International Series 2322. Oxford: Archaeopress. Scheffer, Victor B. 1959. Invertebrates and Fishes Collected in the Aleutians, 1936–38. In Fauna of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula, ed. Olaus Murie, 365–405. Washington, DC: Fish and Wildlife Service. Scheffer, Victor B. 1972. The Weight of the Steller Sea Cow. Journal of Mammalogy 53 (4): 901–914. Scheffer, Victor B. 1980. Adventures of a Zoologist. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons. Scheibling, Robert E., and Bruce G. Hatcher. 2013. Strongylocentrotus droebachiensis. In Sea Urchins: Biology and Ecology, 3rd ed, ed. John M. Lawrence, 381–412. Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science, Volume 38. San Diego, California: Elsevier. Shaffer, Scott A., Yann Tremblay, Henri Wimerskirch, Darren Scott, David R. Thompson, Paul M. Sagar, Henrik Moller, Graeme A. Taylor, David G. Foley, Barbara A. Block, and Daniel P. Costa. 2006. Migratory Shearwaters Integrate Oceanic Resources Across the Pacific Ocean in an Endless Summer. PNAS 103 (34): 12799–12802. Sharko, Fedor S., Eugenia S. Boulygina, Svetlana V. Tsygankova, Natalia V. Slobodova, Dmitry A. Alekseev, Anna A. Krasivskaya, Sergey M. Rastorguev, Alexei N. Tikhonov, and Artem V. Nedoluzhko. 2021. Steller’s Sea Cow Genome Suggests this Species Began Going Extinct Before the Arrival of Paleolithic Humans. Nature Communications 12: 2215. Sigler, M.F., L.B. Hulbert, C.R. Lunsford, N.H. Thompson, K. Burek, G. O’Corry-Crowe, and A.C. Hirons. 2006. Diet of Pacific Sleeper Shark, a Potential Steller Sea Lion Predator, in the Northeast Pacific Ocean. Journal of Fish Biology 69: 392–405. Sinclair, E.H., and T.K. Zeppelin. 2002. Seasonal and Spatial Differences in Diet in the Western Stock of Steller Sea Lions (Eumetopias jubatus). Journal of Mammalogy 83 (4): 973–990. Smith, Craig R. 2006. Bigger is Better: The Role of Whales as Detritus in Marine Ecosystems. In Whales, Whaling, and Ocean Ecosystems, ed. James A. Estes, Douglas P. Demaster, Daniel F. Doak, Terrie M. Williams, and Robert L. Brownell, 286–300. Berkeley: University of California Press. Springer, Alan M., Gus B. Van Vliet, John F. Piatt, and Eric M. Danner. 2006. Whales and Whaling in the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea: Oceanographic Insights and Ecosystem Impacts. In Whales, Whaling, and Ocean Ecosystems, ed. James A. Estes, Douglas P. DeMaster, Daniel F. Doak, Terrie M. Williams, and Robert L. Brownell, 245–261. Berkeley: University of California Press. Steiger, Gretchen H., John Calambokidis, Janice M. Straley, Louis M. Herman, Salvatore Cerchio, Dan R. Salden, Jorge Urbán-R., Jeff K. Jacobsen, Olga von Ziegesar, Kenneth C. Balcomb, Christine M. Gabriele, Marilyn E. Dahlheim, Senzo Uchida, John K.B. Ford, Paloma Ladrón de Guevara-P. Manami Yamaguchi, and Jay Barlow. 2008. Geographic Variation in Killer Whale Attacks on Humpback Whales in the North Pacific: Implications for Predation Pressure. Endangered Species Research 4: 247–256.

References

117

Stejneger, Leonhard. 1883. Contributions to the History of the Commander Islands: No. 1, Notes on the Natural History, Including Descriptions of New Cetaceans. Proceedings of the United States National Museum 6 (5): 58–89. Stejneger, Leonhard. 1887. How the Great Northern Sea-Cow (Rytina) Became Exterminated. The American Naturalist 21 (12): 1047–1054. Steller, George Wilhelm. 1988. Journal of a Voyage with Bering 1741–1742, ed. O.W. Frost. Translated by Margritt A. Engel and O.W. Frost. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Steneck, Robert S., Michael H. Graham, Bruce J. Bourque, Debra Corbett, Jon M. Erlandson, James A. Estes, and Mia J. Tegner. 2002. Kelp Forest Ecosystems: Biodiversity, Stability, Resilience and Future. Environmental Conservation 29 (4): 436–459. Stephenson, T.A., and Anne Stephenson. 1949. The Universal Features of Zonation Between TideMarks on Rocky Coasts. Journal of Ecology 37 (2): 289–305. Strayer, David L., Mary E. Power, William F. Fagan, Seward T. A. Pickett, and Jayne Belnap. 2003. A Classification of Ecological Boundaries. BioScience 53 (8): 723–729. Suzuki, Sachiko, Keiko Sekiguchi, Yoko Mitani, Hiroji Onishi, and Takehiko Kamito. 2016. Distribution of Dall’s Porpoise, Phocoenoides dalli, in the North Pacific and Bering Sea, based on T/ S Oshoro Maru 2012 Summer Cruise Data. Zoological Science 33 (5): 491–496. Swanson, J.D., and M.H.W. Barker. 1991. Assessment of Alaska Reindeer Populations and Range Conditions. Rangifer 12 (1): 33–43. Talbot, Stephen S., Wilfred B. Schofield, Sandra L. Talbot, and Fred J.A. Daniëls. 2010. Vegetation of Eastern Unalaska Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Botany 88: 366–388. True, Frederick W. 1884. The Sirenians or Sea-Cows. In The Fisheries and Fishery Industries of the United States: Section 1, Natural History of Useful Aquatic Animals, ed. G.B. Goode, 114–136. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Tschersich, Philip. 2007. Aleutian Islands and Atka-Amlia Islands Management Areas Salmon Management Report, 2006. Fishery Management Report No. 07–28. Anchorage: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Turner, Lucien M. 2008. An Aleutian Ethnography, ed. Raymond L. Hudson. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Turner, Lucien M. 1886. Contributions to the Natural History of Alaska: Results of Investigations Made Chiefly in the Yukon District and the Aleutian Islands; Conducted Under the Auspices of the Signal Service, United States Army, Extending from May, 1874, to August, 1881. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Turvey, S.T., and C.L. Risley. 2006. Modelling the Extinction of Steller’s Sea Cow. Biology Letters 2: 94–97. Ulman, Sadie E.G., Tuula Hollmén, Reid Brewer, and Anne H. Beaudreau. 2015. Predation on Seabirds by Pacific Cod Gadus macrocephalus Near the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Marine Ornithology 43: 231–233. Valdez, Richard A., William T. Helm, and John M. Neuhold. 1977. Aquatic Ecology. In The Environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska, ed. Melvin L. Merritt and R. Glen Fuller, 287–313. Virginia: National Technical Information Service, Energy Research and Development Administration, Springfield. Veltre, Douglas W. 2011. Gardening in Colonial Russian America: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Perspectives from the Aleut Region, Alaska. Ethnoarchaeology 3 (2): 119–138. Vecchio, Del, Tommaso Jucker Silvia, Marta Carboni, and Alicia T.R. Acosta. 2017. Linking Plant Communities on Land and at Sea: The Effects of Posidonia oceanica Wrack on the Structure of Dune Vegetation. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science 184: 30–36. Veltre, Douglas W., and Mary J. Veltre. 1983. Resource Utilization in Atka, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Technical Paper Number 88. Prepared for State of Alaska. Anchorage: Department of Fish and Game Division of Subsistence. Veniaminov, Ivan. 1984. Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Translated by Lydia T. Black and R.H. Geoghegan. Kingston, Ontario: The Limestone Press.

118

3 The Living Environment

Vermeij, Geerat J., A. Richard Palmer, and David R. Lindberg. 1990. Range Limits and Dispersal of Mollusks in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. The Veliger 33 (4): 346–354. Wainright, S.C., C. Haney, C. Kerr, A.N. Golovkin, and M.V. Flint. 1998. Utilization of Nitrogen Derived from Seabird Guano by Terrestrial and Marine Plants at St. Paul, Pribilof Islands, Bering Sea, Alaska. Marine Biology 131: 63–71. Waite, Janice M., and Kim E.W.. Shelden. 2018. The Northern extent of Pacific White-Sided Dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens) Distribution in the Eastern North Pacific. Northwestern Naturalist 99: 77–92. Walker, Charles W., M.P. Lesser, and Tatsuya Unuma. 2013. Sea Urchin Gametogenesis—Structural, Functional and Molecular/genomic Biology. In Sea Urchins: Biology and Ecology, 3rd ed, ed. John M. Lawrence, 25–43. Developments in Aquaculture and Fisheries Science, Vol. 8. San Diego, California: Elsevier. White, Clayton M., Francis S.L. Williamson, and William B. Emison. 1977. Avifaunal Investigations. In The Environment of Amchitka Island, ed. Melvin L. Meritt and R. Glen Fuller, 227–260. Virginia: National Technical Information Center, US Department of Commerce, Springfield. Whitehead, Hal. 2002. Estimates of the Current Global Population Size and Historical Trajectory for Sperm Whales. Marine Ecology Progress Series 242: 295–304. Wooley, Chris B. 2008. Stomping Alaskan Prehistory: How Unalaska Island Livestock Obliterate the Past. Paper presented at the 35th Annual meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage. Wootton, J. Timothy. 1991. Direct and Indirect Effects of Nutrients on Intertidal Community Structure: Variable Consequences of Seabird Guano. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 151: 139–153. Wynne, Kate. 1997. Guide to Marine Mammals of Alaska, 2nd ed. Alaska Sea Grant College Program: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Yesner, David R. 1976. Aleutian Island Albatrosses: A Population History. The Auk 93 (2): 263–280. Zerbini, Alexandre N., Nancy A. Friday, Daniel M. Palacios, Janice M. Waite, Patrick H. Ressler, Brenda K. Rone, Sue E. Moore, and Phillip J. Clapham. 2016. Baleen Whale Abundance and Distribution in Relation to Environmental Variables and Prey Density in the Eastern Bering Sea. Deep-Sea Research II 134: 312–330. Zerbini, Alexandre N., Janice M. Waite, Jeffrey L. Laake, and Paul R. Wade. 2006. Abundance, Trends and Distribution of Baleen Whales off Western Alaska and the Central Aleutian Islands. Deep-Sea Research I 53: 1772–1790.

Chapter 4

The People

Some say that in the beginning the earth was vacant, inhabited by nobody, but that once from the sky (á qádan, that is, from above) there fell to earth two beings in appearance resembling man but having long hair on their bodies. From them was born a pair (ingáchaˆgix) of beings who resembled them but were without fur. All people originated from this couple and began to spread to the east, west, and north (they do not mention the south, as they did not suppose that there were people there). The place where the first people originated was warm. There was neither winter nor storms but a perpetual salubrious air. The first people were long-lived, robust and strong. At first the people lived peaceably and in friendship, knowing no envy, enmity or hatred, and they knew no want. But with the increase of people, scarcities and needs began. The need taught them to make tools (implements) to hunt animals. Then came discord and enmities and the weapons were turned against men. Scarcities and oppression by the strongest compelled [the weaker] to migrate farther and farther from their original place of settlement and from this sprang all the nations. (Veniaminov 1984 [1840]: 221)

This account shared by the Unangaˆx, or Aleut people, about their arrival is not dissimilar from the accounts by archaeologists. The archaeological evidence to date is that people arrived on the Aleutian Islands from the Alaska mainland during the early Holocene epoch, about 9000 years ago after temperatures warmed following the last glacial period of the Pleistocene epoch. As populations grew in the east, people moved westward along the island chain, eventually reaching Adak Island 6000 years ago, Amchitka 4700 years ago, and the Near Islands in the far west about 2500 years ago (Corbett and Loring 2010: 118; Fig. 4.1). The higher populations during the later period, just before Russian arrival, are associated with many legends of raids and warfare between villages and neighboring groups. The story is similar, but told differently by archaeologists. Archaeologists use materials from Aleutian archaeological sites to determine when ancestral Unangaˆx lived in their villages, the kinds of artifacts they made, how they made houses, what they ate, and from where they collected the rock that they used for their tools. They also use these materials to understand what the people were doing, how they lived, how other groups influenced them, and how they interacted with their neighbors. Archaeologists ask questions about how people reacted to catastrophes such as earthquakes, tsunami, ash-falls, and volcanic eruptions. How © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Corbett and D. Hanson, Culture and Archaeology of the Ancestral Unangaˆx/Aleut of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44294-0_4

119

120

4 The People Climate

Western Islands

Eastern Islands

Western Alaska Peninsula

(Chapter 2)

Corbett et al. 2010)

Knecht & Davis (2001 )

Maschner ( 2004)

Late (Large sites) 1200 - 150 BP

Late Aleutian phase 1000-200 BP

Little Ice Age 600-100 BP

Central Islands

Medieval Climatic Anomaly 1200-1000 BP

Historic Chronologies McCartney (1984)

Morzhovoi 475-150 BP Izembeck 700-475 BP Cape Glazenap phase 850-700 BP

Hunting & Fishing (1,500-2,000 yrs)

Frosty Creek phase 1350-850 BP Early 2500 to 1200 BP

Amaknak phase 3000-1000 BP

arrival 2500 BP

Ram's Creek phase 1850-1350 BP Adamagan Phase 2350-1850 BP

Aleutian tradition 4450-150 BP

Kinzarof phase, 3250-2350 BP

Neoglacial 4200-2500 BP

Margaret Bay phase 4000-3000 BP

Dall (1877:73)

Littoral (1,000 years) Echinus (1,000 years)

Russell Creek phase 3550-3250 BP

Moffet phase 4950-3550 BP

Sandy Beach Bay 4800-4300 BP

Late Anangula phase 7000-4000 BP hiatus? arrival 6000 BP

Early-Mid Holocene 9000-5000 BP Anangula tradition 8000 BP Anangula phase 9000-7000 BP

Fig. 4.1 Archaeological periods and climatic events for the Aleutian chain

did they adjust to changing climates and the kinds of sea mammals and birds coming to the islands? How did relationships change both within and between villages as populations increased? What were their beliefs? Clues come from the context of artifacts and the ways they are made; from the soils, animal bones, plant remains in archaeological sites; from ancient and modern human DNA, and from the structures of their language, Unangam tunuu. Oral histories document events and lessons passed along over hundreds and thousands of years. Each clue provides insight into the lives of the women, children, and men living on the archipelago. The archaeologists’ goal is to change the image of the first people from faceless, shadowy characters to people with ambitions, adventures, and daily trials (Tringham 1991: 94). An early chronology developed for the Aleutian archipelago divided Unangaˆx history into two traditions (McCartney 1984: Fig. 4.2). Traditions are archaeological cultures at a regional level (rather than local) that last for an extended period. Archaeological traditions are usually written with the adjective capitalized and the word “tradition” in lower case. The oldest in the Aleutian Islands is the Anangula

The First Alaskans

121

tradition, named for the Anangula site. There is no evidence for this tradition on the Alaska Peninsula at this time, it is assumed to have spread from the peninsula to the Fox Islands between approximately 8500 years ago to 7700 years ago (McCartney 1984: Fig. 2). Some have also proposed that the first people moved directly from the expanded mainland along the extended coastline below the modern sea levels to Umnak Island (Laughlin et al. 1979: 94). There was a hiatus after this, broken by sites dating to 6500 years ago that marked the beginning of the Aleutian tradition in the eastern islands. The Aleutian tradition appears in the Andreanof Islands shortly afterward and extends westward to the Near Islands, ending archipelago-wide with the Russian period (McCartney 1984: Fig. 2). As more sites have been recorded, dated, and excavated, the chronology has become more complex, and the hiatus between the Anangula and Aleutian traditions is being filled. Regional chronologies with phases dividing these larger traditions were developed for the eastern islands and the Alaska Peninsula (Davis and Knecht 2010; Knecht and Davis 2001; Maschner 2016: Fig. 4.2). Knecht and Davis (2001; Davis and Knecht 2010) developed a chronology for Unalaska Bay that they later extended as a guide for Umnak and Unalaska Islands (Davis and Knecht 2010: 513). It is frequently applied to the whole archipelago although this is not appropriate given current understandings of local cultural histories. For the eastern islands and the Alaska Peninsula, Maschner (2016) expanded the two traditions into five: the Anangula tradition, plus the Incipient, Early, Middle, and Late Aleutian traditions. The various chronologies are available in Fig. 4.2 as a comparison, but the time ranges will change over the next couple of decades to account for currently uncorrected dates acquired from sea mammal bones and from old wood. New researchers are more selective with the materials they use to date sites and will establish new timelines. To avoid applying chronologies developed for the eastern islands to areas that have their own unique culture history, this chapter is divided by the climatic periods introduced in Chap. 2 and provides the background for the chapters that follow.

The First Alaskans The first people to occupy the Aleutian Islands came from populations moving from Siberia to Beringia and eventually to what is now the Alaska mainland (Fig. 4.1). Humans settled along the western edge of Beringia in what is now Siberia during the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) approximately 30,000 to 14,000 years ago (Hoffecker et al. 2016: 67). During this glacial period, Beringia stretched beyond the northern shorelines of Alaska and Siberia and southward to the Alaska Peninsula, a distance of nearly 1000 miles from north to south. The easternmost Aleutian Islands were connected to this landmass and to the mountains from the Alaska Peninsula through the Alaska Range, which were covered by glaciers that connected to ice sheets covering the Cascades and Coast Mountains of the Pacific Coast. Canada was

122

4 The People

completely covered by the Laurentide Ice Sheet. The ice fields to the south and to the east effectively cut off travel beyond central Alaska until the late Pleistocene. Rivers extended from their modern river beds onto the plains of Beringia. Their valleys had willow brush and various shrubs, and the adjacent grassland steppes supported large herds of grazers and browsers, including horse, mammoth, camels, and mastodon, and their predators such as scimitar cats and lions until most became extinct about 18,000 years ago. Mammoth and horses became extinct in most of Alaska about 12,000 years ago, leaving moose (Alces alces), wapiti or elk (Cervus elephus), bison (Bison priscus and Bison bison), muskoxen (Ovibos moschatus), and caribou (Rangifer tarandus) as the last large game holdouts of the late Pleistocene in Alaska. Wolves (Lupus sp.) and bears (Ursus spp.) were the remaining large predators (Guthrie 2006; Mann et al. 2013). Beringia bound the two continents of Asia and America and humans, animals, and plants spreading into new territories from either side. The continent-sized landform provided plenty of space for hunting and establishing villages. People followed herd animals, fished in the abundant lakes, took migrating birds, and gathered plants until the land mass split as glacial melt caused the seas to once again inundate Beringia, separating human, animal, and plant populations between Asia and the Americas along the broadening coastal edges. The Beringian Standstill Hypothesis (also called the Beringian Incubation Model), proposes that Beringia was large enough and had sufficient biomass to support between 5000 and 10,000 people and was available for human occupation over several thousand years, during which new DNA mutations were established (Hoffecker et al. 2016: 67, 74). Given the genetic and linguistic diversity of American Indigenous cultures, some archaeologists proposed that there was a long period of stable, longterm human occupation of Beringia. This model proposes that people moved into Beringia and separated from their Asian ancestors 24,900 to 18,400 years ago and lived in relative isolation for 8900 to 2400 year period (Llamas et al. 2017: 31). By 15,000 years ago, people were occupying central Alaska, and by 14,000 years ago, sites were established along the Pacific Coast of North America from central British Columbia and Oregon to the Pacific Coast of South America supporting a model of a “rapid” migration along the Pacific Coast (Erlandson et al. 1996; Gauvreau and McLaren 2017; Hoffecker et al. 2016; Jenkins et al. 2012; Potter et al. 2018). Another migration through the interior of Alaska, to central and southern North America, and to the East and Southeast coasts, occurred at nearly the same time (Llamas et al. 2017; Potter et al. 2018). A return migration from Beringia into Northeast Asia is also supported by genetic and linguistic evidence (Hoffecker et al. 2016: 76). Archaeologists who oppose the Beringian Standstill Hypothesis point to an absence of Siberian sites during the cold Late Glacial Maximum. Populations withdrew, and it was not until approximately 16,000 years ago, these archaeologists say, that people entered Beringia, eventually reaching Alaska approximately 14,000 years ago (Graf and Buvit 2017: S596). Variations in tool technology, Graf and Buvit (2017: S596) propose, were associated with adaptations to environmental changes and with adaptations to different hunting and processing methods. Genetic similarities identified using ancient DNA analysis from human skeletons in the Americas and

The First Alaskans

123

Asia show close relationships, implying less time had passed since their separation than would be expected if there was a long stopover in Beringia (Graf and Buvit 2017:S585). In either case, the First Americans arrived onto mainland Alaska before 15,000 years ago. The route for ancestral Unangaˆx is assumed to be through Southwest Alaska because of its proximity to the Chain. The Late Pleistocene vegetation cover in Southwest Alaska was dominated by herb tundra or grasslands with small floweringleafy plants. Hu and others (2002: 1158) describe this terrain as sparsely vegetated. About 13,600 years ago, birch shrubs increased, indicating that the tundra had shifted to shrub tundra with greater vegetation cover as temperatures and precipitation rose toward the end of the Pleistocene (Hu et al. 2002: 1158, 1159). This environment is more attractive to moose and bison and may have served to concentrate these animals in the southwest. During the subsequent colder Younger Dryas period that began 13,000 years ago, the vegetation reverted to herb tundra as moisture decreased. At the end of the Younger Dryas, temperatures rose again, and shrub tundra rapidly spread to become the dominant vegetation in Southwest Alaska by 11,600 years ago (Hu et al. 2002: 1160). Moose, as browsers, would find the shrub cover attractive and their territories grew with the warmer weather while grazing animals declined. Using radiocarbon dates from large, late Pleistocene fauna, Guthrie (2006) observed that bison, wapiti, and moose numbers increased in Alaska and the Yukon Territory during the Younger Dryas, while horse and mammoth populations decreased until they became extinct. The expansion of bison and wapiti range, combined with anadromous salmon and migrating waterfowl at the beginning of the Holocene, he proposes, drew increasing numbers of people into Alaska (Guthrie 2006: 209). The attractiveness of Southwestern Alaska browse likely drew moose and wapiti, along with their human predators, even as rising sea levels were moving animals and people onto modern land masses. Artifacts from the earliest sites on the Alaska mainland are usually interpreted as evidence for terrestrial mammal hunting. This is not surprising given that the coastal margins during the Late Pleistocene are now underwater, and sites that are reported are in foothills and higher elevations of Akhlun, Kilbuck, and Kuskokwim Mountains. Site placement is interpreted to be related to caribou observation sites or hunting camp sites (Ackerman 2011). Evidence for more permanent habitation/ village sites during this early period is lacking. The Lime Hills sites in the interior portion of Southwest Alaska in the Kuskokwim Mountain area date to 12,200 to 9700 years ago, well within the period of the Denali Complex (Ackerman 2011; Goebel and Potter 2016: 232). Denali Complex artifacts are characterized by small, parallel-sided stone blades (microblades) that were set into thin slots cut into antler points, knives, and wedge-shaped cores from which the blades were removed. The complex also has stone spear points flaked on both sides (bifacial working), and burins, or sharp-pointed flakes, made by removing a transverse flake across the blade edge and used for etching or engraving bone and antler. This is one of the first archaeological cultures identified in Alaska, and it is believed to have antecedents in the similar Diuktai Culture of Western Siberia and in the Tanana River Basin of Central Alaska (Hoffecker 2011: 165). The Denali Complex is represented both in

124

4 The People

Kamchatka, on the west side of Beringia, and in Interior Alaska of eastern Beringia (Hoffecker 2011: 167). The Mesa Complex developed in Alaska between 12,000 and 11,000 years ago, and Hoffecker (2011: 167) suggests it was associated with bison hunting. The Mesa complex at Spein Mountain also in Southwest Alaska dates to 11,600 BP (Ackerman 2001: 91; Hoffecker 2011: 167). Spein Mountain is interpreted as a hunters’ camp where people were making stone tools that included the large bifacial lanceolateshaped points that were probably attached to the ends of spears (Ackerman 2001). There also are well-formed scrapers. The Spein Mountain site included no microblades that is typical of Denali Complex assemblages. Both the Denali Complex and the Mesa Complex are present in Southwest Alaska at the end of the Younger Dryas into the early Holocene. By this time, people had already migrated well into the southern portions of the American continent. Sea ice covered the coastal waters of the Bering Sea during the Last Glacial Maximum until 14,900 years ago (Pelto et al. 2018: 102). Because Beringia blocked the waters to the Arctic Ocean, currents through the Aleutian Islands were weak and upwelling reduced, presumably decreasing biological productivity along the Chain. Core samples from Bowers Ridge, approximately 269 km (167 miles) northnorthwest of Amchitka Island, show the southern Bering Sea was not ice-covered, while data from cores north of Umnak and Unalaska Islands are used to argue that the eastern Bering Sea was ice-covered year-around (Pelto et al. 2018: 102). It may be that kelp forest environments persisted, at least in the nearshore southern islands or on the Pacific Ocean side of the archipelago. Warming and deglaciation occurred as productivity increased in the Bering Sea until the Younger Dryas, when sea ice expanded again (Pelto et al. 2018: 104). As the Bering Sea bisected Beringia, the sea ice pulled back. Beginning 11,700 years ago and through the early Holocene, the Alaska Stream strengthened and pushed through Umnak Pass. Upwelling is presumed to have increased as currents strengthened in the Aleutian passes. Low sea productivity from the Last Glacial Maximum until after 11,000 years ago, along with the lingering glacial cover on some of the eastern islands, may explain why the islands were not occupied until after the rest of the North Pacific Coast was settled. However, open sea productivity may not reflect nearshore productivity, for which there are no data. The simultaneous rise in sea level, reduction in sea ice, increased Bering Sea productivity, expansion of moose range, and receding glaciers in Southwest Alaska presumably acted to support and draw increasing numbers of people to the ancient Bristol Bay area, and from there to the Alaska Peninsula by 10,000 years ago.

The First Unangaˆx Arrive (ca. 9000 to 6000 Years BP)

125

The First Unangaˆx Arrive (ca. 9000 to 6000 Years BP) The Unangaˆx have lived on the Aleutian chain for at least the last 9000 to 8000 years, or since the beginning of the Holocene, judging from the dates of the earliest sites reported in the eastern Aleutian Islands (Fig. 4.2). These dates may change with additional work. Misarti and her colleagues (2012) argue that glaciers were already pulling back from the southern Alaska Peninsula shoreline by 17,000 years ago, and others estimate that the coastline was accessible by 14,000 to 13,000 years ago (Jordan and Krumhardt 2003: 23; Thorson and Hamilton 1986). Black (1975: 161) proposed that Ananiuliak Island, where the first early site was documented, was deglaciated 12,000 to 11,000 years ago. Anangula Blade site on Ananiuliak Island west of Umnak Island, excavated in the 1960s and 1970s, was reported in a number of high-profile articles (e.g., Laughlin 1970, 1975) and in a 1969 NBC television documentary, The First Americans (Aigner 1974: 12). Until relatively recently, it was the only site representing the first people to settle onto the archipelago. The Anangula Blade site dates to approximately 9000 years BP with an occupation estimated to have lasted anywhere from 500 to 1500 years although the shorter occupation duration is becoming more accepted (Aigner 1974: 15, 1977: 72; Davis and Knecht 2010: 513; Laughlin 1975: 512). Laughlin and his colleagues (1979) viewed the first people as the “Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge Coast” and proposed that they had moved along the coast from Siberia to Umnak Island, which he then thought was part of Beringia, reasoning that there they became isolated as sea levels rose (Aigner 1977: 69–70; Laughlin 1975: 515; Laughlin et al. 1979: 94). By 6000 years ago, he suggested, populations increased and some people moved eastward until their descendants reached Port Moller on the Alaska Peninsula 3000 years later. There, they encountered mainland groups from Southwest Alaska (probably ancestors of the Yup’ik), the long separation explaining differences between Unangam and mainland languages and cultures. Other Unangaˆx moved westward, eventually reaching Attu Island at about the same time. Laughlin views the point of origin for Unangaˆx people to be Umnak Island or an amalgamated series of islands joined by low sea levels. Since he published this scenario, there have been many more excavations, and a better understanding of the geological history of the region. Umnak Island was never part of Beringia, nor were the islands joined by low sea levels. Davis and Knecht (2010) excavated many sites in the Unalaska Bay area, making it one of the better documented parts of the Chain. Two of the older sites are on Hog Island, in Unalaska Bay. The Russian Spruce site (UNL-115) dates between 9477 and 8592 BP and Uknodok, also called the Oiled Blade site (UNL-318), dates between 9121 and 8661 BP (Davis and Knecht 2010: 511; Dumond and Knecht 2001: 27). People lived here for a short time before a pyroclastic flow from an eruption of Mt. Makushin to the west covered the small island and probably killed everything in its path. The sites were not reoccupied and were gradually buried by successive layers of volcanic ash and soil accumulation.

126

4 The People

It is intriguing to think that there are older sites on the Chain than these three, and there probably are. Archaeologists will need to survey at higher elevations in places where there has been tectonic uplift, as on Unalaska or Umnak Islands. The Anangula Blade site on Ananiuliak Island and the Hog Island sites are 12–35 m above the current sea level (Knecht and Davis 2001: 272). This is not a new observation; it was made originally by Hrdliˇcka (1945) and Bank (1953a: 502). Even intermediateaged sites are on upper terraces. Neoglacial-aged sites, for example, are 8–10 m above the modern sea level in the Unalaska area and about 7–10 m on Adak Island (Knecht and Davis 2001: 275; West and Crockford 2012: 317). Historically, most archaeological surveys were conducted along the coastline, with some exceptions (Corbett 1991, 2008; Desautels et al. 1971: 22, 24, 378–383; Funk 2011; Hanson and Corbett 2010; Hanson and Staley 1984; Knecht and Davis 2001: 272–273; Luttrell and Corbett 2000; O’Leary 2001; Sense 1969: 22, 62; Veltre et al. 1986). Old sites may be recorded more frequently as surveying methods and priorities change. Sites with Anangula-like tools have been documented on Unalaska Island, but not dated or excavated (Knecht and Davis 2001: 272; Veltre et al. 1986). Bank (1953a: 502) stated, “It is entirely possible that future reconnaissance will uncover the oldest sites on such uplifted beaches, and it may be that here is where the true beginning of Aleut culture will have to be sought.” Material culture or artifact style is often used as a substitute for the greater culture to identify social affiliations that are not otherwise visible archaeologically. This is despite the archaeological conundrum that any human culture can adopt new technologies while maintaining their separate cultural or political identity. Nor does language and biology necessarily travel with culture. Archaeologists hope to identify cultural affiliations through associations of many kinds of evidence. In this case, archaeologists use technology, language, and genetic information to try to identify Unangaˆx origins. Because stone is durable while organic artifacts decay over time, lithic technologies, the stone tool manufacturing methods, are used to identify cultures of the earliest people. Microblade technology appears early in American human history; consequently, this tool-making technique fascinates archaeologists trying to understand relationships among the first people of Alaska. Blades and microblades are long, narrow flakes produced from a prepared core. Blades serve as blank forms for other tools and, being larger, can be made into knives, drills, scrapers, and several other stone tools. When unmodified they might be used to cut hides, meat, plant stems, and grasses. Microblades are small versions (as are their cores), and they may be inset into organic handles of bone, ivory, or antler to create razor-sharp edges for knives, or bone points. Early Aleutian sites have microblades and microblade cores, as does the mainland at this time, but most of the artifact assemblages include large blades knapped from the abundant obsidian collected from Okmok caldera (Laughlin 1963; Speakman et al. 2012). The earliest blades and other tools in the Aleutian Island sites are unifacially worked, meaning small flakes are removed from one side to modify or sharpen the blade edges. Aigner (1977: 78) argued that the problem with comparing the Anangula core and blade technology with mainland Alaska sites was that the effect of different

The First Unangaˆx Arrive (ca. 9000 to 6000 Years BP)

127

geographic contexts could not be addressed. She observed that Anangula is a maritime site with a blade-making technology that was being compared to interior site assemblages thousands of miles away. The interior sites are also near one another. At the time, she did not know if the sites to which the Anangula assemblage was being compared even dated to the same period (Aigner 1977: 78). Her conclusions were not that different from those made by Gómez-Coutouly (2015) nearly 40 years later. He stated that if artifacts from the Denali complex, an early Holocene assemblage with microblade technology in interior Alaska, were placed in the Aleutian Islands, they would not be accepted as belonging to the Denali complex, and if artifacts from the Anangula assemblage were placed in the interior, they would be considered an unusual example of the Denali complex. Coastal sites with microblades in southeast Alaska are accepted as being similar to Denali complex sites, even when the rest of the assemblage is different. In other words, location is everything. “Based on comparisons, technological affiliations can be made with other Beringian sites, especially with contemporaneous microblade sites of Alaska” (Gómez-Coutouly 2015: 56). Gómez-Coutouly (2015) concludes that Anangula technology originates from mainland Alaska and was similar to other microblade-bearing cultures that are also found in interior Alaska and possibly northern Southeast Alaska. The Aleut language, or Unangam tunuu, may have developed from an ancient ancestral language related to the Na-Dene languages of interior and southeast Alaska. Fortescue (1998: 217) identifies a linguistic “substratum” that he links to the first people who occupied the Anangula and Hog Island sites. This substratum is most closely related to Eyak and Haida languages, also belonging to coastal groups (Leer 1991: 189). Leer (1991) associates these earliest coastal groups with a NorthernNorthwest Coast Language area that extended from the Aleutian Islands through Southcentral Alaska into what is now Southeast Alaska. According to this model, the initial languages were incorporated into Inuit related languages of people moving into the region later from the north (Fortescue 1998: 189). But language affinities do not necessarily reflect genetic relationships. DNA can help identify genetic history, but there are no human remains from these earliest Unangaˆx sites, so while archaeologists can find the homes, the tools, the places they cooked and worked, they have not seen the first people. Geneticists use the DNA from the skeletons of later people and from modern people to try to determine ancestry. It is more precise technology than that used by ancestry search companies for the general public, but the idea is the same. Modern and ancestral Unangaˆx have unique genetic characteristics that help identify their origins and their biological relationships to other groups. The most popular method is to use the DNA from cell mitochondria (mtDNA), because it is abundant in all cells and easiest to recover from tissues than is DNA from the cell nucleus (see the side-bar “DNA questions”). The mitochondria come from the mother’s fertilized egg and are copies of her mitochondria. These mitochondria are duplicated as the cell develops into a fetus, regardless of its biological sex. Females and males carry copies of their mother’s mitochondria. Another useful method is to use the portions of Y chromosomes that do not recombine with the X chromosome (called the non-recombining region of the Y chromosome or NRY).

128

4 The People

Y chromosomes are passed from fathers to male fetuses and are only found in the nucleus, so there is only one per cell (Matisoo-Smith and Horsburgh 2012: 33). Russian and Americans immigrants arriving in the Aleutian Islands were mostly men, contributing Y chromosomes into the Indigenous gene pool. Only 15% of modern Y chromosomes are Indigenous in contemporary Unangaˆx population compared to nearly 96% of the mtDNA, reflecting recent colonization (Zlojutro et al. 2009: 519, 522). Therefore, mtDNA analysis is more frequently used to estimate genetic relatedness among Indigenous populations. DNA Questions Three kinds of DNA are used to identify genetic relationships among populations. Nuclear DNA, organized into 46 chromosomes in humans, is in the nucleus of each cell and codes for the development and function of the organism. A description of the nuclear DNA is called the genome (MatsooSmith and Horsburgh 2012: 23–24). Two of the chromosomes are sex cells that will affect the physical sex of the individual, but other characteristics can also ride on those chromosomes. Normally females have two X chromosomes (a description of chromosomal shape under the microscope) and normally males have one X and one Y chromosome, although there is variation. In genetic studies using the Y chromosome inherited from the father, the data are more limited than data that uses multiple chromosomes in the nuclear DNA, since it only contains information passed from the father and can only be obtained from male individuals, leaving out most of that individual’s ancestry and about 52% of the total population (all of the women). But Y chromosome genetic analysis does have its uses when archaeologists and bioanthropologists are interpreting human interactions. For example, it might be used to determine if new people incorporated into a population are mostly foreign males, or if most children have local fathers. Another source of DNA is from the mitochondria of each cell. Mitochondria are organelles in the body of the cell. They are probably vestiges of symbiotic bacteria that became incorporated into the cell and now produce energy for the cell and regulate cell respiration and metabolism. The mitochondria duplicate themselves and have their own DNA that is unrelated to the nuclear DNA. There are about 2000 mitochondria in every cell in the body. The mitochondria you have are descended from the mitochondria that were within the unfertilized egg cell your mother produced. Therefore, your mitochondria are inherited from your mother, and her mother, and so on. No matter what your biological sex is, you were still born from an egg prepackaged with the mitochondria, and you carry those DNA in your cells (Matsoo-Smith and Horsburgh 2012: 33). Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) are often selected for analysis because of an assumption that there should be fewer external selective forces causing mutations, so the mutation rate would be predictable. Also, the mitochondria are all from females, so variations reflect differences between populations, and because it is more abundant, it is easier to collect. Recently, two assumptions

The First Unangaˆx Arrive (ca. 9000 to 6000 Years BP)

129

have been questioned, causing people to reevaluate their data. The first assumption being examined is that mitochondria are buffered from outside selective forces. Because mitochondria play an important role in cell metabolism, some researchers suggested that when humans moved from tropical Africa to Arctic and Subarctic Europe, Asia, and the Americas, there may have been a change in the rate of mutations in mitochondrial DNA, the reasoning being that individuals in the far north with more efficient mitochondria, survived better in Arctic conditions (Mishmar et al. 2003). Mishmar and his colleagues (2003: 175) proposed that the higher basal metabolism in northern populations, combined with a high fat diet to maintain the higher metabolism, was associated with mitochondrial mutations. Extensive studies testing the second assumption that the mitochondria originate from the female confirmed there was no evidence of male contributions to mtDNA (Matsoo-Smith and Horsburgh 2012: 33; Pyle et al. 2015). But a more recent examination of the mtDNA from three families showed male mtDNA could be transmitted to human offspring in appreciable amounts and could be inherited by the second generation (Luo et al. 2018). The egg normally carries about 100,000 mitochondria compared to the sperm with only about 100 (McWilliams and Suomalainen 2019: 296). To be detectible, the male mitochondria would not only have to survive, but it would have to been replicated at a rate high enough to produce similar numbers of mitochondria in the egg and subsequent cells, which it did in this case (Luo et al. 2018). The researchers who reported the “biparental” composition of the mitochondria in these particular families does not explain why “paternal transmission events seem to have left no detectable mark on the human genetic record” (Luo et al. 2018: 13043). While it is possible, the transmission of male mitochondria appears to be rare, and if sufficiently rare, it may not affect mutation estimates and calculations of evolutionary change for large populations. The rapid mutation rate of mtDNA allows researchers to identify divisions within closely related populations more easily than they could using the slower responding nuclear DNA (Matsoo-Smith and Horsburgh 2012: 34). The oldest mitochondrial lineages are identified with the letter L. Within L3 are mutations divided into M and N. Mutations within these group may be identified with a number following the letter (e.g., M3 is common in South Asia). Members of a haplogroup can trace their origins to common ancestors that carried those mutations. The mutations they inherited from their parents and individually carry is their haplotype. For example, the Unangaˆx population has Haplogroups A and D, as do a number of Asian and American groups. Haplogroup D originated in northeast Asia and is a mutation of the ancestral lineage M. Haplogroup D1 is a mutation found throughout the Americas; D2 throughout the Arctic and Subarctic, including the Aleutian Islands; D3 throughout Siberia and among Canadian Inuit, and so on (Volodko et al. 2008). Using a number/letter/number designation, much like a specific mailing address that identifies the region, city,

130

4 The People

street, building, and finally an apartment, these groups are further divided by the mutations increasingly unique to each population. Haplogroup D2a1a is characteristic of Unangaˆx carrying the D haplotype. Haplogroup A developed from the N ancestral lineage. For people carrying the A haplotype, the unique mutation for the Unangaˆx, Yupik, Iñupiaq, and Chukchi is Haplogroup A2a1a (Crawford et al. 2010). When geneticists talk about Haplogroup D arising in eastern Asia 40,000 to 60,000 years ago, how do they know this? Geneticists call the time that passes since the occurrence and transmittal of a particular mutation a “molecular clock.” This is an idea that the greater the differences in DNA being compared, the more time has passed since the two populations had a common ancestor. If geneticists can determine the rate at which mutations occur, they can calculate the amount of time that has passed. To help isolate when a mutation was introduced, they create “calibration points” to help them estimate the rates of mutations. Some of these calibration points might be events that separated human populations, such as when humans first left Africa or when humans first entered the Americas (Matsoo-Smith and Horsburgh 2012: 56–57). They compare the genetic differences between the populations that remained in Africa, or the people that stayed in Siberia and the descendants of the emigrating people. That is why it is critical to determine which factors might affect mutation rates (e.g., population size, metabolic changes, age at reproduction, and estimates for the number of generations.) Error ranges in the time estimates are an indication of statistical confidence in the amount of time that has passed since the mutations occurred. Sometimes error ranges are so large that they provide only the most general information. For example, the A2a1 mitochondrial haplogroup is estimated to have developed 600 ± 1420 years ago (Dryomov et al. 2015: 1401–1402), meaning that event occurred sometime between 2020 years ago (= 600 + 1420 years) and 820 years into the future (= 600 − 1420 years)! An error range so great that it includes years into the future is non-sensical. Besides making it difficult to determine when Haplogroup A2a1 developed from A2a, the error range decreases the usefulness of the estimate to archaeologists trying to interpret the history for a region. DNA analysis provides useful tools for archaeologists, but like all new techniques, it has limitations. One issue is recognizing the difference between biological ancestry and the transmission of culture, technology, and language. You can learn a new language or adopt a new tool manufacturing technique without a biological invasion or genetic transmission. Another concern is that if the molecular clocks are set using events identified from archaeological data and radiocarbon dates, then it hardly makes sense to use the genetic information calibrated from those data to confirm the archaeological interpretation for the same event (for example the separation of two groups). It is a circular argument, and the addition of a new scientific technique does not forgive faulty logic (Matsoo-Smith and Horsburgh 2012: 56–57).

The First Unangaˆx Arrive (ca. 9000 to 6000 Years BP)

131

If you would like more information, an excellent resource about DNA analysis and its use in archaeology is Elizabeth Matisoo-Smith and K. Ann Horsburgh, DNA for Archaeologists, published in 2012 by Left Coast Press, Inc., Walnut Creek, CA. Indigenous North American populations carry mtDNA Haplogroups A, B, C, D, and X (Crawford et al. 2010: 700). Ancestral haplogroups are labeled alphabetically using letters in the order in which the haplogroups were discovered (Matisoo-Smith and Horsburgh 2012: 35–36). Unangaˆx carry exclusively mtDNA Haplogroups A and D. The earliest populations only had Haplogroup A; Haplogroup D appears later, based on the current data (Smith et al. 2009). Mutations within haplogroups have alpha-numeric designations. The A2 haplogroup is characteristic of American Indian, Na-Dene, Yupik/Iñupiaq/Inuit, Unangaˆx, and Chukchi of Siberia (Crawford et al. 2010: 703). Crawford and others (2010: 702) estimated that this clade or group formed approximately 8077 ± 2435 years ago. The A2a1 haplogroup subset includes Chukchi, Yup’ik and Iñupiaq/Inuit, and Unangaˆx. Group A2a is estimated to have developed approximately 3940 ± 2160 years ago, and the A2a1 cluster 600 ± 1420 years ago (Dryomov et al. 2015: 1401–1402). The Unangaˆx have a unique mutation identified as A2a1a that would have developed even more recently (Crawford et al. 2010: 701). Haplogroup D2a1a is unique to the Unangaˆx. This haplogroup is estimated to have developed 1400 to 1000 years ago (Dryomov et al. 2015: 1401). Related groups carrying the ancestral form Haplogroup D2a1 are Tuniit or Paleo-Inuit, represented by the Saqqaq in Greenland (3600–4170 years ago), the Middle Dorset of central Canada (2000–1500 years ago), and the Sireniki, a Siberian Yupik group on the southern Chukchi Peninsula of Siberia who carry D2a1b (Dryomov et al. 2015: 1401). With few sites representing the period between 9000 and 7000 BP, it is unlikely that archaeologists have an accurate understanding of the spatial extent or the timing of the arrival of the first people onto the Aleutian Islands. To accurately date arrivals, you have to be fortunate enough to find the right sites, and the sites must be excavated. The oldest sites tend to be small, sparsely distributed, at upper elevations, and under many meters of soil and volcanic ash. So far such sites have not been identified on the Alaska Peninsula or among the easternmost Aleutian Islands. This is probably a consequence of archaeological sampling that can only be resolved by more surveys and excavation of early core and blade sites. Linguistic, genetic, and archaeological data all describe an ancestral coastal group that moved along southwestern Alaska to the North Pacific, and some of these people made their way into the highly productive Aleutian Islands at the beginning of the Holocene.

132

4 The People

7000 to 6000 Years Ago At one time, archaeologists assumed there was a hiatus, or a gap in the archaeological record between the initial occupation and about 6000 years ago (McCartney 1984; Fig. 4.2). This hiatus exaggerated the differences in artifact styles and technology between the Anangula tradition and the following Aleutian tradition. Given the hiatus between the Ananagula and Aleutian traditions, McCartney (1984: 123) outlined three explanations about their relationship. One was that there was cultural and population continuity over many thousands of years from the first occupation at Anangula to the present in Unangam culture and the differences are from cultural evolution in place. Another was that Alaska Peninsular and Kodiak Archipelago cultures blended with ancient Unangaˆx culture changing its composition, and a third explanation was that the Anangula people disappeared and later, a new group moved in who become the Unangaˆx. Explanations for the hiatus itself are varied and some speculated that the Okmok, Vsevidof, or Recheschnoi volcanic eruptions covered Anangula with ash, or the Makushin eruption produced a pyroclastic flow that covered sites on Hog Island and Unalaska Bay, or some other disaster, made the region uninhabitable. Others suggested environmental changes made the region less suitable for occupation causing the eastern islands to be abandoned, later to be repopulated either by unaffected people living nearby or by a new, unrelated people from mainland Alaska (Dumond and Knecht 2001: 27; McCartney 1971: 97; Mason 2001; Rogers et al. 2009). A recently excavated site on Amaknak Island, caused archaeologists to reevaluate the hypothesis that people abandoned the area. Davis and Knecht (2010: 516) note that there are a number of undated sites 8 to 20 m above the current sea level in the Unalaska Bay area that were occupied shortly after the pyroclastic flow from Makushin volcano. One of these is the Amaknak Quarry Site (UNL-469), discovered by Shawn Dickson in 2005. Cultural Resource Consultants, LLC, excavated the site in 2007 and determined the cultural layers all rest on top of the pyroclastic flow (Rogers et al. 2009). The dates they obtained from wood charcoal placed the site between 8040 and 6740 cal BP, securely within the hiatus period. For now, this is the only site reported that dates to this period, but it demonstrates that people quickly re-inhabited the area soon after the eruption. A bifacially worked point from the Quarry site is a single representative of bifacial technology. Bifacially worked tools are not normally found in the earliest sites and this technical change, combined with the more typical microblades, blades, cores, unifacially worked tools, and choppers recovered at older sites, link the Quarry site with the early sites and with the sites that follow at approximately 6000 years BP. It is a single component site with a small artifact assemblage (Davis et al. 2016: 289; Rogers et al. 2009). Davis and his colleagues (2016: 284) concluded that new artifact types adopted as bifacial technology were added to the unifacially worked tools that dominate in the oldest sites. They stated, “This is the least-known segment of the Aleutian tradition…and UNL-469 is the first site from this time to be excavated”

Settling in and Spreading Out (6000 to 4200 BP)

133

(Davis et al. 2016: 289). Data from this site are used to argue for Unangaˆx cultural continuity from the Anangula tradition to the present.

Settling in and Spreading Out (6000 to 4200 BP) More sites are documented dating between 6000 and 4000 years ago, filling a hiatus between sites occupied by the first people at Anangula and Hog Island (Anangula tradition) and the later people (Aleutian tradition; Fig. 4.1; McCartney 1984). By this time, the Unangaˆx were well established and had been successfully living in the archipelago for 3000 years. They were gradually moving westward along the Chain, settling into the Central Aleutian Islands and the Rat Islands by 6000 BP, and the western islands 5500–5000 years ago (Funk 2011: 29, Fig. 2; O’Leary 2001: 221; West et al. 2012: 15). In the east, sites first appear on the western Alaska Peninsula (Maschner 1999). West and Crockford (2012: 318) describe a gap in site dates between 6000 and 4000 years ago on the north side of Adak and suggest that people moved elsewhere or that archaeologists have not yet surveyed or dated sites on the higher terraces on the north part of Adak Island. Hanson (2013; Anders and Hanson 2020) and her crew recorded one site on southwest Adak that dates to 5100 years old, but most of the other sites in southwest Adak were also 4000 years or younger. Likewise, Funk (2011: 48) identified a hiatus between 5700 and 4200 years ago in the Rat Islands but notes that this could either be because unrecorded sites have yet to be dated or because people stopped using this island group. If the central and western islands were abandoned, they were not reoccupied until the Neoglacial period. Savinetsky and his colleagues (2010: 82) stated that 6250 BP was cool, changing to a warmer period in the central and western islands between 5750 and 4750 BP. This suggests an interesting correlation between proposed hiatuses and warmer conditions. On the Alaska Peninsula, however, this warmer and wetter period precedes the initial Moffet phase (Jordan and Krumhardt 2003: 23). The culture history of the Unangaˆx living in the central and western islands is poorly understood, and more research is needed to determine if there is a hiatus at all or if more sites need to be dated. This period from 6000 and 4200 BP was once represented only by the Sandy Beach Bay site (SAM-040) on Umnak Island, dated between 6600 and 5600 years old (Aigner et al. 1976; Davis et al. 2016: 287). This site has been joined since by several other excavated sites, including the lower levels of the Margaret Bay site (UNL-048) on Amaknak Island in Unalaska Bay, the Sanagan site (UNI-125) on Akun Island, and the Tutiakoff site (ADK-171) on the north side of Adak Island (Corbett and Yarborough 2016: 618; Davis et al. 2016: 289; West et al. 2012: 15). Common cultural patterns include houses presumably entered through the middle of the roof (given the lack of side entrances), work stations for knapping outside the house or on the roof, hearths along the wall edge of the house floor, stone lamps that used sea mammal oil to light and heat houses, palettes and ochre grinders, incised stone, net sinkers and line weights, and scoria grinders (Aigner 1977: 98–101; Davis

134

4 The People

and Knecht 2010: 518, Table 4). While styles might change over time, with new technology added and old technology removed, some of these core features are retained from their ancestors. By 6000 years ago, people produced bifacial points, knives, and other tools. One of the better documented sites from this period is the Margaret Bay site in Level 5, the earliest occupation, which dates between 6281 and 5749 BP (Knecht et al. 2001: 35, 42). Blades and microblades were still used and ochre, found in small patches in the site, maintains its importance. There are adzes for wood-working, presumably on drift logs washed ashore; pumice and scoria abraders for sanding wood or shaping bone and ivory tools; knives for processing animals for food, bags, or clothing or to cut plant stems and roots; beautiful bell-shaped scrapers to process hides; stone bowl pieces; and small lamps to light and heat the house. For the first time, ground slate appears in the assemblage, although it is rare, as is a calcined (bone burned white), barbed, bone harpoon, with barbs carved on either side of the shaft (Knecht et al. 2001: 56). Only a small corner of what may be a house was recorded, so little information was gained from it other than to note it was semi-subterranean, though probably not dug deeply into the ground (Knecht et al. 2001: 54). More information came from Level 4 (5645–4867 BP) because shellfish altered the acidic soil enough to preserve bone. This site has the oldest preserved bone tools in the Aleutian Islands. Knecht and his colleagues (2001: 53) found pins from throwing boards or atlatls. Atlatls were used well into the historic period to throw harpoon-tipped spears at sea mammals. Domestic items included root picks, wedges, and flakers used to make stone tools. One item may be a pin for a nose piercing. The bone tools also provide clues about regional associations. Harpoons in the Margaret Bay site are similar to Ocean Bay style harpoons on Kodiak Island and the adjacent Alaska Peninsula while the lithic assemblages are not at all similar. Yarborough (Corbett and Yarborough 2016: 288) also observes that the assemblage from the Sanagan site on Akun Island “demonstrates strong ties to Ocean Bay 1 and Takli Alder sites on Kodiak Island and the Alaska Peninsula.” Davis and his co-investigators (2016: 296) state that while there was contact, judging from artifact manufacturing technology and material, the cultural differences “suggest that the ethnic boundaries between these regions may be very ancient.” The Tutiakoff site (ADK-171) on northern Adak Island is the oldest site recorded in the Central Aleutian Islands dated 6041 to 5734 BP (Wilmerding and Hatfield 2012: 213). It is at the north end of the island in Clam Lagoon, approximately 20 m above the modern shoreline. Like the sites on Unalaska Island, it too has shell deposits or midden, primarily from cockles (Clinocardium nuttallii), that preserved women’s bone tools in the sediments, primarily awls (six) and a bone needle from the original test in 1999 (Luttrell and Corbett 2000: 47). Another five awls from bird wing bones, a needle preform, and worked bone fragments were collected in 2005 (West and Hatfield 2012: 289). These tools are evidence of sewing and hide working although whether they were sewing clothes, bags, or kayak and boat skins (or all of these) is unknowable. Women’s contribution and importance within their culture is obvious from these artifacts. Scoria fragments were probably used to grind bone tools (as needles or awls that needed sharpening), to sand wood, or possibly

Mid-Holocene Cooling (4200 to 2500 BP)

135

to work leather. No lamps or net sinkers were recovered, but one griddle stone piece came from the site. Griddle stones are assumed to have been used like frying pans to heat food (Wilmerding and Hatfield 2012: 213). Stone fragments, cores, and flakes were left behind after tool-making, and a projectile point and knife and flakes presumably used for cutting, scraping, and engraving were recovered from the excavations (Wilmerding and Hatfield 2012: 213). No house remains were found in the Tutiakoff site, so the site provided no additional information about house form. The evidence from the initial occupations provided an outline of the characteristics of the earliest people to occupy the chain, but the period between 6000 and approximately 4000 years ago provides enough data to start filling in details as bone tools and shell and bone food remains are recovered. Wood tools, woven grasses, and gut and hides, which presumably contributed the most to the culture, are still not found, and their presence can only be inferred from the bone and stone artifacts.

Mid-Holocene Cooling (4200 to 2500 BP) After 4200 years ago, temperatures dropped over a 2000 year period to levels not seen since the Pleistocene. Colder temperatures during the Neoglacial period attracted iceloving mammals to the eastern Aleutian Islands. The sea ice extended to Unalaska Island, bringing ringed seal, bearded seal, and polar bear (Crockford and Frederick 2007; Davis 2001). Fur seal and walrus rookeries were also probably restricted to the Aleutian Islands, and the ice limited whale migrations to the southern Bering Sea, concentrating medium to large sea mammals near the archipelago. Archaeologists assume that this cool period is associated with cultural changes as people developed new clothing and houses to keep warm and possibly modifications to kayaks and open boats to help hunters exploit more abundant marine resources as sea mammals were forced southward. New political and social arrangements likely arose as populations increased, affecting individual families. This is also when people settled the westernmost islands and, with no new territories to expand into as population increased, began establishing villages in new areas all along the Chain. At Margaret Bay, Amaknak Bridge, and Chaluka, houses were constructed with rock-lined walls and subfloor hearths, sidewall chimneys, and floor features that include rock-covered ditches or ducts leading to the house center from the hearth (Aigner 1978; Gordaoff 2016; Knecht et al. 2001; Rogers 2011). An upland house in southwestern Adak Island at ADK-237 is a simpler version of the Unalaska Bay structures (Gordaoff 2016). An untested assumption is that these subfloor hearths and associated rock-lined ditches functioned to heat the floor sediments or perhaps to move heated air through the semi-subterranean house interior. At the beginning of this culturally dynamic period, either a new technology or new people appear in the eastern islands, associated with an archaeological culture called the Arctic Small Tool tradition (ASTt). ASTt developed in Siberia as the Bel’kachinsk culture, but the pottery that was part of the archaeological assemblage in Siberia was left behind when the distinctive lithic technology appeared suddenly in sites on the

136

4 The People

West Coast of Alaska during a warmer period 5000 years ago (Hoffecker 2005: 127). It quickly spread eastward to Greenland and southward to the Cook Inlet of Alaska during the Neoglacial period. The fascination for archaeologists stems from ASTt technology’s rapid spread through multiple environmental zones within 500 years, the remarkable consistency of the unique stone tool technology, and the nearly 2000 year duration of the tradition in the Arctic (Tremayne and Rasic 2016: 353). Organic artifacts and faunal remains are infrequently recovered, making understanding this culture difficult; interpretations rely on landscape analysis and stone tool types to establish subsistence practices. By 2200 years ago, ASTt disappeared, evolved into later archaeological cultures, or was absorbed by dominant regional cultures. ASTt stone tool technology is unlike tools of the Alaska cultures that precede it. The tools are often small and skillfully knapped, usually on fine-grained cherts. Other characteristics of an ASTt toolkit are “mitten-shaped” burins, small bi-pointed end- and side-blades or projectile points, and carefully knapped flakes and scrapers. Microblades appear in early assemblages, but not in later assemblages (Tremayne and Rasic 2016: 353). Margaret Bay and Chaluka have components with ASTt-like technology (Davis and Knecht 2005; Denniston 1966: 111). Artifact forms and knapping techniques in ASTt-period components at both sites match ASTt tools elsewhere, but other kinds of tools in the assemblages and the houses do not look like those of ASTt sites on the mainland. Dumond (2005: 73) does acknowledge the fine flaking typical of ASTt tools, but considers them large or “gross” compared to the Brooks River Gravel phase tools on the Alaska Peninsula (Dumond 2005: 74). Besides the size of the tools, he also notes that other ASTt sites do not have stone lamps, stone-lined houses, houses entered through the roof (instead of from the side), nor evidence for atlatls or throwing boards (ASTt people are assumed to have used bows; Dumond 2001: 298). Bows, however, are not compatible with maneuvering sea kayaks, because the kayaker always has one hand on the paddle, but atlatls can be used one-handed (and were used well into the Russian period). Therefore, it is unlikely that bows would have been adopted by the maritime adapted Unangaˆx, although they may have been used for land hunting (see Chap. 6). Dumond (2001, 2005) calls this the Macro Margaret Bay phase culture that is separate from the more finely knapped tools of the Brooks River Gravels phase and SEL-00033 on Kachemak Bay in Cook Inlet in Southcentral Alaska (Workman and Zollars 2002). Recent scholars are more charitable in their assessment of the legitimacy of Aleutian and Western Peninsular ASTt-bearing sites (e.g., Hatfield 2010: 540; Prentiss et al. 2015). Prentiss and her co-authors (2015) find the Brooks Gravel phase and the Margaret Bay materials more closely associated than either is with other ASTt sites in Alaska. The upland house at ADK-237 on Adak Island in the Central Aleutian Islands has features similar to the Margaret Bay ASTt houses and stone tools that encourage additional examination of sites from this period (Gordaoff 2016; Tremayne personal communication). The question then is how far west does ASTt-like technology, or an ASTt-influenced culture extend into the archipelago? Dumond (2005: 74–75) notes that ASTt-like tools are on Unalaska Island when ASTt is present in southern Alaska, and he speculates that ASTt cultures followed

Mid-Holocene Cooling (4200 to 2500 BP)

137

the sea ice southward during the Neoglacial, causing them to interact with Aleutian Island people on the Alaska Peninsula. It appears he is suggesting the technology was transferred and integrated within the dominant culture of the Aleutian Islands. Given the short duration of characteristic ASTt artifacts in the eastern sites, the technical knowledge may have been modified to meet the new conditions, or it may have been incorporated into the earlier culture relatively rapidly. Knecht and Davis (2001: 276) cite as evidence that Kodiak Island people were interacting with people from the Aleutian Archipelago during the early Neoglacial period, based on the presence of ground slate knife blades from ulus (semi-lunar shaped blades from “women’s” knives that are still used today but with steel blades), spear points or lances, and jet decorative items in sites of the eastern Aleutian Islands. These artifacts are more typically found in Kodiak Archipelago sites. This combined with ASTt-type technology and the characteristic Unangaˆx assemblage foundation, supports an impression that people maintained connections with their eastern neighbors through the rest of Unangaˆx history. It is not apparent if the interactions are through exchanging spouses, trading highly valued items and technology, or warfare, or all of these. It is clear that the Unangaˆx did not develop as an isolated culture, but participated with the other Subarctic cultures of Alaska while maintaining their traditional material culture, as they do today. As mentioned in Chap. 2, VanderHoek (2009) presented evidence for a gap in the occupation of the Alaska Peninsula because of volcanic eruptions between approximately 3400 BP and 2300–1700 BP. He suggests this caused a separation of the Unangaˆx on the peninsula and archipelago from the people on mainland Alaska that is reflected in cultural and linguistic differences. This corresponds roughly with the Amaknak phase on Unalaska Island sites which Davis et al. (2016: 286) describe as a “fluorescence of the Aleutian tradition in terms of the variety and complexity of the toolkit.” Meanwhile on the Alaska Peninsula, Maschner (2016: 331) reports that during this period, sites become scarce, and those that are present are small. Hardly the fluorescence described for sites in the archipelago. It may be that the effects of the volcanism was greatest for adjacent people than to the rest of the archipelago, keeping in mind that the Unangaˆx are master boat handlers, and a terrestrial block would not necessarily be an impediment to contact with other eastern cultures. While the eastern people were circulating among cultures on the Alaska mainland and Kodiak archipelago, others expanded to the westernmost islands of the Chain. Increasing numbers of Neoglacial-aged sites recorded on Adak Island indicate that populations in the Central Aleutian Islands have been underestimated (Anders and Hanson 2020; Hanson 2013). If the hiatus that Funk (2011: 48) identified in the Rat Islands is not a sampling problem, populations either increased after 4200 BP to the point where they are more obvious archaeologically, or the island group was reoccupied and higher populations supported or encouraged an expansion westward. By 2500 years ago, people were settling into the Near Islands from the Rat Island group (Corbett and Loring 2010: 118). Savinetsky and his co-investigators (2014: 81) documented a marked decline in nitrogen isotopes (δ15 N) of peat deposits on Shemya Island between 3400 and 2500 years ago. They argue this is evidence for a drop in sea bird populations with the introduction of humans as a new predator. They

138

4 The People

place Unangaˆx arrival on Shemya at 2800 years ago. Corbett and her colleagues (2010: 211) speculated the “pristine islands with untapped hunting grounds must have electrified the Aleuts.”

The Climate Moderates (2500 to 1200 Years BP) Veltre (2012: 40) notes that few reported sites pre-date 2500 years in the Central Aleutian Islands. This may be because sites 2500 years old and later are found near the modern coastlines throughout the archipelago, and the coastal edge is the focus of most surveys, particularly since many of the early coastal surveys were made from research vessels or skiffs traveling around the island edges. Sites that post-date 2500 years ago also have well-developed middens, larger house depressions, and lush vegetation growth, and they are therefore more visible than the thin deposits and smaller houses that characterize older sites. Even late upland sites are better defined than the earlier upland sites. There are more data about site location, size, house characteristics, settlement patterns, and material culture for Unangaˆx culture after 2500 BP than before. Corbett and her co-researchers (2010: 201, 211) describe an expansion period approximately 2000 years ago in the western islands when increasing populations moved into newly established villages. They state that the ideal village locations were first occupied by small groups, while the first generations of people became familiar with their new home. From the first villages on Attu, Alaid, Agattu, and Shemya Islands, new villages spread along the coastline. On Attu Island, one of the earliest “Chiefs’ Houses” was excavated at the Murder Point site (ATU-014; Corbett 2011). The 1855 to 1300 BP dates for the Chief’s House fit into this period of settling and expansion in the Near Islands. The Chiefs’ House at Attu Island was one of the larger house depressions in the village site and included a whale skull buried snout down into the house floor, leaving the rounded skull back as part of the floor surface. In the center, holes supporting house supports had unique items placed at the base, and caches of unusual items were buried in holes inside the house (Corbett 2011: 11–12). The houses may indicate that social complexity was already developed in the western islands with some houses having special construction and unusual items compared to neighboring houses (see Chap. 7). From the Rat Islands to the Alaska Peninsula, large midden sites are common, with many house and cache pits dimpling the surfaces, a characteristic that continued well after Russian arrival (Corbett and Yarborough 2016: 615; Funk 2011: 48; Maschner et al. 2010: 25). Shells in the soil shift sediments from an acidic volcanic ash to a basic soil that preserves bone well. This increases the number of food remains, bone tools, and whale-bone house structural parts, improving the confidence of archaeologists in their interpretations and understandings of ancient Unangaˆx life. In the east, this period is identified as the Amaknak phase (Davis and Knecht 2010; Knecht and Davis 2001). It is during this period that umqan, large burial mounds bounded by an upside-down V- or U-shaped ditch begin appearing in eastern and central

Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climatic Anomaly (1200 …

139

islands (O’Leary and Bland 2013: 150, 162). Knecht and Davis (2001: 277) propose that these new features may represent “significant changes…in social organization or belief systems in the Amaknak phase.” Style variation of tool types is greater than any time before, indicating greater technical complexity, and bone tools have more decorative elements, although the meanings associated with the decoration are unknown.

Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climatic Anomaly (1200 to 600 Years BP) The Medieval Climatic Anomaly period was warmer, shifting back to cool temperatures 1000 years ago on the peninsula and 600 years ago in the central and eastern islands. Enormous long houses appeared archipelago-wide, perhaps housing multifamily corporate groups similar to the large households on the Northwest coast. From the Fox Islands eastward, these houses are elaborate, some with short “halls” added to the sides of a central long house and others with round side rooms budding off the main house (Corbett and Yarborough 2016: 614; Veltre and McCartney 2001). Veltre and McCartney (2001: 101) concluded that greater house size was associated with greater social rank in the eastern islands. It appears that Chiefs’ Houses may have had similar roles of reflecting more complex structure in the Near Islands. This period corresponds roughly with the Late Aleutian phase 1000 to 200 years ago (Knecht and Davis 2001; Fig. 4.2). In addition to the long houses, Knecht and Davis (2001) noted that refuge sites on top of small islands are a symptom of increasing warfare and greater social complexity, and that ground slate ulus and lance blades from the Kodiak Island archipelago became more abundant in the eastern islands, indicating more contact with southcentral Alaska during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly (Knecht and Davis’ (2001: 279). Using carbon and nitrogen isotopes from human remains, Misarti and Maschner (2015: 79) demonstrated that people during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly were eating fewer animals from high trophic levels (fewer seals, sea lions, and possibly migrating fishes.) People from the Umnak Island region were probably increasing their consumption of animals that ate more plants, such as geese and dabbling ducks; shore foods; and nearshore fishes. How geography affects this conclusion remains to be determined. Approximately 1000 years ago, the Thule, ancestors of the modern Sugpiaq, Yup’ik, Iñupiaq, and Inuit, were spreading into the southcentral, western, and northern edges of Alaska, the northern third of Canada and Greenland. In the Aleutian Islands, researchers seemed to be seeking a similar incursion, identifying a new group that is proposed to have moved into the archipelago approximately 1000 years ago, called the Neo-Aleut.

140

4 The People

Who Are the “Neo- and Paleo-Aleuts,” and Are They Real? In 1945, Aleš Hrdliˇcka presented a hypothesis that two groups of people he called the “pre-Aleuts” and the Aleuts had moved onto the Aleutian Islands. The division was developed from his analysis of human crania taken from mummified people placed in burial caves and from burials in ancient village sites. There was no radiocarbon dating then, nor was the cultural history well understood, so site ages and ages of skeletal remains were estimated from midden deposit depths (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 411– 412; Ousley and Jones 2010: 635). This division of pre-Aleuts from late-arriving Aleuts was a marked departure from the prehistory as it was understood by earlier investigators like Dall and Jochelson who proposed a single people moving into the Chain long ago and developing their culture in place (Dall 1970b; Hrdlicka 1945: 2; Jochelson 1975 [1925]). Hrdliˇcka classified the crania into two groups using shape, with pre-Aleut skulls having a longer, narrower skull (dolichocephalic) and the Aleut skulls being broader and more rounded (brachiocephalic). The material culture was then divided into the same two categories using general stratigraphic associations or material culture placed in caves with mummified people (Laughlin and Marsh 1951: 77). Hrdliˇcka (1945: 547) also proposed that there was originally no genetic relationship between pre-Aleut and Aleut people and that the Aleut people had moved into the islands: A few hundred years ago, from the Alaskan Peninsula, and gradually spread westward over the islands, some of which may have been abandoned by the earlier population. They came into contact with remnants of the latter and sometimes intermarried with them; what was left of the pre-Aleuts in time lost their separate identity, though some survived on the Andreanov and more western islands until the coming of the Russians. The Aleut occupational remains generally form only a thin veneer over the much thicker earlier deposits. (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 553)

While Hrdliˇcka (1945: 553) suggested that the Aleut came from the Alaska Peninsula, he believed they were not Yup’ik but had a closer relationship to people of Kodiak Island or perhaps the Tungus from the Amur River region of Siberia. Laughlin and Marsh (1951) took up Hrdliˇcka’s banner and confirmed a difference in skull shape, with central and western Unangas having long heads and eastern modern Unangan people having broader or rounder heads and dental differences. They changed the terms to Paleo-Aleuts and Neo-Aleuts, stating that Neo-Aleut populations never moved beyond the Fox Islands. They argued that the Paleo-Aleut were “an Eskimo people pushing out into the Aleutians from the mainland over 4000 years ago, with an open-sea culture” with an “Eskimo” (Inuit) physical morphology (Laughlin and Marsh 1951: 82). They had not yet dated the Anangula Blade site occupied 5000 years earlier. They suggested that a new group had migrated from the mainland 1000 years ago with a similar culture (Laughlin and Marsh 1951: 82, 87). Laughlin and Marsh (1951: 79) stated, “It is therefore inaccurate to speak of the Aleuts as a single, homogeneous population. They constitute two major breeding isolates.” In his overview of Unangaˆx archaeology written soon after, Bank (1953b) disagreed. Bank (1953b: 45) noted that skulls from the lower levels of Amaknak site

Who Are the “Neo- and Paleo-Aleuts,” and Are They Real?

141

D at Dutch Harbor would be classified as Neo-Aleut. He compared these levels to the lower levels of Chaluka, then dated at 3020 radiocarbon years. This contradicted Hrdliˇcka’s (1945) and Laughlin and Marsh’s (1951) assertions that brachycephalic individuals arrived late into the Aleutian archipelago. Bank (1953b: 47) questioned whether the identification of two populations was chronological. He stated, “One cannot overlook entirely the possibility that arbitrary selection, not stratigraphic separation, is the basis for delimiting two skeletal series from the Aleutians” (Bank 1953b: 47). Bank (1953b: 48) proposed instead that a founder effect was a more probable source for cranial variability. If a few individuals moved westward who did not carry the full genetic variability of the eastern population and became isolated, they might look physically different from the original population. At the same time, the eastern people were interacting with neighboring eastern groups in “a continuous ebb and flow of cultural and genetic exchanges in southwestern Alaska and the eastern Aleutians” (Bank 1953b: 48). Later, Laughlin and Aigner (1975) discarded the theoretically outdated and, by then, unpopular explanation of migration for a more modern evolutionary explanation for the source of variation. The rounder skull shape of the eastern Aleutian Islands in the past 1000 years was proposed to be from selection in place while the longer skulls in the west were closer genetically to the original population (Laughlin and Aigner 1975: 198). They argued that these are not two unrelated groups but a single population, with greater genetic variation occurring in the east. This would account for the lack of cultural change in the archaeological record that would be expected with an in-migrating group from the Alaska mainland. It also preserved their model of an isolated population on the archipelago. They stated: This anatomical distinctiveness of the Aleuts is congruent with several thousands of years of relatively independent evolution with minimal external contact. An evolutionary change in cranial vault morphology from narrow to broad recorded in the archaeological sites suggests the effect of selection in the more numerous, but not more densely settled, eastern Aleut isolate. (Laughlin and Aigner 1975: 200)

In the end, Hrdliˇcka and Laughlin produced graduate students who perpetuated their model for Unangaˆx history while Bank did not, and their hypothesis was adopted by most American researchers working in the Aleutian Islands. Some researchers noted the problems with the methods used to identify the two populations and the absence of material cultural indicators (artifacts, house types) for a new population coming from the east (e.g. McCartney 1984: 121). Lydia Black (1983: 56) argued against researchers trying to mold other data to support the hypothesis. She stated, “Most disturbing is the extension of the evolutionary model to explanations of cultural diversity in space and cultural variation over time.” While popular, the Paleo/NeoAleut divide was not universally accepted. Over the 70 years since Hrdliˇcka (1945) presented his hypothesis, archaeologists have been arguing about when this migration occurred and what the interactions were, as they tried to identify the differences from the material culture and subsistence, where the two groups came from, and whether they were really two separate populations and not one that changed in isolation. The Neo-Aleut arrival shifted from

142

4 The People

“a thin veneer” to 1000 years ago, but considerable analysis time, research funding, and print have been spent postulating the particulars of this migration with scant evidence. Only recently have investigators addressed whether the division is real. New analytical techniques allow researchers to develop independent tests of Hrdliˇcka’s and Laughlin’s hypotheses. Bioarchaeologists are also using traditional techniques by re-measuring the Unangam crania to determine if Hrdliˇcka’s (1945) initial interpretations were correct. Ousley and Jones (2010) reanalyzed the skull morphology, analyzed the mtDNA, and radiocarbon dated many of the human crania initially collected by Hrdliˇcka. They recorded Hrdliˇcka’s classification and the collection location for each skull. After their analysis, they concluded that there was no shift in cranial shape between eastern and western Unangaˆx as had been proposed by Laughlin and that head shape variation was associated more with time than geography (Ousley and Jones 2010: 643, 647). Mitochondrial DNA Haplogroups A and D were not associated with cranial shape, as might be expected since mitochondrial DNA do not affect physical appearance. They also found that the cranial shapes varied within groups, with more recent remains showing more variation than earlier remains. Part of the reason little variation was observed in the older population might be that only three individuals pre-dated 1000 years, and this interpretation could be an artifact of sampling. Plasticity is the tendency for physical variation during growth to be associated with external conditions unrelated to genes, such as diet and nutrition, illness, environment, or social stress. Ousley and Jones (2010) suggested that plasticity might account for physical differences observed in the skulls. They made no conclusions about the source of the variation, except to say that there are probably not “two genetically distinct populations” (Ousley and Jones 2010: 649). Maley (2016) compared Unangaˆx skulls collected from Kagamil Cave on Kagamil Island west of Umnak Island, from Chaluka on west-central Umnak Island, and from Shiprock Island caves on the east side of Umnak Island. He also compared the skeletal remains of these individuals to the remains of people from the southwestern and northwestern Alaska mainland. He found no difference between the cranial morphology of people who died before 1000 years ago and those who died after 1000 years ago, the proposed date for the shift from Paleo-Aleut to Neo-Aleut skulls. He found the morphology of the Paleo-Aleut skulls more similar to mainland skulls than Neo-Aleut, although the Unangaˆx were more like each other than they were like any other group (Maley 2016: 78–79). Using the data from this restricted area around Umnak Island, he concluded there was no evidence of a new population coming from the mainland approximately 1000 years ago, nor did he find evidence that they were separate populations internally; “rather these morphological analyses suggest the Aleut occupants are part of a temporally and spatially continuous single population” (Maley 2016: 82). Using a combination of cranial descriptions, radiocarbon dates, and mtDNA analysis, researchers tested hypotheses about new populations migrating into the archipelago approximately 1000 years ago. Smith and others (2009: 422) note that the contemporaneous Paleo-Aleut and Neo-Aleut people are genetically identical to modern Unangaˆx populations, but that Paleo-Aleuts before 1000 BP have mtDNA that is different from later Unangaˆx and modern Unangaˆx. The oldest skeletons from

Who Are the “Neo- and Paleo-Aleuts,” and Are They Real?

143

Chaluka only have Haplogroup A, but after 1000 BP, there is a mix of Haplogroup D and A in both Paleo- and Neo-Aleuts (Smith et al. 2009). Haplogroup A dropped from 73% before 1000 BP to 27% afterward in Eastern Unangaˆx skeletons. They note that this shift is not seen for any other time (Smith et al. 2009: 420). The sample, however, is limited to a small area around Umnak Island, including Kagamil Island, Shiprock, and Chaluka, using the remains of individuals collected by Hrdliˇcka (1945). The oldest samples are all from Chaluka, and only 11 of the 69 samples pre-date 1000 BP. As Smith and her co-researchers (2009: 421) note, the oldest mtDNA data come from a small sample from a single site, making it difficult to judge conclusions about the introduction of a new haplogroup. Three of the 11 individuals in the pre-1000 BP category are later (around 1400 BP), yet are members of Haplogroup D (Smith et al. 2009: 419, Fig. 2b). From their data, it is apparent that the people over the last 1000 years, and possibly slightly earlier, carried both Haplogroup A and D. They state that additional research needs to be conducted before the source for the variation is understood. Using the same individuals that Hrdliˇcka (1945) collected plus the remains of two people collected by Dall (1970b), Coltrain and her colleagues (2006) analyzed carbon and nitrogen isotopes sampled from the bone to determine if there was a dietary difference between Paleo-Aleut and Neo-Aleut people. Paleo-Aleut and NeoAleut identifications were presumably the cranial categories defined by Hrdliˇcka, and they collected radiocarbon samples from each individual so they could be accurately dated. In this particular study, all but one individual from Chaluka was identified as Paleo-Aleut, all individuals from Kagamil were identified as Neo-Aleut, and the Shiprock people were placed into both categories. Of the 80 samples, ten individuals from Chaluka are older than 1000 years. Coltrain and others (2006) concluded that Neo-Aleuts ate proteins from a higher trophic level. This would be from animals that eat other animals, such as seals, sea lions, birds, and fish-eating fishes (like some salmon, sharks, cod). Paleo-Aleuts showed a lower trophic level diet, which would include, besides plants and seaweed, and animals that eat plants, as do intertidal animals; plant-eating ducks and sea birds; near shore fishes; and perhaps planktoneating whales. Their conclusion was that a more socially complex group that moved from the mainland depended on higher trophic level protein sources than did PaleoAleuts. They used this conclusion to identify social classes maintained between the newly arrived Neo-Aleuts and the indigenous Paleo-Aleuts based on the assumption that high-status foods came from high trophic level sources, and low status foods came from lower trophic sources (Coltrain et al. 2006: 545). Again, all but one of the individuals from Chaluka were classified as Paleo-Aleut and all the individuals from Kagamil were classified as Neo-Aleut. The isotopic data may have been identifying people who exploited different environments. Chaluka has a large intertidal zone, access to low-lying lakes, and protected bays that are conducive to exploiting waterfowl, intertidal fauna, and nearshore fishes. A salmon stream extends from the beach to the lake behind the Chaluka site. Kagamil Island, meanwhile, is one of the small islands among the Islands of the Four Mountains between Samalga and Amukta passes. Historically, the people there were whale hunters (Black 1987: 13, 15, 2003: 38). The islands lack a large intertidal zone, but

144

4 The People

there are pinniped haul-out sites all around the island (NOAA 2001: Map W03). Coltrain and the other investigators (2006: 545) state, “Between-site differences are largely due to the intersite distribution of Paleo- versus Neo-Aleuts.” They later state that “persistent differences existed in the economic practices of Paleo- versus NeoAleut foragers” that identify the Neo-Aleut population as “a distinct, socially and economically complex foraging population” (Coltrain et al. 2006: 545). Byers and others (2011: 189) reviewed the data and stated that “these data suggest that the individuals interred at Kagamil and Shiprock had access to higher trophic level, higher ranked prey than Aleuts recovered from Chaluka Midden, regardless of craniometric affiliation.” They concluded the data represent the environment near the source site and not social status of Neo-Aleut or Paleo-Aleut populations (Byers et al. 2011). Older populations at Chaluka also had diets from lower trophic levels than their descendants. When accounting for location, contemporary Neo- and Paleo-Aleuts showed no difference in their diet, nor was there a difference in diet between men and women (Byers et al. 2011: 190). Misarti and Maschner (2015: 79) also argued that Coltrain’s interpretation did not take into account the local environment, and after they analyzed new samples, they concluded that there was no difference in the social status of the Neo- and Paleo-Aleut individuals, using diet as a criterion, when the people were interred within the same cave and in the same conditions. But when they examined the overall difference in diet between people who were buried and people who were mummified, they agreed with Coltrain and her colleagues (2006) that there were dietary differences between low and high-status people, contradicting Byers and his colleague’s (2011: 190) statement. They modified Coltrain and her co-investigator’s (2006) hypothesis, instead suggesting that there was a difference in social status within the community and not a new group of immigrants gaining greater status (Misarti and Maschner 2015: 80). Different diets can also cause different skull shapes, and the variation both in diet and morphology might be related to increasing social complexity and differential access to high quality (higher trophic) foods approximately 800 years ago (Misarti and Maschner 2015: 81). Analysis of mtDNA from living Unangaˆx people has also been used in an attempt to identify ancient origins and to determine if more than one population contributed to modern Unangaˆx biology. Zlojutro and his colleagues (2009: 517) found that Haplogroup D was less frequent in the eastern Aleutian Islands than it was in the west. King Cove (n = 31) has 45% Haplogroup D, Sand Point (n = 35) has 45%, Unalaska (n = 28) has 39%, Nikolski on Umnak Island (n = 10) has 60%, and Atka in the Central Aleutian Islands (n = 17) has 70% (Crawford et al. 2010: 700, Fig. 2, Table 2; West et al. 2007: 50, Table 1). Relative to eastern groups, Haplogroup D increases markedly at Nikolski on Umnak Island. If Haplogroup D is supposed to be associated with Neo-Aleut people and Haplogroup A with Paleo-Aleut people, then one would expect a higher portion of the modern population to have Haplogroup A in the west, where researchers argued they have Paleo-Aleut type crania. Again, it is almost certain that mtDNA has nothing to do with cranial shape, if, of course, there even are different cranial shapes. It is also interesting that Haplogroup D is higher in the modern community of Nikolski since that is also the modern village that occupies

Little Ice Age and the Arrival of Russians (600 to 200 Years BP)

145

the Chaluka site on Umnak Island, and since the Kagamil and Shiprock burial caves are on either side of Umnak Island. The ancient DNA analysis may be saying more about this particular region than about the archipelago as a whole. The greater frequency of Haplogroup D in the west compared to the eastern islands also does not support Misarti and Maschner’s (2015: 81) suggestion that the genetic shift in mitochondrial DNA is an indication of increasing numbers of women coming from outside the Chain as “imported wives” for elite-class men. If women were brought in, through capture or more peaceful interactions with Kodiak Archipelago people, Haplogroup D frequencies would be expected to be higher in the east than the west. This is not the pattern. Flegontov and colleagues (2017: line 153) present data using ancient DNA (aDNA) of the nuclear genome of Arctic people, including 11 people from the Aleutian Islands who died between 2320 and 140 years ago. They found no aDNA evidence for a difference between proposed Paleo- and Neo-Aleut populations, nor did they find evidence of a new population moving into the Chain during the Thule expansion along the coastal North American Arctic approximately 1000 years ago. They stated, “… the Aleutian population largely remained continuous during this transition…” (Flegontov et al. 2017: line 357). West and her co-authors (2019) called into question the 1000 BP date originally proposed by Laughlin and Marsh (1951) that served as the chronological marker for the division between Paleo-Aleut and Neo-Aleut populations. They note that a correction factor of 495 ± 20 years must be used (making the corrected dates younger) for remains coming from Kagamil and Chaluka and that the date for the shift reported in mtDNA analyses is closer to 700–800 years ago as is proposed by Misarti and Maschner (2015). If the populations are not different, as is argued using evidence from nuclear DNA and from the bioarchaeological analyses, then what does this say about attempts to tie cultural developments with biological interactions between these two “groups”? This brings us back to Lydia Black’s (1983: 56) caution about linking cultural variation to genetic evolutionary shifts. The cultural changes may be associated with increasing population sizes and social complexity and not with a physical change at all. In fewer words, there is no such thing as Paleo-Aleut or Neo-Aleut.

Little Ice Age and the Arrival of Russians (600 to 200 Years BP) The Little Ice Age was not as cold as the Neoglacial period nearly 4000 years earlier, but it was cold enough to cause environmental changes. The Little Ice Age was also associated with severe cultural disruption as Europeans moved from their own continent and expanded into the Northeast Pacific. Since marine productivity increases with colder temperatures (see Chaps. 2 and 3), Misarti and Maschner (2015: 79) used carbon and nitrogen stable carbon isotopes to demonstrate that Unangaˆx diets

146

4 The People

in the eastern islands showed more animals were eaten from higher trophic levels during the Little Ice Age. These would presumably be seals, sea lions, and carnivorous fishes such as salmon and cod. With increasing marine productivity supporting increasing human populations, this period of Unangaˆx history is characterized by higher populations and increasing social complexity during the later period, with large multi-family houses in the central and eastern islands and the continuation of Chiefs’ Houses in the west, greater evidence of social differences, and large villages (Corbett 2011; Hoffman 1999; Veltre and McCartney 2001). In the Semichi Islands in the Near Island group, people began moving into a few large villages, leaving behind the more sparsely occupied house clusters after 1000 BP. Corbett and her colleagues (2010: 206) interpret this shift as being “related to increasing political control by the chiefs.” Social ranking of the “haves” and the “have nots” reduced some people to dependents of the wealthy and powerful. As described in the short Unangaˆx description of their origins at the beginning of this chapter and in a multitude of legends, the later period is characterized by increasing populations and warfare. Political differences are identified archaeologically by defensive structures, refuge sites, and weapon points designed specifically to kill people. Because archaeological sites from this period are near the modern shoreline and the house features are more distinct with high, built-up walls, deeply excavated floors and, in some cases, structural remains still visible on the surface, these sites are also more frequently recorded and tested. Archaeologists need to cautiously interpret sites from this era and not use them to confirm historic descriptions from the Russian period. For example, early explorers who stated that fire was rarely used or that the Unangaˆx did not store food have been contradicted by archaeological evidence of cache pits inside and outside houses, interior rock-lined roasting pits, and household hearths (Corbett et al. 2001: 260, 263; Hoffman 1999: 159; Sarychev 1969 [1806]: 72; Veltre and McCartney 2001; See Chap. 7). Either from contact or shipwrecks, exotic goods also appear in some late, pre-contact period houses. Chinese coins and lead shot at Agayadan Village (UNI-067; Hoffman 1999: 151) may require that archaeologists reevaluate the primacy of Russian contact from outside the normal Unangaˆx sphere during this period. Trade to the eastern islands from mainland Alaska and inter-island trade are evident through ground slate as a material and Kodiak Island artifact types (Knecht and Davis 2001: 279). Obsidian trade in the archipelago is documented from the earliest to recent times, and obsidian from Okmok caldera on Umnak Island and from Akutan Island appears in sites from Amchitka Island to Kodiak Island (Speakman et al. 2012). As found in a sarcophagus on Unalaska Island, amber and amber beads were originally attributed to “Korean amber,” but more likely these have a local origin, since amber is found on Unalaska Island, Umnak Island, and the Alaska Peninsula (Dall 1970a: 476; Weyer 1929: 234). Grewingk (2003: 75) reported that the amber on Unalaska Island was found on a slope beside a lake. He stated that the amber was “found in a removable soil” and that “The Aleuts have two boats on it [the lake], which they cover up with a fur. Onto that fur they throw the soil, from which they glean the amber” (Grewingk 2003: 75). He also reported amber on Unalaska Island,

Little Ice Age and the Arrival of Russians (600 to 200 Years BP)

147

west of Makushin Volcano, based on statements by Postels, a naturalist who visited the Aleutian Islands in 1827. Veniaminov (1984 [1840]: 23) also stated that he had seem some of the amber collected near lakes in the mountains of Unalaska Island that is “rather dark and not very pure. The Russian period, particularly the early years between 1741 and 1800, was catastrophic to Unangaˆx culture (Veltre 1990). Many people either died from disease or were raped and murdered by ships’ crews. As men were forcibly taken away from their villages to act as translators and hunters for months or years at a time, birth rates dropped, and there was no one to hunt for large sea mammals that provided much of the oil and fat to make other foods edible, causing their families at home to starve (Turner in Veltre 1990: 179). A conservative estimate of the population drop in the first 60 years of contact with the Russians was 80% (Veltre 1990: 178) although estimates of pre-contact populations are undoubtedly low and the population loss was likely closer to 90%. Settlement patterns changed as people by necessity began assembling into fewer villages. The Russians also began moving people into larger central villages to assist in controlling the population. Islands that had been heavily occupied for 6000 years or more now had no villages and no people. Within half a century of meeting the first Russian ships, the powerful and knowledgeable Unangaˆx were valued primarily as a skilled laborer class by the Europeans. As they were moved from place to place to work for the fur companies, they lost their original religion; family and community structure; elders; legends; cultural, medical, and religious experts; villages; and homes (Veltre 1990). The rapid culture loss would have been disorienting for the first generations of Unangaˆx, but the effects have lasted many generations. Historic archaeology of Unangaˆx sites occupied during the Russian period are rare. The few sites that have been excavated include Reese Bay on Unalaska Island by Veltre and McCartney (2001) and Korovinski on Atka Island by Veltre (2001). Turner (1972; Turner and Turner 1974) also tested historic sites on Akun Island. The Reese Bay site documents continuity in Unangaˆx culture in the stone and bone tool types. It also shows the incorporation of some Russian culture during the earliest years, in the form of glass beads, metal nails, buttons, cartridges, cloth, and shoes. Korovinski was occupied later than Reese Bay. Based on historic artifact styles, it was established as a Russian era village between 1749 and the 1820s, and abandoned in the 1870s. There are remains of a church, sod-walled gardens, boat slips, a Russian Orthodox cemetery, and numerous square, two-roomed houses (Veltre 2001). The appearance of traditional tools, however, was interpreted as mixing from older levels at the village and not an indication that Unangaˆx tools were used simultaneously with Russian tool types (Veltre 2001: 207). Some traditional burial forms or ulaakan continued to be used after Russian arrival (O’Leary and Bland 2013: 143). Eventually the traditional graves were replaced by Russian Orthodox style graves (Veltre 2001). Houses changed to small above-ground, square homes with built-up sod or timber walls and side doors designed to accommodate nuclear families instead of extended families, and to accommodate European concepts of house form, among other reasons, since Russians were uncomfortable using a log ladder to enter a house. Kayaks continued to be used but were modified

148

4 The People

for commercial sea otter hunting. Unangam tunuu, the original language, was maintained and Russian was incorporated. Ivan Pan’kov, an Unangaˆx man from Tigalda Island, and Russian Priest Father Ioann Veniaminov developed a written version of the language. The literate Unangaˆx sent letters to one another in their own language (Veltre 1990: 182). Unangaˆx women began tending gardens. The gardens had enclosed walls, probably to keep out domestic animals (Veltre 2001: 200, 2011: 128; Veniaminov 1984 [1840]: 31–32, 41–42). The gardens may have also been an attempt to grow more starchy foods to compensate for the loss of calories when men were taken away and were no longer able to support their villages with meat and fat (Veltre 2011). The produce was not necessarily grown only to augment the traditional plant foods but also to supply Russian ships, the Russian-American Company employees left behind, and church officials (Veltre 2011: 127, 135). Unlike pre-contact components, Russian era strata at the Korovinski site have little bone or shell, reflecting a change in subsistence during the Russian era (Veltre 2001: 204). Turner and Turner (1974: 41) proposed that there would have been a reduction in the amount of food, but not the kinds of food during the historic period. But their study showed from the cans in the upper, Russian period layers, that there were diet changes at Akun Island. Archaeologists rely on written records by European explorers and settlers to interpret the archaeology of traditional culture. Sometimes these records provide insights not otherwise obtained from material items, and they can be invaluable. Written with the religious and social biases of the individual recording the events or activities, they are not objective observations, however. Knowledgeable Unangaˆx religious specialists or historians may have also chosen not to share information inappropriately with outsiders. The high death rate from introduced diseases, forcible relocations, kidnapping, and slaughter erased much of the cultural memory in some areas as elders and parents died before passing lessons along to the youth and as different groups were amalgamated into single villages to be more easily controlled by Russian fur company administrators or priests. To survive and to protect their families, the Unangaˆx made courageous and difficult adjustments that affected their priorities, and this is the period later settlers documented. The written record, while useful, still needs to be used cautiously and tested using evidence from the archaeological record. Through the Russian and American periods, ancient Unangam patterns and knowledge continue to be expressed today. People still speak Unangam tunuu and knowledgeable adults pass traditional knowledge to succeeding generations. Kayak (iqyaˆx ) building, sea lion hunting, fishing, and the gathering of intertidal foods and terrestrial plants continue 10,000 year-long traditions in the chain. Archaeological sites help relay messages accrued over thousands of years from ancient Unangaˆx to their children many generations distant.

References

149

References Ackerman, Robert E. 2001. Spein Mountain: A Mesa Complex Site in Southwestern Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 38 (2): 81–97. Ackerman, Robert E. 2011. Microblade Assemblages in Southwestern Alaska: An Early Holocene Adaptation. In From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting lithic assemblage variability in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia, ed. Ted Goebel and Ian Buvit, 255–269. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Aigner, Jean S. 1974. Studies in the Early Prehistory of Nikolski Bay: 1937–1971. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16 (1): 9–25. Aigner, Jean S. 1978. Activity Zonation in a 4000 Year Old Aleut House, Chaluka Village, Umnak Island, Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 19 (1): 11–25. Aigner, Jean S., Bruce Fullem, Douglas Veltre, and Mary Veltre. 1976. Preliminary Reports on Remains from Sandy Beach Bay, a 4300–5600 B.P. Aleut Village. Arctic Anthropology 13(2): 83–90. Aigner, Jean S. 1977. Anangula: An 8,500 B.P. coastal occupation in the Aleutian Islands. Quartär 27/28: 65–104. Anders, Jake, and Diane K. Hanson. 2020. Radiocarbon Dates from the Central Aleutian Upland Archaeological Project, Southwest Adak Island: 2007–2012. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 18 (2): 74–81. Bank, Theodore P. 1953a. Biological Succession in the Aleutians. Pacific Science 7: 493–503. Bank, Theodore P. 1953b. Cultural Succession in the Aleutians. American Antiquity 19 (1): 40–49. Black, Robert F. 1975. Late-Quaternary Geomorphic Processes: Effects on the Ancient Aleuts of Umnak Island in the Aleutians. Arctic 28 (3): 159–169. Black, Lydia. 1983. Some Problems in Interpretation of Aleut Prehistory. Arctic Anthropology 20 (1): 49–78. Black, Lydia. 1987. Whaling in the Aleutians. Études/inuit/studies 11 (2): 7–50. Black, Lydia T. 2003. Aleut Art, 2nd ed. Anchorage, Alaska: Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association. Byers, David A., David R. Yesner, Jack M. Broughton, and Joan Brenner Coltrain. 2011. Stable Isotope Chemistry, Population Histories and Late Prehistoric Subsistence Change in the Aleutian Islands. Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 183–196. Coltrain, Joan Brenner, M. Geoffrey Hayes, and Dennis H. O’Rourke. 2006. Hrdliˇcka’s Aleutian Population-Replacement Hypothesis: A Radiometric Evaluation. Current Anthropology 47 (3): 537–548. Corbett, Debra G. 2011. Two Chiefs’ Houses from the Western Aleutian Islands. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 3–16. Corbett, Debra, and Stephen Loring. 2010. Shemya Island Site Descriptions. In The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island, ed. Debra Corbett, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre, 107–132. Aurora, Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series, Vol. 8. Anchorage: Alaska Anthropological Association. Corbett, Debra, and Michael Yarborough. 2016. The Aleutian tradition: The Last 4000 years. In The Oxford Handbook of the Prehistoric Arctic, ed. T. Max Friesen and Owen K. Mason, 607–629. New York: Oxford University Press. Corbett, Debra, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre. 2001. Prehistoric Village Organization in the Western Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 251–266. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Corbett, Debra, Christine Lefèvre, and Dixie West. 2010. Chronology and Settlement Patterns: Shemya and the Semichi Islands. In The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island, ed. Debra Corbett, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre, 197–207. Aurora, Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series, Vol. 8. Anchorage: Alaska Anthropological Association.

150

4 The People

Corbett, Debra G. 1991. Aleut Settlement Patterns in the Western Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Master’s thesis. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Corbett, Debra G. 2008. Shemya Island and the Question of “Inland” Sites in the Aleutians. Report to the US Air Force. Elmendorf AFB: 611th Civil Engineer Squadron, Joint Base Elmendorf Richardson (JBER), Alaska. Crawford, Michael H., Rohina C. Rubicz, and Mark Zlojutro. 2010. Origins of Aleuts and the Genetic Structure of Populations of the Archipelago: Molecular and Archaeological Perspectives. Human Biology 82 (5–6): 695–717. Crockford, S.J., and S.G. Frederick. 2007. Sea Ice Expansion in the Bering Sea During the Neoglacial: Evidence from Archaeozoology. The Holocene 17 (6): 699–706. Dall, William H. 1970a. Alaska and Its Resources. Reprinted. Arno Press Inc. and the New York Times, New York. Originally published 1870, Sampson Low, Son, and Marston, London. Dall, William H. 1970b. On Succession in the Shell-Heaps of the Aleutian Islands. The Shorey Book Store, Seattle. Originally published 1877, Contributions to North American Ethnology, Vol. 1, pp. 41–91. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Davis, Richard, Richard Knecht, and Jason Rogers. 2016. First Maritime Cultures of the Aleutians. In The Oxford Handbook of the Prehistoric Arctic, ed. T. Max Friesen and Owen K. Mason, 279–302. New York: Oxford University Press Davis, Richard S., and Richard A. Knecht. 2005. Evidence for the Arctic Small Tool tradition in the Eastern Aleutians. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 3 (2): 51–65. Davis, Richard S., and Richard A. Knecht. 2010. Continuity and Change in the Eastern Aleutian Archaeological Sequence. Human Biology 82 (5–6): 507–524. Davis, Brian. 2001. Sea Mammal Hunting and the Neoglacial: Environmental Change and Subsistence Technology at Margaret Bay. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 71–85. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Denniston, Glenda B. 1966. Cultural Change at Chaluka, Umnak Island: Stone Artifacts and Features. Arctic Anthropology 3 (2): 84–124. Desautels, R.J., A.J McCurdy, J.D. Flynn, and R. R. Ellis. 1971. Archaeological Report: Amchitka Island, Alaska 1969/1970. Archaeological Research, Inc. Submitted to United States Atomic Energy Commission Report TID-25481, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas. Dryomov, Stanislaw V., Azhar M. Nazhmidenova, Sophia A. Shalaurova, Igor V. Morozov, Andrei V. Tabarev, Elena B. Starikovskaya, and Rem I. Sukernik. 2015. Mitochondrial Genome Diversity at the Bering Strait Area Highlights Prehistoric Human Migrations from Siberia to Northern North America. European Journal of Human Genetics 23: 1399–1404. Dumond, Don E. 2005. The Arctic Small Tool Tradition in Southern Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 3 (2): 67–78. Dumond, Don E., and Richard A. Knecht. 2001. An Early Blade Site in the Eastern Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 9–34. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Dumond, Don E. 2001. Toward a (Yet) Newer View of the (Pre)History of the Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 289–309. University of Oregon Anthropology, Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Erlandson, Jon M., Douglas J. Kennett, B. Lynn Ingram, Daniel A. Guthrie, Don P. Morris, Mark A. T Veskov, G. James West, and Phillip L. Walker. 1996. An Archaeological and Paleontological Chronology for Daisy Cave (CA-SMI.261), San Miguel Island, California. Radiocarbon 38 (2): 355–373. Flegontov, Pavel, N. Ezgi Altını¸sık, Piya Changmai, Nadin Rohland, Swapan Mallick, Deborah A. Bolnick, Francesca Candilio, Olga Flegontova, Choongwon Jeong, Thomas K. Harper, Denise Keating, Douglas J. Kennett, Alexander M. Kim, Thiseas C. Lamnidis, Iñigo Olalde, Jennifer Raff, Robert A. Sattler, Pontus Skoglund, Edward J. Vajda, Sergey Vasilyev, Elizaveta

References

151

Veselovskaya, M. Geoffrey Hayes, Dennis H. O’Rourke, Ron Pinhasi, Johannes Krause, David Reich, and Stephan Schiffels. 2017. Paleo-Eskimo Genetic Legacy Across North America. bioRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/203018 (pre-published version). Accessed January 5, 2019. Fortescue, Michael. 1998. Language Relations Across Bering Strait: Reappraising the Archaeological and Linguistic Evidence. New York: Cassell and Company. Funk, Caroline. 2011. Rat Islands Archaeological Research 2003 and 2009: Working Toward an Understanding of Regional Cultural, and Environmental Histories. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 25–51. Gauvreau, Alisha, and Duncan McLaren. 2017. Long-term culture landscape development at EkTb9, British Columbia, Canada. In Poster presented at the Society for American Archaeology 82nd Annual Meeting Vancouver, British Columbia. Goebel, Ted, and Ben A. Potter. 2016. First Traces: Late Pleistocene Human Settlement of the Arctic. In The Oxford Handbook of the Prehistoric Arctic, ed. T. Max Friesen and Owen K. Mason, 223–252. New York: Oxford University Press. Gómez-Coutouly, Yan Axel. 2015. Anangula—a Major Pressure-Microblade Site in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska: Reevaluating its Lithic Component. Arctic Anthropology 52 (1): 23–59. Gordaoff, Roberta Michelle. 2016. The House on the Hill: A 3800-Year-Old Upland Site on Adak Island, The Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage. Graf, Kelly E., and Ian Buvit. 2017. Human Dispersal from Siberia to Beringia: Assessing a Bering Standstill in the Light of the Archaeological Evidence. Current Anthropology 58 (supp. 17): S583–S603. Grewingk, Constantin. 2003. Grewingk’s Geology of Alaska and the Northwest Coast of America: Contributions Toward Knowledge of the Orographic and Geognostic Condition of the Northwest Coast of America, with the Adjacent Islands, ed. Marvin W. Falk. Translated by Fritz Jaensch. Fairbanks: The University of Alaska Press. Guthrie, R. Dale. 2006. New Carbon Dates Link Climatic Change with Human Colonization and Pleistocene Extinctions. Nature 441: 207–209. Hanson, Diane K., and David P. Staley. 1984. An Inland Site on Adak Island, the Aleutians. In Paper presented at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Fairbanks, Alaska. Hanson, Diane K., and Debra G. Corbett. 2010. Shifting Ground: Archaeological Surveys of Upland Adak Island, the Aleutian Islands, Alaska and changing assumptions of Unangan Land Use Patterns. Polar Geography 33 (3–4): 165–178. Hanson, Diane K. 2013. Archaeological Survey Bias in Island Environments: Finding Four Needles in a Haystack. In Paper presented at the 78th Annual meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Honolulu, Hawaii. Hatfield, Virginia L. 2010. Material Culture Across the Aleutian Archipelago. Human Biology 82 (5&6): 525–556. Hoffecker, John F. 2005. A Prehistory of the North: Human Settlement of the Higher Latitudes. Piscataway, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Hoffecker, John F. 2011. Assemblage Variability in Beringia: The Mesa Factor. In From the Yenisei to the Yukon: Interpreting Lithic Assemblage Variability in Late Pleistocene/Early Holocene Beringia, ed. Ted Goebel and Ian Buvit, 165–178. College Station: Texas A&M University Press. Hoffecker, John F., Scott A. Elias, Dennis H. O’Rourke, G. Richard Scott, and Nancy H. Bigelow. 2016. Beringia and the Global Dispersal of Modern Humans. Evolutionary Anthropology 25: 64–78. Hoffman, Brian W. 1999. Agayadan Village: Household Archaeology on Unimak Island. Alaska. Journal of Field Archaeology 26 (2): 147–161. Hrdliˇcka, Aleš. 1945. The Aleutian and Commander Islands and Their Inhabitants. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology.

152

4 The People

Hu, F.S., B.Y. Lee, D.S. Kaufan, S. Yoneji, D.M. Nelson, and P.D. Henne. 2002. Response of Tundra Ecosystem in Southwestern Alaska to Younger-Dryas Climatic Oscillation. Global Change Biology 8: 1156–1163. Jenkins, Dennis L., Loren G. Davis, Thomas W. Stafford Jr, Paula F. Campos, Bryan Hockett, George T. Jones, Linda Scott Cummings, Chad Yost, Thomas J. Connolly, Robert M. Yohe, Summer C. Gibbons, Maanasa Raghavan, Morten Rasmussen, Johanna L. A. Paijmans, Michael Hofreiter, Brian M. Kemp, Jodi Lynn Barta, M. Cara Monroe, Thomas P. Gilbert, and Eske Willerslev. 2012. Clovis Age Western Stemmed Projectile Points and Human Coprolites at the Paisley Caves. Science 337: 223–228. Jochelson, Waldemar. 1975. Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands. AMS Press Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Publication 367. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Jordan, James W., and Andrea Krumhardt. 2003. Postglacial Climate and Vegetation of the Western Alaska Peninsula. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 1 (2): 16–33. Knecht, Richard A., and Richard S. Davis. 2001. A Prehistoric Sequence for the Eastern Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 269–288. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, Eugene. Knecht, Richard A., Richard S. David, and Gary A. Carver. 2001. The Margaret Bay Site and the Eastern Aleutian Prehistory. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 35–69. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, Eugene. Laughlin, William S. 1963. The Earliest Aleuts. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 10 (2): 73–91. Laughlin, William S. 1970. Aleutian Ecosystem. Science 169 (3950): 1107–1108. Laughlin, William S. 1975. Aleuts: Ecosystem, Holocene History, and Siberian Origin. Science 189 (4202): 507–515. Laughlin, William S., and Jean S. Aigner. 1975. Aleut Adaptation and Evolution. In Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone, ed. William Fitzhugh, 181–201. The Hague, Paris: Mouton Publishers. Laughlin, W.S., and G.H. Marsh. 1951. A New View of the History of the Aleutians. Arctic 4 (2): 74–88. Laughlin, William S., Jørgen. B. Jørgensen, and Bruno Frøhlich. 1979. Aleuts and Eskimos: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge Coast. In The First Americans: Origins, Affinities, and Adaptations, ed. William S. Laughlin and Albert B. Harper, 91–104. New York: Gustav Fischer. Leer, Jeff. 1991. Evidence for a Northern Northwest Coast Language Area: Promiscuous Number Marking and Periphrasic Possessive Constructions in Haida, Eyak, and Aleut. International Journal of American Linguistics 57 (2): 158–193. Llamas, Bastien, Kelly M. Harkins, and Lars Fehren-Schmitz. 2017. Genetic Studies of the Peopling of the Americas: What Insights do Diachronic Mitochondrial Genome Datasets Provide? Quaternary International 444: 26–35. Luo, Shiyu, C. Alexander Valencia, Jinglan Zhang, Ni-Chung Lee, Jesse Slone, Baoheng Gui, Xinjian Wang, Zhuo Li, Sarah Dell, Jenice Brown, Stella Maris Chen, Yin-Hsiu Chien, WuhLiang Hwu, Pi-Chuan Fan, Lee-Jun Wong, Paldeep S. Atwal, and Taosheng Huang. 2018. Biparental Inheritance of Mitochondrial DNA in Humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 115(51): 13039–13044. Luttrell, Mark, and Debra Corbett. 2000. Archaeological Investigations on Northeast Adak Island, Alaska, July 1999. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Maley, Blaine. 2016. Examining Biological Continuity Across the Late Holocene Occupation of the Aleutian Islands Using Cranial Morphometrics and Quantitative Genetic Permutation. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 16: 71–85.

References

153

Mann, Daniel H., Pamela Groves, Michael L. Kunz, Richard E. Reanier, and Benjamin V. Gaglioti. 2013. Ice-Age Megafauna in Arctic Alaska: Extinction, Invasion, Survival. Quaternary Science Reviews 70: 91–108. Maschner, Herbert D.G.. 1999. Prologue to the Prehistory of the Lower Alaska Peninsula. Arctic Anthropology 36 (1–2): 84–102. Maschner, Herbert D. G., Garrett Knudsen, Buck Benson, and Nicole Misarti. 2010. The Archaeology of the Sapsuk River, Alaska. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaska Region, Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. Maschner, Herbert D. G. 2016. Archaeology of the Eastern Aleut Region. In The Oxford Handbook of the Prehistoric Arctic, ed. T. Max, Friesen and Owen K. Mason, 323–348. New York: Oxford University Press. Mason, Owen K. 2001. Catastrophic Environmental Change and the Middle Holocene Transition in the Aleutian Islands. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 105–121. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, Eugene. Matisoo-Smith, Elizabeth, and K. Ann Horsburgh. 2012. DNA for Archaeologists. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press. McCartney, Allen P. 1971. A Proposed Western Aleutian Phase in the Near Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 8 (2):92–142. McCartney, Allen P. 1984. Prehistory of the Aleutian Region. In Arctic, ed. David Damas, 119–135. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. McWilliams, Thomas G., and Anu Suomalainen. 2019. Fate of a Father’s Mitochondria. Nature 565: 296–297. Misarti, Nicole, and Herbert D.G.. Maschner. 2015. The Paleo-Aleut to Neo-Aleut Transition Revisited. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 37: 67–84. Misarti, Nicole, Bruce P. Finney, James W. Jordan, Herbert D.G.. Maschner, Jason A. Addison, Mark D. Shapley, Andrea Krumhardt, and James E. Beget. 2012. Early Retreat of the Alaska Peninsula Glacier Complex and the Implications for Coastal Migrations of First Americans. Quaternary Science Reviews 48: 1–6. Mishmar, Dan, Eduardo Ruiz-Pesini, Pawel Golik, Vincent Macaulay, Andrew G. Clark, Seyed Hosseini, Martin Brandon, Kirk Easley, Estella Cheng, Michael D. Brown, Rem I. Sukernik, Antonel Olckers, and Douglas C. Wallace. 2003. Natural Selection Shaped Regional mtDNA Variation in Humans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) 100 (1): 171– 176. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2001. Environmental Sensitivity Index Maps, Aleutian Islands. Electronic document. Office of Response and Restoration. https://response.restoration.noaa.gov/maps-and-spatial-data/download-esi-maps-and-gisdata.html. Accessed March 7, 2019. O’Leary, Matthew, and Richard L. Bland. 2013. Aleut Burial Mounds: Ulaakan and Umqan. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 11(1 and 2): 139–168. O’Leary, Matthew 2001. Volcanic Ash Stratigraphy for Adak Island, Central Aleutian Archipelago. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 215– 233. University of Oregon, Anthropological Papers No. 58. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, Eugene. Ousley, Stephen D., and Erica B. Jones. 2010. Craniometric Variation in the Aleutians: Integrating Morphological, Molecular, Spatial, and Temporal Data. Human Biology 82 (5–6): 629–651. Pelto, Ben M., Beth E. Caissie, Steven T. Petsch, and Julie Brigham-Grette. 2018. Oceanographic and Climatic Change in the Bering Sea, Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene. Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology 33: 93–111. Potter, Ben A., James F. Baichtal, Alwynne B. Beaudoin, Lars Fehren-Schmitz, C. Vance Haynes, Vance T. Holliday, Charles E. Holmes, John W. Ives, Robert L. Kelly, Bastien Llamas, Ripan S. Malhi, D. Shane Miller, David Reich, Joshua D. Reuther, Stephan Schiffels, and Todd A.

154

4 The People

Surovell. 2018. Current Evidence Allows Multiple Models for the Peopling of the Americas. Science Advances 4 (8): eaat5473. Prentiss, Anna Marie, Matthew J. Walsh, Thomas A. Foor, and Kristen D. Barnett. 2015. Cultural Macroevolution Among High Latitude Hunter-Gatherers: A Phylogenetic Study of the Arctic Small Tool tradition. Journal of Archaeological Science 59: 64–79. Pyle, Angela, Gavin Hudson, Ian J. Wilson, Jonathan Coxhead, Tania Smertenko, Mary Herbert, Mauro Santibanez-Koref, and Patrick F. Chinnery. 2015. Extreme-Depth Re-sequencing of Mitochondrial DNA Finds No Evidence of Paternal Transmission in Humans. PLoS Genet 11 (5): e1005040. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1005040. Accessed February 2, 2019. Rogers, Jason. 2011. Architecture and Complex Hearth Features at the Amaknak Bridge Site, Eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 92–112. Rogers, Jason S., Michael R. Yarborough, and Catherine L. Pendleton. 2009. An Anangula Period Core-and-Blade Site on Amaknak Island, Eastern Aleutians Island, Alaska. Journal of Anthropology 7 (1): 153–165. Sarychev (Sarytschew), Gawrila A. 1969 [1806]. Account of a Voyage of Discovery to the North-east of Siberia, and the Frozen Ocean, and the North-east Sea. Translated. Richard Phillips, London. 1969 facsimile ed. New York: Da Capo Press. Savinetsky, Arkady B., Bulat F. Khasanov, Dixie L. West, Nina K. Kiseleva, and Olga A. Krylovich. 2014. Nitrogen Isotope Composition of Peat Samples as a Proxy for Determining Human Colonization of Islands. Arctic Anthropology 51 (1): 77–85. Savinetsky, Arkady B., Nina K. Kiseleva, and Bulat F. Khassanov. 2010. Paleoenvironment – Holocene Deposits from Shemya Island. In The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island, ed. Debra Corbett, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre, 71–82. Aurora, Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series, Vol. 8. Anchorage: Alaska Anthropological Association. Sense, Richard G. 1969. Archaeological Field Notes: May 31 through October 22, 1968, Amchitka Island, Alaska. Holmes and Narver, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada. Smith, Silvia E., M. Geoffrey Hayes, Graciela S. Cabana, Chad Huff, Joan Brenner Coltrain, and Dennis H. O’Rourke. 2009. Inferring Population Continuity Versus Replacement with aDNA: A Cautionary Tale from the Aleutian Islands. Human Biology 81 (4): 407–426. Speakman, Robert J., R. Game McGimsey, Richard Davis, Michael Yarborough, and Jeffrey T. Rasic. 2012. Aleutian Island and Alaska Peninsula Obsidian. In Poster Presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Memphis, Tennessee. Thorson, Robert M., and Thomas D. Hamilton. 1986. Glacial Geology of the Aleutian Islands: Based on the Contributions of Robert F. Black. In Glaciation in Alaska: the Geologic Record, ed. Thomas D. Hamilton, Katherine M. Reed, and Robert M. Thorson, 171–191. Alaska Geological Society, Anchorage. Tremayne, Andrew H., and Jeffrey T. Rasic. 2016. The Denbigh Flint Complex of Northern Alaska. In The Oxford Handbook of the Prehistoric Arctic, ed. T.M. Friesen and O.K. Mason, 349–370. New York: Oxford University Press. Tringham, Ruth. 1991. Households with Faces: The Challenge of Gender in Prehistoric Architectural Remains. In Engendering Archaeology: Women and Prehistory, ed. Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, 93–131. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Basil Blackwell. Turner, Christy G., and Jacqueline A. Turner. 1974. Progress Report on Evolutionary Anthropological Study of Akun Strait District, Eastern Aleutians, Alaska, 1970–1971. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16 (1): 27–57. Turner, Christy G. 1972. Preliminary Report of Archaeological Survey and Test Excavations in the Eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 9 (2): 32–35. VanderHoek, Richard. 2009. The Role of Ecological Barriers in the Development of Cultural Boundaries during the later Holocene of the Central Alaska Peninsula. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana. Veltre, Douglas W. 2011. Gardening in Colonial Russian America. Ethnoarchaeology 3 (2): 119– 138.

References

155

Veltre, Douglas W., and Allen P. McCartney. 2001. Ethnohistorical Archaeology at the Reese Bay Site, Unalaska Island. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 87–104. University of Oregon Anthropology, Papers No. 58. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, Eugene. Veltre, Douglas W., Allen P. McCartney, and Jean S. Aigner. 1986. An Archaeological Site Survey of the Western Portion of Unalaska Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Report submitted to the Alaska Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation, Anchorage. Veltre, Douglas W. 1990. Perspectives on Aleut Culture Change during the Russian Period. In Russian America: The Forgotten Frontier, ed. Barbara Swetland Smith and Redmond J. Barnett, 175–183. Tacoma: Washington State Historical Society. Veltre, Douglas W. 2001. Korovinski: Archaeological and Ethnohistorical Investigations of a Preand Post-Contact Aleut and Russian settlement on Atka Island. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 187–213. University of Oregon Anthropology, Papers No. 58. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, Eugene. Veltre, Douglas W. 2012. One Hundred Forty Years of Archaeology in the Central Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gualtieri, 35–45. BAR International Series 2322. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Veniaminov, Ivan. 1984. Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Translated by Lydia T. Black and R.H. Geoghegan. The Limestone Press, Kinston, Ontario. Volodko, Natalia, Elena B. Starikovskaya, Ilya O. Mazunin, Nikolai P. Eltsov, Polina V. Naidenko, Douglas C. Wallace, and Rem I. Suernik. 2008. Mitochondrial Genome Diversity in Arctic Siberians, with Particular Reference to the Evolutionary History of Beringia and Pleistocenic Peopling of the Americas. The American Journal of Human Genetics 82: 1084–1100. West, Dixie, Michael Crawford, and Arkady B. Savinetsky. 2007. Genetics, Prehistory and the Colonization of the Aleutian Islands. Earth and Environmental Science Transactions of the Royal Society of Edinburgh 98: 47–57. West, Dixie, Bulat Khasanov, Olga Krylovich, Virginia Hatfield, Timur Khasanov, Dmitry Vasyukov, and Arkady Savinetsky. 2019. Refining the Paleo-Aleut to Neo-Aleut Transition Using a New ΔR for the Eastern Aleutian Islands. Alaska. Quaternary Research 91 (3): 972–982. West, Dixie, and Susan Crockford. 2012. Conclusions. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gualtieri, 17–325. BAR International Series 2322. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. West, Dixie, and Virginia Hatfield. 2012. Bone Artifacts and Debris from Three Archaeological Sites on Adak Island, Alaska. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gualtieri, 289–301. BAR International Series 2322. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. West, Dixie, Christine Lefèvre, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Virginia Hatfield, and Lyn Gualtieri. 2012. The Central Aleutians Archaeological and Paleobiological Project. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gualtieri, 7–34. BAR International Series 2322. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Weyer, Edward Moffat. 1929. An Aleutian Burial. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 31 (Pt. 3): 219–238. Wilmerding, Elizabeth G., and Virginia Hatfield. 2012. Six Thousand Years of Lithic Technology on Adak in a Broader Aleutian Context. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gualtieri, 211–237. BAR International Series 2322. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.

156

4 The People

Workman, William B., and Peter Zollars. 2002. The Dispersal of the Arctic Small Tool tradition into Southern Alaska: Dates and Data from the Kenai Peninsula, Southcentral Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 2 (1): 39–49. Zlojutro, Mark, Rohina Rubicz, and Michael H. Crawford. 2009. Mitochondrial DNA and YChromosome Variation in Five Eastern Aleut Communities: Evidence for Genetic Substructure in the Aleut population. Annals of Human Biology 36 (5): 511–526.

Chapter 5

People on the Landscape

There are peasants living on all these islands and in great numbers (Ponomarev [1759] in Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 222). In one of these huts live several families, to the amount of thirty or forty persons… Six or seven of these huts or yourts make a village, of which there are sixteen in Unalashka. The islands seem in general to be well inhabited… There are upwards of a thousand inhabitants on Unalashka, and they say that it was formerly much more populous. They have suffered greatly by their disputes with the Russians… (Krenitzin and Levashev [1768] in Coxe 1970 [1787]: 214).

Pre-contact Aleut Population The pre-Russian population of the Aleutian Islands can never be known for certain, although estimates continue to be proffered. Sarychev (1806: 72) in 1791 counted 1180 males in 56 villages from Tanaga to Unalaska and estimated the population was no more than one-third the pre-Russian level. Veniaminov (1984: 246) added a larger number of females to Sarychev’s count making the number of people in the Unalaska district 2500. From this, he estimated in 1750 there were at least 8000 people for the Unalaska district. Unalaska Aleuts themselves reported 120 known villages in the Unalaska district, extending from Amukta Island to the middle of the Alaska Peninsula. Each village held 40 to 70 men, or 150 to 280 people, for a total of up to 25,000 people. Prior to the arrival of the Russians, at least one village in this district held more than 1000 people (Sauer 1802: 206). Veniaminov (1984: 246) rejected the Aleut estimates and decided 12,000 to 15,000 was the true range. All population estimates for the Aleutians since then, ranging from 6000 to 40,000, have used Veniaminov’s (1984) guess as the baseline (Lantis 1970; Laughlin 1980; Liapunova 1996: 3). Estimates can also be made using archaeological data. These are only as reliable as the data itself, and assumptions litter the results, among these being that population size corresponds in some way to the number of sites, houses, and artifacts, or to

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Corbett and D. Hanson, Culture and Archaeology of the Ancestral Unangaˆx/Aleut of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44294-0_5

157

158

5 People on the Landscape

carbon dates. These various estimates may be useful as a way to test the validity of Veniaminov’s uncritically accepted population estimate. McCartney’s speculation on the pre-contact population of the Rat Islands used the number of houses per site along with an estimate of the average number of people resident in each house (McCartney 1977: 74–75). He was well aware of problems using ethnographic data from the eastern Aleutian Islands following catastrophic population declines. After listing his assumptions, he estimated a range of four to seven houses in each of 92 known sites, each with six to eight occupants, and came up with an estimate 6600–8800 people (McCartney 1977: 75). Considering this number far too large, he divided these numbers by 50 and 25% to reflect fewer houses occupied concurrently. At 50% occupancy, the revised estimate ranged from 3300 to 4400 people, and for 25% occupancy, the range was 1650–2200. This latter estimate McCartney deemed the most realistic for the Rat Islands immediately pre-contact. Much of the archaeological data from the Aleutians consists of a large body of consistently collected data from Bureau of Indian Affairs investigations of historic sites claimed by The Aleut Corporation. However, The Aleut Corporation claims lie outside of areas used by modern villages, resulting in the western islands being more thoroughly surveyed than the currently occupied Umnak, Unalaska, and Akutan Islands. Western islands with particularly good coverage include Agattu, Amchitka, Tanaga, Kanaga, and Adak Islands. Atka with a modern village and nearby Amlia Islands are far less well known. In the east, Izembek Lagoon has been extensively surveyed. For our estimates, we used the number of house features in sites and an average of 6.5 occupants per household to estimate a population for each island group. Agreeing with McCartney that it is unrealistic to assume every visible house in a village was occupied at the same time, we also assume only one-half to one-quarter house occupancy at any given time (McCartney 1977). An early period, roughly spanning 3000 to 100 years ago, could have seen the population of the entire archipelago reach 12,600 to 25,200. The Krenitzin Islands, Unimak, and Izembek had the highest population densities (Table 5.1). From 1000 years ago to the period immediately preceding Russian contact, the islands were highly populated and the villages extensive (Sauer 1802: 206). For this period, sites with longhouses were used as a baseline along with ethnographic information for longhouse populations. The figure for 50% occupancy of houses 38,299 corresponds almost exactly to the estimate made by Aleuts for the Unalaska district alone, indicating the total population was probably close to 79,000 (Table 5.2). Based as much on assumption as fact, these rough estimates should be considered minimums. More sites exist in every island group than have been reported. Each site held many more houses than are visible on the surface. Dividing the highest population estimate given here by the number of known sites results in an average of only 60 people per site. It is quite clear the pre-Russian population of Unangaˆx was far greater than previous estimates have allowed.

Ethnic Divisions

159

Table 5.1 Early period population estimates Island group Years BP

# of houses

People/ house

100% occupied

50% occupied

25% occupied

Near

3000–1000

297

6.5

1930

966

483

Rat

3000–1000

116

6.5

754

377

189

Delarof

Pre-1000

141

6.5

917

459

230

Tanaga

Pre-1000

355

6.5

2308

1154

577

Kanaga

Pre-1000

692

6.5

4498

2249

1125

Adak

Pre-1000

802

6.5

5213

2607

1304

Aluuˆginas

Pre-1000

100

6.5

650

325

163

Atka

Pre-1000

213

6.5

1385

693

347

Amlia

Pre-1000

241

6.5

1567

784

392

IFMa

3500–1700

400

6.5

2600

1300

650

Umnak

4000–1000

308

6.5

2002

1001

500

Unalaska

4000–1000

236

6.5

1534

767

384

Krenitzin

3000–1000

1080

6.5

7020

3510

1755

Unimak

2000–1000

1180

9

10,620

5310

2655

Izembek

4000–1000

810

6.5

5265

2633

1316

Sanakb

2500–1000

1023

512

256

Sanakb

3000–3500

260

130

65

Shumagin Islandsc

3000–4000

900 25,223

12,612

Total a b c

6971

50,446

Islands of the Four Mountains Based on Reedy Maschner and Maschner (2012) Based on Winslow and Johnson (1989)

Ethnic Divisions Aleuts or Unangaˆx were not a single, united people. They recognized their biological, cultural, and linguistic distinctions from their Yup’ik and Alutiiq neighbors, but they did not conceive of themselves as a single nation. A person’s identity centered on his or her village along with kinship ties to neighboring villages and nearby islands. Differences were expressed in multiple ways. Geography, language, political alliances, and cultural differences—some subtle, some not so subtle—split people into independent polities or nations. The largest named groups refer to the populations of discrete island clusters (Fig. 5.1). The oldest social and political divisions were recorded by skippers and traders required to report on the numbers, economics, and political structures of newly discovered lands and people (Black 1984: 44). Mapmaking was an important tool

160

5 People on the Landscape

Table 5.2 Late period population estimates Island group

Years BP

# of houses

People/house

50% occupied

25% occupied

Near

1000–250

44

45

990

495

Rat

1000–250

24

45

540

270

Delarof

1000–250

15

45

338

169

Tanaga

1000–250

20

45

450

225

Kanaga

1000–250

36

45

810

405

Adak

1000–250

13

45

293

146

Aluuˆginas

1000–250

7

45

158

79

Atka

1000–250

14

45

315

158

Amlia

1000–250

14

45

315

158

IFMa

1000–300

51

45

1148

574

Umnakb

1000–250

200

87

8700

4350

Unalaskac

1000–250

58

130

3780

1890

Krenitzin

1000–250

345

9

1553

777

Unimakd

1000–250

135

91

6131

3065

Izembek

900–300

465

45

10,462

5231

Sanake

1000–200

887

443

1430

715

38,299

19,150

Shumagin Totals

Islandsf

1700–300

11 sites

260/site

1441

a

Islands of the Four Mountains 20 villages with average of 10 longhouses c 24 villages with average 7 longhouses d 12 villages with 19.25 houses e Based on Reedy Maschner and Maschner (2012) f Based on Winslow and Johnson (1989) b

of imperialism, cementing claims by European powers to new territories. Russians used local place names to identify geographic features on their maps. The earliest reported autonym, or self-name, of the Near Island people was Aleut (Andreev 1948: 21; Cherepanov 1762: 209; Georgi 1780: 198; Harrington 1941; Kulkov 1764: 229). Based on information from a probable Rat Islander, a 1769 map refers to the Near Islanders as Sasignan (Black 1984: endpapers; Coxe 1970 [1787]: 238). To the east, the Rat Islanders were Khao in 1769; later, they were Kogochas, and still later, they were Qaˆgun (Black 1984: endpapers; Coxe 1970 [1787]: 239; Sarychev 1806: 75). For the Andreanof Islands from Amatignak to Seguam, the earliest recorded name is Ngho or Negho, later Niiˆgun (Black 1984; Merck 1980: 168). By 1802, two political groups are referenced (Bergsland 1959: 13; Sarychev 1806: 75). From Kanaga Pass to Amukta Pass, the Niiˆgiˆgun dominated. The Tanaga/Delarof Island people were known as Naahmiˆgus (Black 1984: 55). The Niiˆgiˆgun, but not the Naahmiˆgus,

Ethnic Divisions

161

Fig. 5.1 Historic ethnic divisions (Modified after Black 1984.)

were split among political centers on Amlia, Atka, and Kanaga. Small independent communities on Tagalak, Great Sitkin, Igitkin, and Chugul Islands lasted until 1821 when those people had moved to Atka Island (Bergsland 1959: 13). By 1791, Naahmiˆgus were reduced to small groups of women, children, and elders because the men had been impressed into Russian hunting parties (Merck 1980: 160; Sauer 1802: 169). By 1802, the Niiˆgiˆgun had taken the survivors to Atka (Bergsland 1959: 14; Black 1984: 56; Snigaroff 1986: 33). The autonym of the Four Mountains Islanders is unknown. Atkans referred to them as “uni.rus” or “oone-agun” (Bergsland 1959: 12; Sauer 1802: 120). After 1790, they are called Akuuˆgun, by Umnak Islanders, a name that means “over there” (Bergsland 1959: 12; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 393; Merck 1980: 168; Sarychev 1806: 75). In 1769, the Fox Islanders were Kogholaghi, or Cowghalingen (Bergsland 1959: 12; Coxe 1970 [1787]: 219, 263; Georgi 1780: 204; Merck 1980: 168; Sarychev 1806: 75; Sauer 1802: 120). Kogholagi may have originally applied only to western Unalaska Islanders but is now applied to the people of Umnak and Unalaska as Qawalangin. Because qawaˆx means sea lion, this is sometimes translated as “Sons of the Sea Lions” which is linguistically impossible (Bergsland 1994: 313). The term derives from an archaic demonstrative pronoun that specifies the noun it replaces, qawˆalra “this, these, that, those” (Bergsland 1959: 12, 1994: 313). The Kighigusi/Qirigun of eastern Unalaska and the Krenitzin Islands maintained their independence and population well into the Russian period (Coxe 1970 [1787]:

162

5 People on the Landscape

219; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 251; Sarychev 1806: 75). They occupied villages along Unalaska Bay and the north coast of Unalaska as well as the Krenitzin Islands to the east (Bergsland 1959: 12; Black 1984). Farther east, only a few autonyms are recorded. The largest group were the Unimgin “Unimak Island people” (Bergsland 1959: 11; Veniaminov 1984: 110). Unimak and Sanak people may have been called Quaˆgaˆgin (Black 2003; Reedy Maschner and Maschner 2012). Black (2003) gives a name of Qawaqngin for the Shumagin Islands. Most names are vague references to people of large areas: Kataghayakiki/kagataiaking’n, “people of the east”; Alagsgin unangangin, “Alaska Peninsula people”; and Qagan Tayagungin, “eastern people” (Bergsland 1959: 11; Coxe 1970 [1787]: 263; Merck 1980: 168; Sarychev 1806: 120; Sauer 1802: 284; Veniaminov 1984: 157). These almost certainly blur a reality that included multiple, large, named political units. We do not know the time depth of these historic divisions. Archaeological evidence of regional variations in material culture can in some cases extend snippets of ethnohistorical and linguistic information on regional divisions into the past and possibly identify others. This question will be addressed in later sections.

Types of Aleut Sites Villages The majority of known prehistoric sites in the Aleutians are residential villages, usually referred to as “sites” or “middens.” Villages were permanent, year-round residential settlements. They are distinguishable from a distance as mounds covered by a rank growth of beach rye grass and large-leafed umbellifers. The mounds are the centuries old accumulation of the debris of daily life, mainly sea urchin shell, ash, lost and discarded tools, food remains, and ruins of abandoned buildings. Their depth, up to 6 m or more, and use over thousands of years attest to the peoples’ strong attachment to their ancestral homes. The prominent mounds are a powerful assertion of possession of lineage property. Most readily visible sites date to within the last 2000–3000 years, but where older sites have been investigated, they also provide evidence of long-term, stable, occupation (Fig. 5.2). Paired sites, two middens in close proximity, are reported on Agattu and Amchitka, but it is not clear whether they are a distinctive site type (Desautels et al. 1971; Hrdliˆcka 1945; Spaulding 1962). They may represent differences in season of occupation or age, or they may have been used by different social units or kin groups (Desautels et al. 1971; McCartney 1984; Miraglia 1986; Yesner 1977). Villages are pockmarked with round, oval, square, or rectangular depressions ranging from a half-meter across to trenches over 50 m long. Depressions are usually tightly clustered on the midden mound, but in some cases, they extend beyond the vegetation boundary. Depressions longer than 4 m represent the remains of houses,

Types of Aleut Sites

163

Fig. 5.2 Midden site with house depressions seen from offshore

more fully described in Chap. 7. Depressions over 9 m long are identified as longhouses used by multiple families. In addition to dwellings, a variety of other structures were built within villages. These included houses for ritual seclusion of women and for male whalers (Lantis 1970; Shade 1949; Veniaminov 1984). Small houses were built for storage of weapons and tools. Food was preserved in underground storage pits inside and outside of houses. Small houses for burials were also common (Dall 1872; Lantis 1970; Veniaminov 1984). All of these structures leave behind round depressions. Depressions smaller than 4 m in diameter likely represent this wide variety of purposes (Corbett et al. 2001). Site size is utterly subjective and varies dramatically between island groups. Size is measured in area (Corbett 1991; Winslow and Johnson 1989) or by number of features (Corbett et al. 2001; Frohlich and Kopjansky 1975; Maschner 1999a, b; Maschner et al. 1997). The smallest recorded site area is 200 m2 . On Amchitka, 80% of the sites were smaller than 800 m2 (McCartney 1977). In the Near Islands, 31 tiny sites measured under 2500 m2 , while in the Shumagin Islands, only ten were as large as 2500 m2 (Corbett 1991; Winslow and Johnson 1989). The largest, Konets Head (UNL-00025) at the west end of Unalaska Island, exceeds 130,000 m2 (USBIA 1985). Sites contain anywhere from three to 242 depressions of all kinds. The number of house depressions per site across the Aleutians averages 21 but varies from six in the Islands of Four Mountains to 39 on Umnak Island.

164

5 People on the Landscape

Camps Small occupation sites are variously called camps, seasonal camps, resource-specific sites, or stations (Bank 1953b, 1977; Laughlin and Aigner 1975; Martinson 1973; Miraglia 1986; Winslow and Johnson 1989). They are rarely described and poorly known. They are distinguished by small size and proximity to specific resource clusters, usually a salmon stream but sometimes a bird rookery. These are reasonable assumptions but remain largely untested. Lenses of dark soil found away from midden sites with scattered stone tools are also considered camps.

Upland Sites Early explorers noted Unangaˆx using upland areas for lookouts, waterfowl hunting, overland travel, and refuges. In 1945, however, a summary of Unangaˆx culture stated that sites were always on the coast, describing island interiors as “completely unoccupied and seldom visited” (Collins et al. 1945: 21). This assertion was seized upon by later archaeologists and became dogma to researchers, including Laughlin, who stated, “interior land surfaces on the other hand were irrelevant to their way of life” (Laughlin 1980: 20). Since the 1940s, most archaeological survey has focused on the coasts and ignored island interiors. Still, small numbers of aberrant sites, well away from modern shorelines, have been recorded. Conducted in the early 2000s, systematic surveys of upland areas identified ever more upland sites (Funk 2011; Hanson 2010; Hanson and Corbett 2010; Hanson and Staley 1984; Roe 2007). Currently, over 66 upland sites are documented (Anders 2013; Funk 2011; Hanson and Corbett 2010). They are clearly a normal part of Aleut land use patterns. Upland sites are those not adjacent to shoreline at the time of occupation, typically at elevations higher than 30 m and more than 50 m from modern coastlines (Anders 2013). Four main types have been identified: house pit sites, blowouts, trails, and cairns.

Upland House Pit Sites Of the 66 described upland sites, 44 consist of between one and 18 ulas (houses). Some, but not all, contain shallow midden deposits. Dates of these sites range from 3800 BP to pre-contact (Anders and Hanson 2020; Gordaoff 2016; Hanson 2010; Hanson and Corbett 2010). No historical Euro-American objects have been found in any tests. Most are near small lakes or ponds or on the edge of streams. On Adak Island, they are not visible when viewed from large village sites at sea level. They are readily visible from each other, though, and create a network extending across the

Types of Aleut Sites

165

entire landscape (Anders 2013). Only one upland site has been excavated (Gordaoff 2016).

Blowouts/Lithic Scatters Rare and poorly known, lithic scatters are known as blowouts because scattered artifacts are found in areas of unvegetated and deflated soils. Most known examples are on Amchitka Island at elevations of 31 to over 100 m, and up to 2 km from modern coastlines (Desautels et al. 1971; Sense and Turner 1970). Seven blowout sites on Kiska and Hawadax Islands follow the Amchitka pattern. Lithic scatters are also reported on Adak, Yunaska, Akun, and Tigalda Islands (Corbett 2012; Funk 2011; Hanson and Corbett 2010; Thomson et al. 1993; Turner 1972). They are likely common on most islands. Dates from six sites on Amchitka and Hawadax indicate use of these areas between 3500 and 4800 BP (Funk 2011). Artifact content ranges from isolated flakes to diverse assemblages with flakes, cores, anvils, wedges, beach cobbles, choppers, scraping planes, hammer stones, cobble spall ulus, backed flakes, and bladelike flakes. The sites likely represent a variety of functions as observatories, quarries, camps for harvesting waterfowl and plants, or refuges.

Trails and Cairns All information on trails comes from folklore and historic accounts. Trails led between heads of bays on the opposite shores of islands. They were used when weather prevented use of boats. Historically, fox trappers used networks of trails from trapping cabins along traplines to other nearby cabins. Turner (2008) had trappers map routes on Attu and Agattu Islands. Major overland routes cross Unalaska Island between Makushin Bay and Captains Bay and from Captains Bay to Beaver Inlet (Merck 1980: 204; Sarychev 1806: 68). Piles of rock on trails across islands guided travelers in the fog (Georgi 1780: 204; Langsdorff 1993: 25; Merck 1980: 88; Sauer 1802: 126). Numerous cairns at higher elevations on Unalaska Island were likely trail markers. People are still advised to add a rock to each cairn when passing them. The cairns have different shapes that may have indicated directions and other information to travelers (Shawn Dickson 2007, personal communication). Two pairs of cairns (ATU-00227, ATU-00228) are known from Agattu, situated on opposing shores of small lakes (USBIA 1986). These may have been used to anchor nets for capturing waterfowl (Corbett 1991, 2016). Two cairns on Amchitka Island are nearly one kilometer apart at the east and west ends of a cluster of 11 blowouts (RAT-00068). The easternmost cairn was partially excavated to determine its origin. No historic materials were found, and the excavator considered the cairns to be prehistoric, potentially associated with blowouts (Kent 1986).

166

5 People on the Landscape

On the west tip of Tigalda, near remains of two historic cabins and a buried whale skull, three 0.4-m-tall cairns of 10–60 cm cobbles are arranged in a triangle (UNI00040). One also contains a piece of wood. Winslow and Johnson (1989) report a cairn in a pass on Simeonof/Chernabura.

Other Site Types Observatories—Agisa “Near every village was an observatory” where men kept watch for game, enemies, and visitors (Jochelson 2002: 23). The observatory was on a hill with a commanding view of the surrounding region. Turner and Turner (1974) explicitly identified two sites on Akun as observatories or lookouts. On a bluff, UNI-00044 yielded flaking debris from tool manufacture. Above the small site of Agath, UNI-00016, a windbreak of upright stone slabs, suggests a shelter for a sentry or observer. On Rat Island, light flake scatters (RAT-00154, 155) in blowouts on bluffs overlooking the ocean may also be observatories (Funk 2011).

Refuges—Ataagin, Hasagin, Amax Refuge rocks are small, steep sided, nearly inaccessible islands used to shelter individuals or a community from raiders and war parties. Aleut refuges are typically reported on offshore, steep-sided islets, and in protected locations near sites. They have been identified from Attu to the Shumagin Islands, but few have been investigated. Aleut place names containing amax, amaga, or amagis, “high cliff, steep hill,” may also identify places used as strongholds (Bergsland 1994: 62). Refuge rocks are widespread in the North Pacific and indicate increased contacts among widely separated peoples. In Southeast Alaska, refuges appeared about 1500 years ago and proliferated between 1300 and 900 years ago (Moss and Erlandson 1992). On the Kodiak Archipelago, refuge rocks date to the late Koniag period between 550 and 200 years ago (Knecht 1995). Aleut refuges presumably appeared after 750 years ago when signs of social ranking became obvious (Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 2008).

Quarries and Mines Prehistoric Unangaˆx mined or quarried a wide variety of minerals for tools, pigments, fire starting, and ornamentation. Only the most obvious sources of the most common materials have been identified. The most common tool stone is andesite, basalt, or andesitic basalt, all of which are dense, dark, volcanic rocks. Andesites are the most common rocks in volcanic island arcs. For formal, bifacial tools, Aleuts selected dark

Types of Aleut Sites

167

gray to green, fine-grained rocks with weak to moderate conchoidal fracture. Beach outcrops and cobbles provided the fundamental sources for stone tool materials near each village. One study, however, suggests people sought better qualities of this ubiquitous material. Basalt tools from three sites on southwest Umnak Island likely came from a specific Vsevidof Volcano lava flow 3 km inland, north of Black Creek (Mason and Aigner 1987). This source was used for at least 4000 years. X-ray diffraction on andesite tools from six sites on Amchitka identified at least three sources within 19 km of the sites where the tools were found (Jew 2007). On Shemya Island, stone tools were made on blue/green propyllitized andesites and siliceous siltstones found in the immediate vicinity of the sites where they were excavated (Corbett et al. 2010). The dominant tool materials on nearby Agattu Island were propyllitized andesite and a gray-black basalt. An island-wide survey revealed propyllitized andesite available in large quantities on every beach (Cooper 1990). The basalt was only seen in outcrops on the southeast side of the island (Cooper 1990). Virtually, all the tools on Buldir were made on a locally available, low-quality metamorphic phyllite with a coarser texture than slate. Phyllite is abundantly available in cliff outcrops on the southeast side of the island (Corbett et al. 1997). Red, green, brown, and yellow chert was used in small amounts for tools, especially in older sites. It is widely available in crevices in volcanic rock. On Akun Island, a vein of chert in breccia was the obvious source of the nodules on the beach, described by Turner as the “only in situ resource for stone tool production I have seen …” (Turner 1974: 3). Griddlestones, made from flat slabs of coarse-grained hornblende andesite, plagioclase andesite, and other coarse stone, are found in every site. A dike of hornblende andesite with a pronounced flaggy cleavage just west of the site on Buldir was the obvious source for the griddlestones there. On Adak, griddlestones from sites around Clam Lagoon were overwhelmingly made on hornblende andesite (85%) from a source north of Candlestick Bridge (Jeannotte et al. 2012). Sulfur was collected from the tops of volcanoes (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 85; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 227; Sarychev 1806: 60). A prehistoric sulfur mining site was identified on Little Sitkin Island (Funk and Corbett 2020). Linear trenches that extend perpendicularly from the bluff edge have been interpreted as sulfur mining trenches. Possible prospecting pits, 1 to 2 m in diameter, are spaced at regular intervals upslope from the main feature cluster, right on the bluff edge. Exposed bedrock outcrops nearby contain chalcedonic chert used for chipped stone tools. Amber, an important trade commodity, can be found in lignite coal beds (Dall 1896; Veniaminov 1984). Veniaminov (1984: 90) also reported lakes adjacent to cliffs with amber on Unalaska and Umnak. With two exceptions, slate and obsidian, commonly used tool materials were collected locally, often in the immediate vicinity of the site where they were used. Slate, a metamorphosed, fine-grained sedimentary rock, is reported on Nagai Island in the Shumagin Islands (Veniaminov 1984: 131). Most slate in Aleutian sites was imported from the Alaska Peninsula and Kodiak (Haggerty et al. 1991; Holland 1992a). Slate is not reported west of the Islands of Four Mountains.

168

5 People on the Landscape

Obsidian, a naturally occurring volcanic glass that has razor-sharp edges when flaked is more widely distributed. Most obsidian artifacts found in 67 sites spanning a period of 8000 years are from Okmok Caldera on Umnak Island (Nicolaysen et al. 2012; Speakman et al. 2012). All the obsidian found on islands west of Umnak is from Okmok. Akutan obsidian has been found in five sites spanning 8000 years on Akun and eastern Unalaska (Nicolaysen et al. 2012; Speakman et al. 2012; also see Chap. 2). Small amounts of obsidian from eastern Aleutian sites are likely from currently unknown sources on the Alaska Peninsula (Nicolaysen et al. 2012; Speakman et al. 2012). Only two pieces came from the mainland. One, from the Batza Tena source in central Alaska, has been found at Izembek Lagoon (XCB-00005). Another found at the Amaknak Bridge Site (UNL-00050) came from Wiki Peak on the Alaska-Canada border. No Aleutian obsidian has been found on the Alaska Mainland. Neither have sources from the Kuril Islands nor Kamchatka of Asia been found in the Aleutians.

Petroglyphs A single petroglyph site has been found and recorded (West et al. 2011). “On Agatu (sic) Island is a grotto-like cave on the walls of which are many figures representing woman’s sexual part [sic]” (Jochelson 2002: 122). Rather than a cave, the site at Gillon Point is a series of tilting basalt slabs just above and at the high tide line. The area is a modern sea lion rookery. Petroglyphs were recorded on 19 slabs. They consist of ovals, ovals with bisecting lines, semi-circles, rectangles, and bisected rectangles (Fig. 5.3). Bisected ovals resemble female genitalia. Others, with lines at the top, assume the V-form of a woman’s lower abdomen (West et al. 2011: 19). A single anthropomorphic figure is crude, faceless, with arms outstretched. The legs are bowed, forming another bisected oval. In an Attuan story, Haneka painted pictures of his seven wives in a cave on southeastern Agattu and on rocks at Sani, the western tip of the island (Jochelson 2002: 122; Lokanin 1949). The family sang and danced at the picture places. Men came to hunt sea lions at Sani, and Haneka drove them away. The hunters returned until he was killed (Lokanin 1949). The bisected ovals represent the sea lion wives of Haneka, a large bull who died defending them. With only a single example plus some vague references, it is nearly impossible to generalize about Aleut petroglyphs. They may only exist in this single panel in the Near Islands. The fortuitous preservation of the story of Haneka and his wives confirms that the petroglyphs, depicting female sea lion/female human sexual parts, are a ritual space linked to sea lions (West et al. 2011).

Types of Aleut Sites

169

Fig. 5.3 Agattu Island petroglyph site. Photo courtesy of the National Marine Fisheries Service

Umqan Umqan are burial mounds consisting of triangular or subtriangular mounds outlined by inverted U- or V-shaped trenches, found on slopes near prehistoric villages from western Unalaska Island to Amatignak Island (Aigner and Veltre 1976; Frohlich and Laughlin 2002; Hrdliˇcka 1945: 323; Laughlin and Marsh 1954). Many have a small pit in the center; larger ones may have several pits (Frohlich and Laughlin 2002; Laughlin and Marsh 1954). Mounds without trenches or pits are also considered umqans (Aigner and Veltre 1976; O’Leary and Bland 2013). They are a specialized form of burial, but in the 16 excavated or tested samples, human remains are limited to tooth fragments.

170

5 People on the Landscape

Mound Clusters Conical, vegetated mounds are common landscape features in the Rat Islands. Recorded mounds range in size from under 20 cm to over 1.5 m high (Fig. 5.4). Aagudˆgaada are tabooed places, either mounds or cliffs (Bergsland 1994). Folklore alludes to mounds, ominously, as the home of spiritually powerful beings (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 216–219, 342–345, 358–363, 478–483). Hultén (1937) reported the Aleuts referred to the mounds as the remnants of ancient Aleut watchtowers. He dismissed this reference and compared the mounds to “fogletuer” created by birds along the coasts of Norway and Greenland. This interpretation has been uncritically perpetuated by researchers from multiple disciplines. Shacklette (1969) described two forms: moss and rock mounds. Both occurred naturally, moss mounds on the coastal plateaus of the Aleutian Islands and rock mounds on protruding outcrops or boulders. Birds did not create the initial mounds but fertilized these natural features causing them to grow. Identification as “bird mounds” persisted for lack of a more clearly defined origin. In 2009, testing a mound on Rat Island revealed complex stratigraphy (Funk 2011). Mounds also seemed to correlate to nearby sites—no site, no mounds. In 2014, archaeologists documented locations, mound heights, and diameters of three clusters of mounds, two on Kiska at Corvie Bay and one at Iron Point on Segula Island (Hornbeck 2020). Mound 14, a prominent feature along a low ridge near KIS-050, was bisected by a trench excavation. Cultural material in the fill and evidence of multiple episodic depositions indicate human construction. A single carbon sample near the bottom of the mound returned a date of 3706–3839 BP (Hornbeck 2020). Five flakes, two

Fig. 5.4 Gertrude cove mounds

Types of Aleut Sites

171

abraders, and a stone wedge were recovered from two discrete levels within the mound (Hornbeck 2020). In 2019, additional mounds were recorded and tested at Gertrude Cove, Kiska, and at multiple locations on Amchitka, most notably on Aleut Point. This research confirms the cultural origin of these mounds and amasses information to determine their functions. Mounds can no longer be considered natural features, yet their role in Aleut culture is almost completely unknown (Hornbeck 2020).

Caves and Rockshelters Caves and rockshelters are found on every island. Rockshelters are typically shallow, with an opening wider than the cleft is deep, and they are often found at the base of cliffs. Aleutian caves are cracks in cliff walls or openings in boulder fields and talus, not lava tubes. Caves and rockshelters were used as temporary camps, for storage, to dry grass for weaving, to house ritual objects, and, most famously, for human burials.

Historic Sites and Features After the Russians entered the region, changes in house form rippled across the Aleutian Chain. Instead of digging down, people piled berms of sod around driftwood walls. Historic period settlements can be identified by the presence of depressions with raised berms, entries, and interior divisions. The distribution of these historic house styles is often the only information available on Unangaˆx settlements occupied during the Russian period. Russians also created new site types. Because the earliest voyages lasted several years, men wintered in camps, or zimov’e (Black 2004: 70). These consisted of a two-roomed sod house with a side entry and a fireplace or stove for heat. Sails from the beached vessel formed the roof (Black 2004: 70). One possible zimov’e is at the head of Expedition Harbor on the west coast of Adak Island. A thick-walled square structure there was tested in 2009, but no conclusive evidence was recovered (Hanson 2010). The Russian-American Company built several company settlements. The largest in the Aleutian Islands was Illiuliuk, now called Unalaska. In 1826, the settlement held housing for employees, several magazins, a church and priest’s house, a school, a hospital, several banyas, housing for Aleut residents, and a cattle farm with sheds and fenced pastures (Veniaminov 1984: 91). On Atka, Korovinsky was less elaborate but included a church, an administrator’s house, a magazin, and a kazarma for workers (Veltre 1979: 95). On Attu and the two Pribilof Islands, company settlements included chapels, frame or log houses, and kazarmy (Veniaminov 1984: 140, 143). Company outposts existed on Amchitka and Unga Islands, Shishaldin and Morzhovoi villages,

172

5 People on the Landscape

and Wosnesenski Island as well (Black 1999b: 130; Black and Jacka 1999: 170; Khlebnikov 1994: 153; Taksami et al. 1999: 325). Odinochka, single-man trading stations, existed in several Aleut communities, including Sanak, Unimak, Akun, Makushin, and Kashega villages on Unalaska, Umnak, and the Pribilof Islands. In these communities, a single Russian directed the local workforce (Khlebnikov 1994: 131). In response to the depopulation that followed the arrival of the Russians, and to efficiently co-opt Aleut labor, Russian administrators consolidated people from small, isolated villages into centralized “communes” (Tikhmenev 1978: 470–471). Hundreds of people were relocated from the Fox Islands to the Pribilof Islands, establishing new, permanent communities there. People from the Rat Islands were resettled on Adak and then on Atka before some returned to Amchitka (Black 1984; Khlebnikov 1994: 212, 218). The Commander Islands were settled by people from the Near Islands, Rat Islands, and Adak. At the same time, small villages were consolidated on Atka and Amlia, Umnak, and Unalaska Islands.

Settlement Patterning Settlement patterning refers to “the way in which man disposed himself over the landscape on which he lived. It refers to the dwellings, to their arrangement, and to the nature and disposition of other buildings pertaining to community life. These settlements reflect the natural environment, the level of technology on which the builders operated, and various institutions of social interaction and control which the culture maintained. Because settlement patterns are, to a large extent, directly shaped by widely held cultural needs, they offer a strategic starting point for the functional interpretation of archeological cultures” (Willey 1953: 1).

Most Aleutian archaeologists have addressed the physical and economic determinants of Aleut settlement locations (Bank 1953b, 1977; Clark 1990; Corbett 1991; Hrdliˇcka 1945; Jochelson 2002; Laughlin and Aigner 1975; McCartney 1977; Martinson 1973; Veniaminov 1984; Wilmerding 2005; Winslow and Johnson 1989). The fundamental physical requirements include elevation above high tides but with access to the beach, protection from storms and rough seas, freshwater, and enough flat area and soil to build houses (Bank 1953b, 1977; Clark 1990; Hrdliˇcka 1945; Jochelson 2002; Laughlin and Aigner 1975; Veniaminov 1984; Winslow and Johnson 1989). McCartney (1977) estimated only 14% of the coastline of the Rat Islands is low and flat enough for ready access by humans. The rest is dominated by steep slopes and cliffs. Sites less than 2000 years old are predominantly found on modern shorelines. As a result of changing sea levels, tectonic uplift, glacial rebound, and other confounding variables, older sites are usually found at higher elevations (Bank 1953a; Hanson and Corbett 2010; Hrdliˇcka 1945; Knecht and Davis 2001; McCartney 1977; Winslow and Johnson 1989). Jochelson (2002) contended prehistoric settlements were located on headlands and only moved into bays after the Russians ended aboriginal warfare. Even a cursory

Settlement Patterning

173

look at recorded site distributions shows that most sites are inside bays (Corbett 1991; McCartney 1977; Winslow and Johnson 1989). Every village was self-sufficient in food resources (Jochelson 2002; Martinson 1973; Veniaminov 1984; Yesner 1977). Salmon streams, strandflats or reefs, and bird cliffs have been singled out as particularly important (Clark 1990; Corbett 1991; Laughlin and Aigner 1975; Winslow and Johnson 1989). McCartney (1977) assumed that resource distributions were a major determinant of settlement distributions, but with efficient long-distance transportation and seasonal superabundance of migratory species, deciphering relative importance was considered beyond the reach of archaeology. Two models applied to the Aleutian Islands attempt to address this problem. Archaeologists working on cleanup of the Exxon Valdez oil spill developed a model to address this problem (Haggarty et al. 1991). Major resource concentrations such as sea mammal and bird rookeries as well as salmon streams within circular catchments of 1 and 10 km around each site were counted. Each resource was counted once, i.e., three sea lion rookeries counted as three, and a salmon stream with red and pink salmon had a count of two. They found the densest concentrations of sites, as well as the oldest and largest sites, in areas of greatest resource diversity. Less diverse regions filled in as populations grew. Applied to the western Aleutians, this model is successful in demonstrating a correlation of economic resources with village location, size, and age (Corbett et al. 2010). No island lacks food. The question is how many people can be supported by any given place. McCartney (1977) developed three proxies to indicate resource richness. His Index of Irregularity measures the ratio of island coastline to its area. The ocean–land interface is the most productive environment, providing islands with longer shorelines more habitats and resources. A second measure of resource richness is the area of shallow coastal waters, 30–200 m deep, surrounding an island. A final measurement of relative richness is the ratio of site numbers to length of island perimeter. Sites are more closely spaced in areas with greater resource abundance (Haggerty et al. 1991; McCartney 1977).

Regional Settlement Systems Island group settlement pattern data are available for the Shumagin Islands (Winslow and Johnson 1989), Rat Islands (McCartney 1972, 1974, 1977), Near Islands (Corbett 1991; Corbett et al. 2010), and the lower Alaska Peninsula (Maschner 1999a, b; Maschner et al. 1997). More limited areal studies are available for the Krenitzin Islands (Turner and Turner 1972; Turner 1974), Sanak (Reedy-Maschner and Maschner 2012), southwest Umnak (Laughlin 1961; Yesner 1977), and Makushin Bay, Unalaska (Martinson 1973).

174

5 People on the Landscape

Izembek Lagoon Salmon streams and land mammals set the Izembek Lagoon area apart from the islands to the west. Participants in the Lower Alaska Peninsula Project 1995–2000 surveyed lagoon and bay shorelines of an area measuring 70 × 45 km, recording about 100 sites (Maschner 1999a, b; Maschner et al. 1997). Maschner proposed a seven-phase cultural history and identified changing settlement patterns reflecting economic, environmental, and social factors. During the earliest four phases, from 5000 to 2400 BP, settlements were small (10–50 houses) and generally clustered at the mouths of salmon streams and rivers. The Early Izembek period, from 2100 to 600 BP, saw a dramatic increase in the size of local settlements, up to 200 houses. Houses appeared clustered into compounds, probably occupied by related families. Subsistence emphasized sea mammals, especially walrus and whales, and less salmon use (Maschner 1999a, b). The most recent period, the Morzhovoi phase, is defined by the appearance of Peninsula-style longhouses in sometimes very large sites surrounded by smaller settlements. Large villages at Peterson and Swanson Lagoons, at Cape Lapin on Unimak Island, and at Big Lagoon, Cape Glazenap, Kinzarof, and Moffet Lagoon on the Alaska Peninsula are all about 20 km apart. Each is associated with one to six smaller communities. Martinson (1973) called these “site complexes.” ReedyMaschner and Maschner (2012) notes that this remarkable uniformity of culture could indicate a “single, region wide, cultural complex encompassing the Alaska Peninsula and Unimak Island” (Maschner 1999b: 74). Two areas stand out as consistently supporting many sites over the last 5000 years. Big and Middle Lagoon, at the northwest end of Morzhovoi Bay, cover an area of roughly 2.6 km2 with 35 recorded sites. These include the largest sites from the Moffet, Izembek, and Morzhovoi phases. Morzhovoi village (XCB-00004), occupied until 1808, is one of the largest known on the Alaska Peninsula, with more than 30 Peninsula-style longhouses. The second concentration of sites on the east side of Moffet Lagoon along Moffet Creek includes 13 known sites spanning the occupation of the area. One site from the early Moffet phase and one from the Morzhovoi phase are the largest in the area for their time periods (Maschner 1999b). A lesser concentration is found around Outer Marker Point, jutting into the center of Izembek Lagoon. This point with its several streams hosts seven sites from the early Izembek phase through Morzhovoi phase.

Sanak and the Shumagin Islands Sanak Island and the Shumagin Islands do not appear to have been part of the Alaska Peninsula cultural complex. Over 100 sites have been recorded on Sanak, with dates for 42 of those. The number of pit features in each site is reported but not described, so the number of houses in each village is unknown. Occupation began about 4800 years

Settlement Patterning

175

ago, with peak use 2000–900 years ago. Intensity of occupation and site locations are linked to access to resources (Reedy-Maschner and Maschner 2012, field notes). Seven sites date to the initial occupation from 4800 to 3000 BP. The largest site on Sanak Island, XFP-00061, is centrally located on the south coast and has over 100 features. The other sites average 19 features. All are on the southeast coast. The Early period, from 3000 to 2000 years BP, has 10 dated sites. A 27-feature village, XFP-00067, occupies the head of Finney Bay. The other sites are small, averaging seven pits per site. Occupation during this period focuses on the north coast. The Middle period, 2000–900 years BP, has 14 dated sites. The largest, XFP-056, has 61 pits. The others average 19 features. Sites from this period are scattered around the entire shore of Sanak, with definite clusters at Pauloff Harbor, in Peterson Bay, and along the northwest coast. In contrast, Late period sites, after 900 BP, show a dramatic size increase. Eleven recorded sites average 43 features. The three largest have 52, 62, and 75 pits. Two of these, XFP-00121 and XFP-00132, are within Sanak Harbor. The third, XFP-00110, is on Enton Point at the eastern tip. At least some of the sites have Peninsula-style longhouses (Reedy Maschner and Maschner 2012). Occupation is clustered around Sanak Harbor and on the south coast east of Washerwoman Creek. In 1771, Solov’ev described two population centers, one on each end of Sanak, with independent leadership in each (Black 1999a). During each period on Sanak Island, there is one site considerably larger than the rest. Like those reported by the Russians for the Late period, these may have been political centers for the island’s people. The political center on Sanak changed over time, from the middle of the south coast to Finney’s Bay, to Pauloff Harbor. Eighty sites are reported on the outer Shumagin Islands, 30 with dates. Four inner islands have not been systematically surveyed. Sites have between three and 40 houses. In contrast to Sanak, site locations in the Shumagins are associated with earthquake activity and local uplift (Winslow and Johnson 1989). XSB-029 on Turner Island appeared 4500 years ago. It was abandoned following a series of earthquakes that occurred after 4000 BP. After 3800 BP, the Shumagin Islands were tectonically stable for about 300 years, and nine sites dotted six of the islands. These were sizable settlements averaging 14 houses each. With increased seismic activity after 3500 BP, occupation shifted to small sites on Nagai and Bird Islands (XPM-00042 and XSI-00030), as well as two moderately sized villages on Chernabura Island (XSI-00038 and XSI-00040). By 3250 BP, the islands were largely deserted as multiple large earthquakes reshaped the landscape. By 2800–2600 BP, XSI-00024 appeared on Little Koniuji and two villages on Chernabura grew. After 2150 BP, the islands were again abandoned. When the islands again stabilized, settlement recommenced around 1650 BP, with 11 sites on six islands. These late-period sites average nine houses each, and at least some had Peninsula-style longhouses (Winslow and Johnson 1989).

176

5 People on the Landscape

Umnak and Unalaska Researchers on southwest Umnak and Akun Islands have postulated a centrally based, wandering settlement pattern (Holland 1992b; Turner and Turner 1973; Yesner 1977). This is a pattern in which groups return from harvesting or subsistence sites to a central village. In areas with a high density of diverse resources and a high human population, large permanent villages, such as Chaluka, Chulka (UNI-00002), and Sandy Beach Bay (SAM-00040), maintained a network of satellite communities and short-duration, limited-use stations or seasonal camps. Satellite communities were used regularly on a seasonal basis. Climate or resource fluctuations could result in satellite villages becoming permanent or reverting to seasonal camps (Yesner 1977). Limited-use stations were resource-specific procurement sites, such as fish camps or bird-hunting stations. They could exhibit long-term use over decades or centuries but remained small sites that were used only for short periods and limited activities. Martinson (1973) detailed a similar scenario for Makushin Bay. He called sites in the bay a Village Complex and considered it a “definite ecologic unit” in control of the full spectrum of resources (Martinson 1973: 206). Site patterning showed a clear sense of territoriality and resource ownership. Village complexes consist of one or two main or winter villages with subsidiary winter villages and seasonally used camps. The main village was located for defense and sustained mid-level resource availability. Subsidiary winter villages, like satellite villages, fluctuated between permanent and seasonal occupations. Within the last 500 years, longhouses appeared (Martinson 1973) and he proposed that the smaller sites were used seasonally to exploit specific resources. Martinson felt that the population had fluctuated considerably, with mid-low levels in Makushin Bay at time of contact.

Rat Islands Preliminary analyses show that village complexes exist on Adak and likely other islands in the group (Fig. 5.5). No settlement pattern studies have been conducted for the central Aleutians. McCartney’s (1977) comprehensive analysis of settlements in the Rat Islands was designed as a predictive model. While acknowledging the importance of social factors in settlement decisions, he felt these were inaccessible to archaeologists and focused instead on geographic and environmental criteria. Presumably, after accounting for physical variables influencing settlement decisions, archaeologists could then address more intangible criteria. Sites in the Rat Islands are smaller than those in either the Near or Andreanof Islands, averaging eight houses (Corbett et al. 2001). Other evidence suggests a less hierarchical social organization. Compared to sites in the Near or Andreanof Islands, Rat Island sites contained fewer longhouses, with only one to three in the sites that had them.

Settlement Patterning

177

Fig. 5.5 Schematic Village Complex with coastal and inland sites

Near Islands Corbett (1991) analyzed 110 Near Island sites using McCartney’s (1977) model, incorporating the resource model of Haggerty et al. (1991). Geographical determinants helped define possible site locations. Haggerty et al. (1991) allowed functional determination for some sites. Corbett (1991) proposed a settlement system with

178

5 People on the Landscape

one or two large, primary villages on each island, with multiple intermediate-sized, permanently occupied satellite or subsidiary villages. Over half the known sites were small camps, and half of those could be linked to specific resources such as salmon streams or bird rookeries. Analysis of 37 villages in the Near and Rat Islands revealed later sites, beginning possibly as early as 1700 BP, possessing two to eight longhouses each (Corbett et al. 2001, 2010). Clusters of smaller houses within and near the longhouse clusters were older, suggesting a pattern of small settlements ringing the islands by 2200 BP. Later, larger villages grew up on the sites of the smaller hamlets. Some of the longhouses were built with elaborate caches of offerings and are interpreted as chief’s houses (Corbett 2011). Across the Aleutian region, we consistently see settlements that were stable for hundreds or thousands of years, but occupations also waxed and waned depending on resource fluctuations, population growth, and social/political change. These changes happened at different times and with varying intensity across the region. Some areas, including Sanak, Shumagin Islands, and Rat Islands, seem to have never reached the population and social levels seen in adjacent areas. As the islands were settled, small villages rapidly spread over the landscape. Early occupations may have focused on areas with rich resource concentrations and later spread to less well-endowed locations. In most subregions, a single large site in all time periods dominated a relatively compact “exploitation area.” Such sites dominated smaller satellite villages and seasonal camps as described in Martinson’s (1973) village complex, suggesting a high level of social and political integration among all the associated sites. In later prehistory, these trends toward integration became more obvious. Dominated by large communal houses, large sites became the norm. Satellite villages also grew, and seasonal camps may have been permanently occupied. These large, populous village complexes defined local polities and controlled access to territory and resources. Complexes also engaged in broader alliances with neighboring village complexes, in opposition to other polities. In some areas, village complexes were ranked hierarchically, with the leadership of each in dynamic relationships with each other.

Landscape Archaeology Recently, archaeologists have been using landscape archaeology to attempt to understand the relationship of humans to their total environment. Using a multi-disciplinary approach that incorporates archaeology, ethnology, folklore, history, and the biological and geological sciences, landscape archaeologists seek to understand how prehistoric people interacted with and related to their world. This entails looking beyond individual sites to identify signs of use across the land. In the Aleutians, this means more attention to trails, cairns, ephemeral camps, connections with geological resources and hazards, distributions of biological

Kinship

179

resources, and awareness of the ways in which Aleuts managed or manipulated the landscape. Examples include intensive management of intertidal resources, meadows of edible plants that may have been gardens, and clearing debris from streams to enhance fish populations. These sorts of relationships applied not only to land but also to the all-important sea. Aleut hunters could “talk to the sea,” understanding and manipulating the relationship (Funk 2011). Seamarks such as swells, currents, winds, tides, and animal behavior were deciphered and used to navigate. New to archaeologists, the concept that humans and nature are aware of and responsive to one another would have been immediately understood by ancient Aleuts.

Kinship Kinship, residence, and rank organized Aleut society. In the 1800s, anthropologists classified the ways different people referred to relatives. Six basic patterns were identified and named after six groups that used those patterns. Aleuts used the Omaha pattern with Iroquois cousin terms (Petrivelli 2004). Omaha terminology indicates patrilineal descent with property and status inherited from male ancestors. Fine distinctions in kin relations were important. These were based on, among other criteria, generation, gender, relative age, and speakers’ gender. Blood, or consanguineal, relatives were organized into five generational cohorts: (1) grandparents; (2) parents, aunts, and uncles; (3) a person’s own generation with siblings and cousins; (4) children; and (5) grandchildren. Affinal relatives, or family related by marriage, were organized in three cohorts: (1) spouses’ parents, (2) spouses’ siblings, and (3) spouses’ siblings’ children. The emphasis on generational criteria is consistent with veneration of ancestors (Petrivelli 2004). Kinship terms merged in ascending and descending generations, suggesting that ancestors became descendants in an endless cycle of birth, death, and rebirth (Petrivelli 2004: 134). Iroquois cousin terminology distinguishes parallel- and cross-cousins. Parallelcousins are the children of a person’s mother’s sister or a father’s brother. These are equivalent to a person’s own siblings. Cross-cousins are the children of an individual’s mother’s brother or a father’s sister; these are “cousins” rather than siblings. Crosscousins are often preferred marriage partners, but this was not the case with Aleuts, who preferred sister exchanges, where two (or more) men would exchange sisters as wives. Anaayguˆx is the term for two brothers who marry two sisters. This marriage pattern cemented links between families and strengthened the role of the mother’s brother, an important relative with at least seven terms defining the relational nuances (Bergsland 1994). When a couple first married, young men often lived with and worked for his bride’s family, but when his service was completed and a child born, the couple moved to his village. Living with the husband’s family, the couple secured the affiliation of their children to the patriline (Lantis 1970; Petrivelli 2004). As teens, boys moved to live with a mother’s brother (their maternal uncle), who was responsible for their training as hunters.

180

5 People on the Landscape

Social Rank Aleut society was ranked with up to five defined social classes: “chiefs” or tukus (singular is tukuˆx ); notables, commoners, “people without kin” maanuqaˆgiˆgulux; and slaves or “captive” awaadaˆx or tahlaadaˆx (Black 1984, 2003; Lantis 1970; Liapunova 1996; Veniaminov 1984). Most available ethnographic information concerns chiefs, with somewhat less attention on slaves. Chiefs, along with their spouses, children, and nephews, formed the top of the social pyramid (Lantis 1970: 242; Liapunova 1996: 139). The modern word is tukuˆx, or Siberian tyuuna- (toion). Tukus inherited the position by being in the direct line of descent from a founding ancestor. If there was no direct descendant, or if the heir were unfit, elders and/or lineage heads selected the “most remarkable” candidate from an eligible lineage (Black 1984: 66, 94; Coxe 1970 [1787]: 218; Khlebnikov 1994: 125, 241; Masterson and Brower 1948: 59; Merck 1980: 169; Turner 2008: 177). Chiefly, power rested on three pillars: ability, kin, and wealth. Tukus epitomized the ideal Aleut male. Socially adept, chiefs commanded respect and inspired people. They were hard workers, dignified, intelligent, and powerful (Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 266; Hudson 1986: 105, Hutchison 1942: 86, 150; McGowan 1999: 55; Oliver 1988: 29, 161; Robert-Lamblin 1982: 123–124; Veniaminov 1984). Hunting and fishing prowess was mandatory. They were master woodworkers (Black 2003: 99; Jones 1976: 48; Oliver 1988: 161). They had an encyclopedic knowledge of resource availability, geography, weather patterns, and regional politics (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 238; Hudson 1986: 263–9; Khlebnikov 1994: 69; Veniaminov 1984: 69). Most were multi-lingual, knowing the dialects of Unangam tunuu and, in the east, neighboring Alutiiq or Yup’ik languages. Finally, they had strong spiritual powers to anchor their moral authority. Tukus also had many kinsmen and dependents (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 161, 218; Masterson and Brower 1948: 91; Veniaminov 1984: 240–244). They had multiple wives linking them to other powerful families. Kinship being fundamental to power, they had detailed knowledge of genealogy and community history (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 181, 238; Veniaminov 1984: 81). Wealth was the third pillar of chiefly power (Black 1999a: 62; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 266; Lantis 1970: 248, 267; Masterson and Brower 1948: 46; Veniaminov 1984: 64, 200). Loss of wealth could lead to a reduction in rank (Lantis 1970: 243). People inherited wealth, but most had to be acquired through aggression, trade, or hard work. Tukus received a share of everything that washed up on beaches, including driftwood, whales, and other valuable flotsam, and they appropriated a share of hunted whales (Langsdorff 1993: 20; Merck 1980: 171). The tukuˆx of a village complex, or of a whole island, received a share from all the villages, not just his own. In turn, the tukuˆx distributed luxury goods and necessities to their dependents.

Social Rank

181

The most important source of income for chiefs was the production of luxury goods for exchange (Hoffman 1999, 2002). High-status families paradoxically worked harder than most families, making luxury goods. The multiple, high-status wives of chiefs produced exquisitely decorated clothing to be distributed during mid-winter festivals. Tukus also controlled the productive labor of dependent widows, orphans, and slaves. Very wealthy men had up to 20 slaves each, an indication of their importance (Liapunova 1996: 141; Turner 2008: 179; Veniaminov 1984: 240). All these dependents and slaves produced wealth for distribution. Notables, or honorables, were a poorly defined class made up of people with kinship connections to the ruling lineage (Liapunova 1996; Veniaminov 1984). Prominent hunters and fishermen, skilled craftsmen, and accomplished warriors, these were wealthy and important people. This group probably included recognized master craftsmen, especially iqyax or kayak builders and the makers of fine weapons, ceremonial clothing, and regalia. Commoners formed the bulk of the population. They were hunters, fishermen, craftsmen, warriors, and workers. Tukus competed to attract followers from this class. Commoners in turn gravitated to generous and fair leaders, providing labor and goods in return for security and reflected honor. People without kin (maanuqaˆgiˆgulux) included widows (ugiˆgiˆxtaqadanaˆx ), orphans (ilaazaˆgiˆgulax), immigrants (awaaˆgiˆx ), the disabled, the lazy (saxtaˆx ), and freed slaves. These people were economically dependent on the tukuˆx. In the Near Islands, they resided in the chief’s large and elaborate house, called him father, worked for him, their status little different from slaves (Black 1984: 64–65). Orphans could be sold or given to wealthy men to labor for their sustenance (Sarychev 1806: 76). Adult dependents of this status could participate in military expeditions and receive a share of the loot from successful campaigns (Liapunova 1996; Veniaminov 1984). Presumably with ability, skill, and luck, such individuals could become commoners. The lowest class were the slaves. Most were war captives (awaadaˆx, “worker,” “slave,” tahlaadaˆx, “captive”), but some were purchased from neighboring people (Liapunova 1996). Young people captured in war were parceled out to notables. Some of these men, “out of vanity,” gave their captives to commoners in the war band (Veniaminov 1984: 240–241). Slave children inherited that status unless their father was a free man. Owners had nearly unlimited power over their slaves, but abuse brought disgrace on the owner (Turner 2008: 179). Favored slaves could be treated like family members (Veniaminov 1984: 198–200). Slaves had fixed exchange value. A baidarka or a fine parka was worth a married pair of slaves. A fine knife, a pair of dentalium shells, or a woman’s sea otter parka was each worth a single slave (Liapunova 1996: 141; Veniaminov 1984: 241). As valuable property, slaves could be sacrificed during funeral feasts (Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 266; Veniaminov 1984: 241). Freeing slaves or forbidding their sacrifice substantially increased a man’s prestige (Veniaminov 1984: 241). Slaves owned nothing. They performed hard or degrading labor such as hauling water, gathering firewood, and cleaning. They participated in hunting and military expeditions, but everything they produced belonged to their owners.

182

5 People on the Landscape

Leadership Each house in a village of individual family houses would have a principal man (Turner 2008: 177). Each family lineage in a village had a chief. The lineages were also ranked based on descent from the founder. If more than one lineage lived in a village, one was dominant (Lantis 1970: 245; Turner 2008: 177). In later prehistory, each multi-family longhouse had a tukuˆx, and villages with multiple longhouses had a dominant chief (Lantis 1970: 245). On Unalaska and possibly Umnak, several villages linked to a common ancestor could form a “society” under a starshii tukuu (Veniaminov 1984: 242). These likely correspond to Martinson’s (1973) village complex. On some islands, village chiefs selected one of their numbers as paramount chief (Khlebnikov 1994: 241; Sauer 1802: 206; Turner 2008; Veniaminov 1984). At contact, each of the Near Islands had a paramount chief, a tukungasin (Black 1984: 66, n.d. a; Lantis 1970: 252). On Unimak in 1762, two Toions “commanded” 11 village chiefs (Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 216). There is no evidence for political integration covering multiple islands (Lantis 1970: 252). The tukuˆx role was to protect and defend his lineage and community (Jones 1976: 48, 72; Turner 2008: 178; Veniaminov 1984: 241). Arbitrating disputes, monitoring public behavior, punishing miscreants, scheduling hunting and fishing parties, and taking care of maanuqaˆgiˆgulux were part of the job (Black 1984: 65; Jones 1976: 48; Turner 2008: 178; Veniaminov 1984: 241). The role of tukus in hunting was particularly pronounced in Kodiak-style whale hunting. The chief had to approve a whale hunt and controlled access to the poison used in single-hunter whaling (Black 1987: 21). After a successful hunt, he appropriated part of the meat and fat for use in feasting and ceremonies (Black 1987: 21; Langsdorff 1993: 20; Merck 1980: 171). Protecting village lands and resources from trespass was another duty (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 160–164; Golodoff 1998; Turner 2008: 178; Veniaminov 1984: 241; Wheaton 1945: 65). Tukus made treaties, declared war, and concluded peace agreements (Black 1984; Coxe 1970 [1787]: 160–169; Turner 2008: 178; Veniaminov 1984: 241). They led all war parties and supervised the distribution of all booty and slaves after a successful campaign. Tukus also organized and distributed trade goods, and they sponsored major winter ceremonies.

Trade and Exchange Mechanisms Most exchanges took place between neighboring villages and within island groups. Winter festivals were the most important occasions for material exchange (McCartney 1977: 110). Toward the end of the mid-winter Messenger Feast, the hosting lineage gave away enormous amounts of food and material wealth. These

Archaeology of Rank

183

gifts established obligations for reciprocity, cemented alliances, and enhanced status relationships. Gifts were tailored to the social rank of the recipients. In following years, high-ranking guests would host their own festivals and give their guests lavish goods. The practice was embedded in religious principles of reciprocity and respect between humans and the animals that sustained them. Generosity demonstrated to the spirits of the animals that they were appreciated and wisely used (Sarychev 1806: 61; Sauer 1802: 206). Among the gifts were sea otter and fur seal furs, birdskin clothing, dried intestines, sea lion hides for boat covers, sinew thread, caribou hair, decorated kamleikas (rainproof coats from of sea lion intestines), elaborately embroidered and trimmed fur parkas, jewelry of amber and dentalium, spears, lances, knives, bentwood hats, masks, and iqyax or kayaks. Utilitarian items such as baskets, wooden containers, clothing, and food were given to the poor and elderly (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 197; Dall 1878; Langsdorff 1993: 16; Lantis 1970: 272–6; Veniaminov 1984: 212–213).

Archaeology of Rank Archaeological evidence for rank and wealth differences includes jewelry and fancy clothing, decorated utilitarian objects, exotic materials, and items requiring considerable labor to make (Funk and Corbett 2011, Hoffman 1999, 2002: 297–298, 305; Loeb 1930; Veniaminov 1984: 280–281; Weyer 1929). Ethnographic and archaeological sources provide lists of high-status goods, but the picture is incomplete. Rarity and value are relative. On Umnak Island, Okmok caldera obsidian is common, but elsewhere in the Chain it is rare. Caribou fur is rare west of Unimak Island. In the Near Islands, green stone suitable for flaking was common; elsewhere, it was rare. Slate is common on the Alaska Peninsula but rare elsewhere. Plotting the time of appearance and geographical distribution of the various status goods would provide a glimpse of social and political change across the Chain. For reasons we emphasize throughout this book, such an analysis is not yet feasible. Still, some gross generalizations may be attempted. Before 2000 BP, obvious signs of wealth and status distinctions are rare. Evidence is limited to Umnak, Unalaska, and Sanak Islands. Luxury goods are limited to black and red pigments, stone bowls, some ivory jewelry, and decorated but utilitarian bone pieces. Slate, obsidian, green stone, and other exotic stones were imported into the Shumagin Islands and Sanak Island. Between 3000 and 4000 BP at Unalaska, bone bowls, bone and stone beads, chipped stone effigies, slat armor, and decorated harpoon and spear points appear (Knecht et al. 2005: 100). Three decorated stone lamps were recovered at Amaknak Bridge (Fig. 5.6). Rare, imported slate points, stone and ivory labrets (see sidebar), bone bowls and platters, decorated bone tools, and some ivory jewelry are scattered across the eastern Aleutian Islands. Grooved sea lion teeth are present on Sanak (Reedy Maschner and Maschner 2012). Bone figurines have been found on Umnak Island (Aigner 1966: 82).

184

5 People on the Landscape

Fig. 5.6 Sadiron and decorated stone lamps. (1) Sadiron lamp from Umnak. (2) Sadiron lamp from Amaknak Bridge, Unalaska. (3) Boulder lamp from Buldir with pecked grooves on rim

The western islands between 3000 and 1000 years ago share many items found farther east at earlier periods. This is not long after the Near Islands had been colonized by people from the Rat Islands, and evidence for wealth and status is rare. Notched and grooved sea lion teeth and paint palettes and grinders are found in the Rat and Near Islands. The Rat Islands status items look like those from the eastern Aleutians: ivory and bone beads, pins, nose pendants or qusidaˆx, serrated disks, polished and decorated rods, elaborately carved “capped” or “link” objects, and a

Archaeology of Rank

185

possible hunting hat volute (Fig. 5.7). Bone and stone labrets occur as do a few bone figurines. Tiny flakes of imported obsidian have been found but no whole tools. Only a single small bone cup is known from the Rat Islands, while a range of bone bowls and plates are found in the Near Islands (Desautels et al. 1971; Hrdliˇcka 1945). After 3000 BP, decorated ivory tools, ivory figurines, and decorated bird and mammal skulls appear in the Rat Islands. Notched bone needles make their first unambiguous Aleutian debut in the Rat Islands during this period and sadiron lamps appeared (Desautels et al. 1971:172, 263). On Attu, ground greenstone ulus appear in the oldest known sites (personal observation). Between 2000 and 200 years ago, luxury items proliferate. Unfortunately, the lack of precise dates makes plotting even rough developments problematic. In the late prehistoric period, we also find volumes of perishable materials not found in earlier contexts. Clothing, wooden artifacts, woven textiles, and other highly perishable materials from caves and late burial contexts provide rich testimony to the wealth and glory of Unangaˆx elites. Evidence from the last 1000 years includes greater quantities of amber, jet, antler, and horn as raw material and in finished products. Slate was imported into the eastern Aleutians (Holland 1988, 1992a, 2001). At Adamagan on the west Alaska Peninsula, calcite was made into labrets, beads, pendants, and other objects for exchange (Hoffman 1999, 2002). In addition to red and black paints, white, yellow, and bluegreen were used. Ground stone ulus, not always made on imported slate, become common. A few stone figurines are known. In three eastern sites, polished, u-shaped stone rods were found (Holland 2001; Knecht et al. 2005; McCartney 1967). Iron knives, recognized by rust in thin slots of bone handles, cut marks on bone, and whetstone used for metal blades, became common in the Rat Islands (Cook et al. 1972: 21; Desautels et al. 1971: 244; McCartney 1977: 109). Evidence for rare iron knives has also been found at Unalaska, Tigalda, and the Shumagin Islands (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 100; Jochelson 1933: 22). Copper knives, probably from Alaskan copper sources, have been found at Sanak and Unalaska (Knecht and Davis 2005; Reedy Maschner and Maschner 2012). Finally, bone and ivory pieces that may have been used in the best kayaks to make them more flexible appear in late prehistory. Armor, shields, and wooden helmets, along with fortresses and military weaponry, testify to widespread warfare from Attu to Unalaska. These tidbits of evidence from artifacts, coupled with information presented later in this book concerning house forms, house sizes, and burial practices, suggest that Aleut society began a transition to new forms of political and social organization as early as 1800 years ago in the Near Islands, accelerating across the Chain by 1000 years ago.

186

5 People on the Landscape

Fig. 5.7 Carved and decorative bone and ivory objects. a Bone pendant, similar objects are found across the archipelago. b Ivory link, eastern Aleutian Islands. c Spiral carved ivory, unknown use. d Ivory pendant. e Bone pin, possibly a nose ornament. f Ivory, unknown use. g Drilled seal tooth, pan-Aleutian Archipelago. h Bone “mushroom” button, Buldir Island. i Bone “curlicue,” unknown use, Near Islands. j Ivory pin or tattoo needle. k Ivory plaque, Amaknak Island. l U-shaped stone rod, eastern Aleutian Islands. m Ivory Qusidax, nose ornament. n Ivory bar, unknown use, Amaknak Island. o Ivory “plaque” possibly a hat ornament. p Ivory, round capped object, unknown use. q Bone comb, probably a sinew or grass splitter. r, s Bone pins

Warfare

187

Labret Labrets are body-piercing ornaments inserted into holes cut under the bottom lip or at the corners of the mouth. Made from stone, bone, ivory, wood, shell, coal (jet), glass, and metal, they may be simple slender pegs or elaborate carvings of multiple materials. Labrets were independently invented in six areas around the world. The oldest appeared 8400 years ago in western Iran and 7000 years ago in Bulgaria (Keddie 1989). At around 5000 BP, labrets appeared in Sudan, in southern Kamchatka, and on Pender Island off central British Columbia (Dumond 2009; Keddie 1989; Steffian and Saltonstall 2001). Dumond (2009) considers Pender Island the point of origin for North Pacific labrets. They appear in small numbers in Kodiak around 3800 BP, in the Aleutians around 3700 BP, and in Chiapas Mexico by 3500 BP (Dumond 2009; Keddie 1989; Steffian and Saltonstall 2001). The most recent independent invention occurred in Ecuador 2500 years ago. The oldest labrets in the Aleutians are from Margaret Bay (3300–3000 BP) and Amaknak Bridge at 3000 BP. Even this early, they are elaborately carved and decorated with inlays and incised lines (Knecht and Davis 2005). Aleutian labrets are most commonly made from ivory. At Adamagan, people in the large, elite, house were carving luxury items, including labrets, of locally available but regionally rare calcite and walrus ivory (Hoffman 2002: 304).

Warfare Whatever causes pain to one’s enemies must be done Satyaki to Arjuna in The Mahabharata (Smith 2009: 450).

Anthropologists vehemently argue over the ultimate causes of human warfare, defined here as socially approved violence by one group against another (Keeley 1996: 37). Anthropologists focus on two causes: war as a response to resource stress or a means of increasing social status. Unangaˆx warfare clearly falls into the social status camp. Aleut warfare was a rational and important strategy for achieving the political and social goals of both individuals and groups. They also fought for access to rare and valuable resources, including women and slaves, and responded fiercely to trespassers encroaching on their territories and resources (Ayers 1974; Black n.d. d; Golder 1909; Liapunova 1996: 154; Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 1998: 39; O’Leary 2002; Turner 2008: 179; Veniaminov 1984: 203, 241). Ambitious young men joined war parties to earn a reputation and acquire wealth (Golder 1909; Liapunova 1996: 153; Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 1998; Mitchell 1984; Reedy Maschner and Maschner 2012). Slighted honor provoked revenge wars, which also provided loot and slaves to the victors (Allen and Jones 2014; Maschner

188

5 People on the Landscape

and Reedy-Maschner 1998; Mitchell 1984; O’Leary 2002; Veniaminov 1984; Wadley 2003). Older men led war parties to maintain their honor and position (Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 1998, 2008; Mitchell 1984).

Enemies Foreign wars provided sport and occupation both profitable and glorious (Liapunova 1996; Veniaminov 1984: 206). Aglegmiuts on the Alaska Peninsula were brave and worthy enemies, admiringly called killer whales. Hostilities with the Alutiiq of Kodiak and the Alaska Peninsula were vicious and unrelenting. Both sides destroyed enemy villages, looted wealth, and captured slaves from their opponents. When Aleut raiders were bested, few, or none, would return home. Koniags in turn raided the eastern Aleutian Islands. Seven Aleut stories concern wars with Kodiak (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 164– 193, 254–267, 316–323, 351–357, 458–461, 466–471, 492–519). In all of these, the spiritual strength of the leaders was critical to their success. Chiefs harnessed their “magic protectors” (qugaanguusiˆx ), to apply the power of Sun Woman (Aˆgadaˆx ) to overcome supernatural barriers to destroy a targeted village. The victors returned home with women, “rich gifts,” and kayaks plundered from the losers (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 164–193, 351–357, 466–471). Internecine wars between different Aleut societies were more common than wars with outsiders. The goals were essentially the same: avenge dishonor by annihilation of the enemy and acquire loot, primarily women. Many campaigns took place between polities in different island groups, but neighbors within island groups also fought. At contact, the Unalaska and Umnak Islanders were allied, with Umnak dominant (Black n.d. d). This alliance of warriors ranged from the Rat and Andreanof Islands to Unimak, the Alaska Peninsula, and Kodiak Archipelago (Bergsland 1959: 13; O’Leary 2002: 6–7; Veniaminov 1984: 249–250, 371). At times, the allies fought among themselves. Unimak Islanders attacked villages on the Alaska Peninsula, Shumagin Islands, and westward to Umnak (O’Leary 2002: 7; Veniaminov 1984: 250). The Aleut, Yup’ik, and Alutiiq groups on the Alaska Peninsula raided each other, Kodiak, the Shumagins, and Sanak. Unalaskans and Atkans were deadly enemies, with extermination the mutual goal (Golder 1909; Turner 2008: 180) Unalaskans raided with fleets of 50–100 iqyas (kayaks) destroying villages and besieging Atkan refuges and fortresses (Turner 2008: 180; Veniaminov 1984: 370–372). The islands between Umnak and Amlia were the hardest hit, bearing the brunt of raiders traveling to and from Unalaska (Turner 2008: 180). Atkans took few prisoners from among the Unalaskans and treated them cruelly, burning or steaming them on hot rocks (Turner 2008: 180–181; Veniaminov 1984: 372). Atkans preyed on the Rat and Near Island people as well as

Warfare

189

their neighbors, the Naahmiˆgus of Tanaga and the Delarof Islands (Bergsland 1959: 13; O’Leary 2002: 6; Turner 2008: 180; Veniaminov 1984: 372). At contact, the Attuans were attacked by both Rat and Andreanof Islanders, possibly the Naahmiˆgus (Turner 2008: 180; Veniaminov 1984: 372). Early Russian explorers occasionally repatriated Near Island captives to their home islands from Atka (Berkh 1974: 30; Black 1984: 65). Near Islanders also fought each other (Turner 2008: 182). Speech-Answerer details a multi-year campaign beginning when one tukuˆx tried to assert hegemony over all villages on Attu, leading to murders, political coups, wife thefts, and raids on unsuspecting, non-combatant villages (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 662–673). In the end, at least three villages lay in ruins, three chiefs had died, and the political landscape had not changed.

Leadership and Campaign Planning Only chiefs had the authority to declare war. A village chief, village complex chief, or island chief would announce his desire to stage a raid. If the target was another Aleut village, the tukuˆx laid out the rationale for action, detailing the offenses of the enemy. Subchiefs were convened to deliberate the motives and severity of the offenses that triggered the call to action (Veniaminov 1984: 206). Members of the war party were recruited from among the chief’s kin. Others volunteered (Golder 1907; Liapunova 1996: 153; Veniaminov 1984: 206). Men chose to join war parties led by tukus known for their military skill and ability to command. The tukus selected lieutenants from among his closest kin or the most experienced men. The party was divided up and assigned tasks (Keeley 1996; Veniaminov 1984: 207). The assembled men swore to obey the chief’s advice and instructions. The soldiers trained together and rehearsed attacks. Even among volunteers, a chief’s reputation and experience could inspire obedience and loyalty (Golder 1907; Keeley 1996: 42–48; Veniaminov 1984: 206).

Tactics War came naturally. Big game hunting and warfare are the same technological adaptation (Allen and Jones 2014). Aleut folklore clearly equates hunting of large sea mammals with war (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 106–115, 228–231, 240–243, 434– 439, 478–483, 662–673; Black 1998; Golder 1909; Jochelson 1933; Shade 1949; Suvorov and Yatchmenev 1976). Training for hunting and war spanned a young man’s youth as he built strength, endurance, flexibility, and speed (Darwent and Darwent 2014; Funk 2010; Keeley 1996). Maneuvers such as hunting surrounds, stalking, and ambushes were used on both animal and human targets. Men were familiar with cooperating to plan and carry out complex operations.

190

5 People on the Landscape

Military engagements took several, overlapping forms. Lethal treachery, mainly involving ambushes during feasts, was common. In six stories, a small group of raiders enter a village as guests (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 98–103, 350–357, 372– 377, 434–439, 478–483; Golder 1909; Harrington 1941; Wadley 2003). After landing on the village beach and preparing their camp, they are escorted to a house for a feast, where they are entertained. In two stories, the heroes are given “wives.” Each switches sides of the bed with the woman, and she is killed by her kin in the night. In the confusion and grief that follow, the hero escapes with trophies. In two of these tales, the raiders simply wait for the hosts to fall asleep before killing them or stealing trophies. Then they make their escape. Single combat between champions took the form of wrestling (Golder 1907). Wrestling during the mid-winter festivals showcased the strength and agility of young men. Actual combats were to the death. Raiders/guests are challenged to wrestling matches in which they confront supernatural opponents over wrestling pits full of sharpened bone or stone spikes (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 77, 103, 179–185, 353– 357, 377). Short-handled, long-bladed knives, chugaamin, have been identified as spikes (Laughlin 1955: 30–31, Pl. IX). The most common Unangaˆx tactic was a raid by bands of ten to a few hundred men who breached enemy territory to kill (Keeley 1996: 65; Wadley 2003). Raiding villages, ambushing hunting parties, and stealing women effectively demonstrated daring and courage with minimal risk (Ayers 1974; Keeley 1996: 96). As a bonus, targeted enemies were kept on guard and could be prevented from hunting or fishing to feed their families. Shifting villages in the Shumagin Islands to more hidden locations in late prehistory may illustrate attempts by the people there to increase security from raiders from both east and west (Winslow and Johnson 1989). Raiding tactics were varied and flexible, relying on speed, surprise, and knowledge of terrain to approach enemy settlements. Moving quickly, raiders avoided detection through stealth, ambush, disguises, counterintelligence, and deception. As they did when ambushing sea mammals in their rookeries, warriors moved into place under cover of darkness (Turner 2008: 182; Veniaminov 1984: 207). Raiders hid behind landscape features, in small depressions, or mimicked small mounds. In one story, raiders disguise themselves as seals in a seal rookery to ambush the hunters. Another man hides in a kelp bed to ambush a raiding party trespassing in his territory (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 324–327, 458–461). The simplest raids involved capturing individuals or small groups (Bergsland and Dirks 1990). Single victims walking alone across an island might be ambushed. In four stories, men in kayaks, or a baidar party, are ambushed by raiders hiding in coves (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 338–341, 342–345, 402–405, 440–447, 458–461, 466–471; Marsh 1971). In two stories, raiders watch men leave a village before they attack it to steal women (Bergsland 1959: 73; Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 414–415). Simple raids involved a small group sneaking into a village, eluding or distracting the villagers, and stealing trophies or killing a few people. Qatxaykusax, a chief from the Islands of Four Mountains, raided Kashega on Unalaska to steal a whaleshaped rock that attracted beached whales (Marsh 1971). For these raids, the warriors

Warfare

191

turned their boats to point into the sea for a quick getaway (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 378–381, 414–417). Ideally Aleut invaders came ashore unnoticed in a cove near the target village. A small detachment guarded the iqyak and prepared for retreat (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 254–267, 364–371, 492–519; Veniaminov 1984: 207). The main force crept up on the village under cover of darkness, traveling overland to come down from above. House entrances were surrounded (Golder 1909; Keeley 1996: 65; Veniaminov 1984: 207). The calling of crested auklets at dawn was the signal for attack (Turner 2008: 182). Seabirds in general, and auklets in particular, gave men the power to kill (Black 1991: 36–40, 1998). The attackers roared or pounded drums to announce battle, then swarmed into the houses. Some men were captured for torture, but most adults, men and older women, were killed (Keeley 1996; Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 1998). Some of the dead, male and female, were mutilated, with ears, genitals, and scalps cut off as trophies (Veniaminov 1984: 208). Younger women and children were captured and taken away.

Massacres: Big Raids Occasionally, these ongoing wars of attrition turned to total war, with destruction of the enemy as the goal (Keeley 1996: 67; Golder 1909). The motivations centered on revenge for trespass on territory, or retaliation for raids. In these campaigns, men were killed; women and children killed or captured; wealth and food stores were taken or destroyed; and houses, boats, and other infrastructure were destroyed. An Attuan tale relates an attack by Atkans that killed everyone but one woman (Bergsland 1959; Golder 1907; Khlebnikov 1994: 239; Marsh 1952; Turner 2008: 180). The attackers returned a year later to ensure they had completed the destruction. Living alone, the woman escaped notice for several years before some Umnak Islanders appeared and left her a husband along with some other couples, who repopulated the islands. One chief who lost two sons to a raid from Kodiak spent a winter planning revenge. After recruiting and training his army, he destroyed the enemy chief’s village and captured and burned the tukuˆx to death (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 254–267). Another history recounts how survivors of two villages destroyed by Kodiak raiders joined forces to retrieve their captive families and get revenge (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 492–519). They systematically followed and destroyed the invading army and two villages, leaving alive only the now humiliated and powerless chiefs who had initiated the original raids. Other massacres were prompted by tyrannical chiefs stealing men’s wives and sisters, or men abusing sons or nephews who then grew up and got even (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 70–79, 240–243, 434–439).

192

5 People on the Landscape

Pitched Battles Pitched battles between two opposing armies were glorious but risky (Golder 1909; Veniaminov 1984: 207). Attackers were vulnerable to defenders operating on home turf. The goal was to annihilate the losers (Darwent and Darwent 2014; Golder 1909). Typical examples of this kind of engagement occurred when an invading force was encountered on a beach (Andreev 1948: 21; Black 1984: 53; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 216). In 1745, the first Russian trading vessel off Agattu was met with 100 armed Aleut warriors. To avoid trouble, the Russians moved to Attu Island (Berkh 1974: 34; Coxe 1970 [1787]: 32). A hostile landing party from Umnak was attacked on a beach in the Pribilofs by defending fur seal people led by the chief’s fur seal wife (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 106–115). In extended campaigns against the Andreanof Islanders, Unalaskan war parties were regularly repelled from beaches (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 254–267, 364– 371, 492–519; Coxe 1970 [1787]: 198; Golder 1909; Harrington 1941; Snigaroff 1986; Swanson 1982). When the Unalaskans made landfall, Atkans ambushed them as they moved toward target villages and fought pitched battles. In one, Unalaskan attackers retreated from a beach on Tanaga to Unalga Island, where they repelled the counterattacking Tanaga Islanders on the beach (Bergsland 1959: 4). The most detailed account of pitched battles is an Atkan tale of a war party seeking revenge for devastating raids on their village (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 492–519). The avengers caught up with the raiders on the Alaska Peninsula and fought a battle in the open. The raiders retreated to their village and took shelter in a house. The avengers broke into the house and killed everyone inside, leaving the defeated chief alive and weeping. They then continued to Kodiak to invade another house in which the raiders sheltered. Again, they broke in and killed all the warriors except the weeping, begging chief. Their captive wives and children were rescued, and the Kodiak women and children in turn were captured and enslaved.

Naval Battles Naval engagements between fleets of kayaks usually resulted from unexpected encounters. The raiders are often identified as being from Kodiak, and the stories highlight the superior speed and maneuverability of the Aleut kayak. When Aleuts attacked people of the Kodiak Archipelago, they sought naval battles with Koniags (Veniaminov 1984: 208). Attacks were managed like sea mammal hunting surrounds as the Aleut warriors encircled the Koniags and drove them forward, tiring them for the final attack. Survivors who surrendered were spared and freed, the victors earning glory but not booty (Veniaminov 1984: 208). In several tales, a pair of hunters, either cousins or brothers-in-law, is surprised by a raiders’ fleet. The two hunters split up and outpace the pursuers. As the enemy closes in, the hunters pick them off one by one, forcing the attackers to retreat

Warfare

193

(Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 440–447, 458–461). One man sees a fleet of enemies from his observation hill. He confronts them in his kayak and draws them after him in pursuit, separating them and killing them one by one (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 338–341).

Weapons Traditional weapons fall into three types: projectiles, hand to hand, and chemical. Projectile weapons are based on hunting weapons, but these are modified to make even minor wounds deadly (Keeley 1996: 52). Arrow and spear heads are designed to detach or break off in wounds, or they are barbed (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 216; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 250; Georgi 1780: 212). Aleut weapons included bow and arrows, spears and harpoons, and slings (Black 1984, n.d. d; Golder 1909: 336; Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 1998; Veniaminov 1984: 209–210). Bows were rarely used except in war, and not every group had them (Black 1984, n.d. d; Golder 1909: 336; Maschner and Reedy-Maschner 1998; Veniaminov 1984: 210). Aleut, Alutiiq, and Yup’ik bow staves are thick, narrow in the middle, and tapered at the ends. Each man’s bow was custom-built to length and stiffness of the draw (Fienup-Riordan 2007). It was an arm-span long, the distance from fingertip to fingertip with arms stretched to the side. War bows were backed with a braided or twisted sinew strap with sinew cross-lashings (Jochelson 2002; Liapunova 1996). The bow string was also twisted sinew. Ugaluˆx, wrist guards of dehaired seal skin, and wooden quivers are known ethnographically but have not been found archaeologically. Arrows could be tipped with small stone points, barbed or unbarbed bone points, and ivory points (Graburn et al. 1996; Jochelson 2002; Liapunova 1996). Ethnographic bone and ivory points were either flat with several barbs, or they had a triangular cross-section with a single barb (Graburn et al. 1996; Liapunova 1996). Archaeologically, cylindrical points 7 cm long with a single barb on one side may date to between 3100 and 2900 BP at Chaluka (Aigner 1966; Bland 1996; Knecht and Davis 2003; Laughlin 1955). At Tanaxtaxax, on Amaknak Island, nine similar but slightly larger, 8–13 cm long, self-armed cylindrical arrow points date to 650 to 350 BP. A tenth point has a single barb at the tip (Knecht and Davis 2003). Far less common are slender bone shafts with up to four unilateral barbs (Jochelson 2002; McCartney 1967). About half the 22 illustrated examples are slotted for a stone tip. This is also a late style with all examples coming from the upper levels of sites within Unalaska Bay. Small bilaterally barbed bone points from Amchitka may have tipped arrows (Desautels et al. 1971). Cylindrical points with one to four unilateral barb and round tangs are stylistically unique to the Near Islands (McCartney 1971). Stone arrow points are even less frequently identified by archaeologists (Fig. 5.8). Small bullet-shaped qaxaq points (from the Unangam tunuu word qaxaˆx or qagaˆx for bullet) were likely used on arrows in Unalaska Bay 3400–2500 years ago (Knecht et al. 2001; Knecht and Davis 2003). Much later, small, stemmed points are reported

194

5 People on the Landscape

from Chaluka, Korovinsky, and Amchitka (Bland 1996; Desautels et al. 1971; Veltre 1979). Fishtail points—long, thin, brittle stone tips with slightly flared shoulders on the indented base—are explicitly identified with warfare (Maschner 2008; Reedy Maschner and Maschner 2012). These are found from the Krenitzin Islands to Goodnews Bay in Southwest Alaska and appeared within the last 1000 years (Maschner 2008). Spear and harpoon heads used in war are better known. Long, thin, elaborately barbed points are considered war weapons (Jochelson 2002; Maschner and ReedyMaschner 1998). One style looks like a sea lion dart with a bone foreshaft and stone endblade. A second style used replaceable points of hard wood or bone with obsidian endblades set in foreshafts (Veniaminov 1984: 209–210). Stone points were designed to stay in the wound. Of 2100 bone points of all kinds, 258 (12%) have a slot or a basin tip for holding a stone endblade. Almost half (47%) of the 563 bone points used for war have a slot or basin for holding a stone point. Stone tips were clearly important on bone war points. Bone war heads were ornamented (Jochelson 2002: 92). Of 140 ornamented spear and harpoon points, 120 are identified as war points. The main design motifs are incised lines that are single, paired, or in groups of five to six. A single line running the length of a point is probably the most common decoration. The spaces between paired lines can be left empty or can serve as a canvas for a variety of embellishments such as diagonal lines or tiny drilled holes. The space between parallel lines can be divided into rectangular segments or filled with carved “beads.” Multiple lines can be parallel, perpendicular, or angled to the long axis of the point. Cross-hatching fills spaces defined by other lines. Wide lines are cut along the base of the barb on the edge of the point. Notching and false barbing extend cuts made for practical reasons. Large and small Xs are common motifs (Fig. 5.9). Zigzag designs or qiluqayaliˆx derive from qiluˆx, a curve in a creek (Jochelson 1933: 66). Zigzag lines can form a panel or be incorporated into various line compositions. In larger zigzag panels, a secondary line may extend from the point of the triangle to the base. Sometimes the center line of a point is marked by a raised ridge (qudguˆx; McCartney 1967: 188). More rarely, ridges parallel the edge of the point at the base of the barbs. Other design elements include incised dots, appearing either singly or in rows. A dot within a circle is an ancient worldwide motif. The meaning differs among cultures, and its meaning to the Aleuts is lost to us. To the Yup’ik, the circle/dot is ellam iinga, and it represents spiritual vision and the path between humans and the spirit world (Fienup-Riordan 1990). Ellanguat “model universe” and iinguat “pretend eyes” are other Yup’ik meanings (Crowell and Leer 2001: 197; Fienup-Riordan 2007). The symbol also sometimes represents joints where the souls of animals reside (Crowell and Leer 2001; Eliade 1964). The rarest motif, found only on a few points from Unalaska and Umnak Islands, is human faces (Jochelson 2002). Barbs on bone harpoon and spear points are necessary to prevent the loss of prey. At the same time, women processing the kill need to be able to remove the barbed point with minimal damage to meat, organs, and other tissues. Bone points possessing barbing that would make removal impossible without inflicting major damage are identified as specialized weapons for war (Jochelson 2002: 92; McCartney 1967).

Warfare

195

Fig. 5.8 Bone and stone arrow points. a, h, t Stemmed Amaknak Bridge arrow points, 3–4 cm long. b Bi-pointed arrow point from Amaknak Bridge, 4 cm. c, p, s Bullet or Qaqax points, Amaknak Bridge, 3–5 cm. d, i, j, k, l, m, q Fishtail points, Krenitzin Islands, Sanak, Alaska Peninsula, Bristol Bay, 5–9 cm. e, f Bone arrow points, Tanaxtaxax, 5–8 cm. g Stemmed arrow point, Pan-Aleutian, 5 cm. n, o Square stemmed arrow point, Margaret Bay, Unalaska, 2–3 cm. r Bi-pointed arrow point, pan-Aleutian, 6 cm

196

5 People on the Landscape

Fig. 5.9 Decorative motifs on arrow, spear, and harpoon points. a Engraved lines with carved square holes in a bead-like pattern. b Engraved lines with raised triangles, chigidan. c Angled, cross-hatching in two directions and a row of raised circles with central dot. d Single line with whole and partial chevrons. e Single line with bisected triangles. f, g Human face on harpoon point. h, i Sea mammal faces on harpoon foreshafts. j Bisected triangles with slanted lines. k Winged foreshaft with dashed lines. l Central raised bar

Warfare

197

The simplest of these baroque barbs have an elegant outward flare, curving slightly upward. Next are multi-faceted barbs. In these, each individual barb is carved on the face adjacent to the body, with two additional points. A third style has “irregularly spaced, bilateral barbs which have a ragged appearance” (McCartney 1967: 103). Barb prongs have “double, triple and quadruple pronged barbs used in combination with simple barbs” (McCartney 1967: 203). One style has three to four rows of barbs on all faces of the point (Fig. 5.10). Five of these elaborate point types are limited to Unalaska and Umnak Islands. Three are shared with Atka. One style is found in the Rat and Near Islands. Most decorated and elaborately barbed points have been found throughout the Amaknak D sequence on Unalaska Island with dates between 1870 and 1090 BP (McCartney 1967: 68–70). Shock weapons included daggers and clubs in addition to armor, shields, and helmets (Golder 1909; Veniaminov 1984: 209–211). Hand-to-hand fighting took place when an individual or group was ambushed or surprised, or when men were challenged to single combat. The primary weapon was a knife or dagger (qamlituˆx, qamaxtiˆx, qichaˆx, chunusiˆx, kalaguliisiˆx, qalguyaˆx, and saamiˆx ). Veniaminov (1984: 211) described two types, one double-edged and the other single-edged, both about 27 cm long. All men carried short-handled daggers with a short blade, a tayaˆgusiisiˆx “means for killing a man,” in their belt (Bergsland 1994: 396). In folklore, the knives are mainly used when a warrior, as a guest in a house, treacherously kills one or more of the hosts as they sleep (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 98–103, 372–377). Clubs are only briefly mentioned by Hrdliˇcka (1945: 133–134), with four of them illustrated. These are bone and wood, about 94 cm (37 inches) long. Three complete specimens have simple handles, one with a hole for a lanyard. Chunks of ivory, probably walrus tusks, were used as clubs by chiefs (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 386–389, 466–471, 492–519; Suvorov and Yatchmenev 1976). Armor, shields, and helmets were used in open battle or when attacking a fixed position (Veniaminov 1984: 211–212). Armor was made of rods of wood 2 cm in diameter and up to 35 cm long, sewn together vertically with sinew. The arm holes were framed with carved wood (Dall 1878: 18; Hrdliˇcka 1945: 135–7). One complete example is known (Dall 1878: 18) but Hrdliˇcka (1945: 135–7, 433–6) reported finding numerous loose slats in the caves on Kagamil (Fig. 5.11). Bone or ivory plate armor appeared in Punuk culture, 1450–1150 BP, the earliest indisputable evidence of specialized fighting weapons of the Bering Straits (Bronshtein et al. 2016; Mason 2016). Flat or slightly convex, rectangular plates of bone with holes may be slats of armor (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 458; McLain 1998). The holes are polished and smooth as if they had been bound with cords. They have been identified on Umnak, Kanaga, Amchitka, Little Kiska, and Agattu (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 475–482). Most date within the last 2000 years, but the single piece from the Amaknak Bridge site is 2500–3500 years old (Knecht and Davis 2005: A 70, 110). Two large rectangular wooden shields were recovered from the Kagamil Caves (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 135–136). These were made of wood panels tied together and reinforced with crosspieces, with a handhold on the back (Fig. 5.12). One had red designs

198

5 People on the Landscape

Fig. 5.10 Baroque barbing on spear and harpoon war heads. a Unique multi-faceted beveled barb. b, h Barbing on 3–4 faces of spear point. c Small, “ridged barbs” are found only on Umnak and Unalaska in the last 1000 years. e, f, g Raggedly barbed spear points. d, i, j Raggedly barbed points with flared double, triple, and quadruple barb prongs

Warfare

199

Fig. 5.11 Slat armor coat, modified after Dall 1878: plate 6

on the outer face (Hrdliˇcka 1945). None of these are directly dated, but dates on human remains from the caves are from 900 to 1600 BP (Coltrain et al. 2006). Aleuts employed two kinds of chemical weapons, poison, and fireballs, or chakuˆxsin. Use of poison in whale hunting and warfare was known on Kamchatka, the Kuril Islands, eastern Aleutian Islands, and Kodiak Islands (Bank 1977; Black 1987; Heizer 1938, 1943). Few men knew either the formula or the proper use of such poisons. That esoteric knowledge was closely held by chiefs, who determined if and when poison was used (Bank 1977; Black 1987). Harpoons, spears, and arrows used in war could be poisoned (Lantis 1938, 1970; Veniaminov 1984: 210, 223–4).

200

5 People on the Landscape

Fig. 5.12 Wooden shield, modified after Hrdliˇcka (1945: 173)

Three toxic plant genera are known from the Aleutians: Aconitum, Anemone, and Ranunculus. In Kamchatka, whale poison is based on Anemone (Heizer 1943). The Ainu of Hokkaido and Koniags used Aconitum (Bank 1977; Heizer 1938, 1943). Aleut poison is presumed to be Aconitum-based (Bank 1977; Black 1987; Heizer 1943). Asian aconites are widely employed as poisons on war and hunting weapons. The potency of aconite from northern latitudes is undetermined, but both Bank (1977)

Warfare

201

and Heizer (1943: 436) note a tendency for plant families to lose toxicity at higher latitudes. Some consider this poison to be a “fetish substance” that derives its efficacy from spiritual powers (Heizer 1943: 436). The poison’s spirit toxins were a powerful adjunct to the hunters’ own spiritual force. Other secret ingredients included parts of corpses, menstrual blood, poisonous roots and grasses, worms, black beetles, and bumblebees (Bank 1953b; Black 1987; Laughlin 1980: 42; Veniaminov 1984: 223–224). Dead men’s fat, or pieces of mummies, were the most powerful amulets (Lantis 1938: 443, 452–454). Corpses retained the spiritual power of the deceased. These powers were linked to active, erupting volcanoes and to the power of Aˆgadaˆx (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 164–193). The power came with a price: Men who dared use it faced early death, disfigurement, and madness (Laughlin 1980; Sarychev 1806). A second type of chemical weapon was fireballs, chakuˆxsin (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 434–439; 440–447, 472–477, 562–589, 662–673; Golder 1909; Turner 2008). Made of grass and/or feathers pounded together with fat and sulfur, the balls were set on fire and thrown into occupied houses. The entry was blocked with a kayak or umiak, and anyone trying to escape was pushed back in until they suffocated.

Fortifications Forts shield defenders, their dependents, and portable property. They offer protection on frontiers or for elites. Forts symbolize military sophistication (Keeley 1996: 57). Keeley (1996: 57) identifies four types: fortified settlements, refuges, fortified elite residences, and purely military forts. Aleutian fortifications are predominantly refuge rocks on offshore, steep-sided islets and on high points near sites. Many villages are also defensively placed. Few have been described, and only one has been excavated. On Unimak Island, north of Agayadan, UNI-067 sits on a 24-m-tall sand dune. A 17 × 11 m depression there proved to be a walled structure with a sweeping view of Peterson Lagoon and the ocean. The structure, clearly defensive, was regularly used for domestic purposes and probably as a lookout (Hoffman 2002). Off the west side of Unalaska Island, Split Rock (UNL-00097) was reported as a refuge for local people from raids by Koniags (Weyer 1929: 226). Access to the main portion was by crossing a drawbridge from the smaller, climbable pinnacle. A few house pits and numerous burials dotted both islets (Weyer 1929: 228). On Amchitka, Windy Island (RAT-00075) has a 4 m2 depression atop the highest hill, while a cluster of seven small house depressions occupies a saddle in the center of the islet. Mex Island (RAT-00076) is an offshore pinnacle 8.5 m tall with a 28 × 25 m flat surface. Five shallow, rectangular depressions cluster at the eastern end of the islet. Soil probes yielded charcoal, sea urchin tests, mammal and fish bone, and black, greasy soil indicative of a living surface (USBIA 1986). Like the ataagin on Unimak, the site was maintained and used domestically while also serving as a defensive stronghold. ADK-00266 on Adak Island’s Caribou Peninsula is in a hollow on top

202

5 People on the Landscape

of a hill, invisible from even a short distance away. Four features here were clearly defensive. Off Unalaska Island, a looter on Egg Island at Ugalgan (UNL-00143) disturbed a burial with a metal spear or knife blade embedded in a victim of Russian attacks on the island fortress (Knecht and Davis 2001; McGowan 1999; Veniaminov 1984: 96–7, 252). Unangaˆx constructed a variety of effective fortifications, skillfully using topography to conceal and defend. While some assaults on fortresses were successful, these defensive positions protected non-combatants while warriors could repel invaders.

Aftermath A successful raid left clear victors and obvious losers. The dead were mutilated to neutralize their individual power and prevent the souls from being reborn. The now malevolent ghosts (anˆgim) lingered to be harnessed as spirit helpers to shamans. Warfare was business (Mitchell 1984). Far from being incidental to the raid, captives, trophies, and loot were the goals (Golder 1909: 336; Liapunova 1996: 153). The chief took his share of the booty and divided the rest among the war party based on rank (Liapunova 1996: 154; Turner 2008: 179–180; Veniaminov 1984: 208). Warfare for slaves and maintenance of high social status are closely correlated (Mitchell 1984). Slaves were only given to the wealthy and powerful. The wealthy and powerful also claimed all the rare materials, fine textiles, weapons, and adornment seized in battle. Commoners sometimes received a slave from a higher-ranking kinsman. They were otherwise rewarded with clothing, ornaments, utensils, and weapons. Kinless Aleuts and slaves accompanying the war party received a share of the clothing, food, utensils (Liapunova 1996: 154). Items not selected for transport home were destroyed, as were houses and boats. The defeated group ceased to exist as a viable social unit. Captured weapons were the most important trophies and, with the account of the battle, became part of the lineage regalia to be recited and displayed at feasts (Veniaminov 1984: 201). Trophy heads were important tokens of male status and were sometimes displayed on poles above houses (Keeley 1996: 100; Liapunova 1996: 154). Trophies from high-status losers transferred prestige and power to the victors (Maschner 2007). Warfare had long-term indirect effects on Aleut culture. Some regions were lightly populated in later prehistory, perhaps due to threats of raids and massacres. Constant movement of people created a superficially homogenous culture along the Chain and low dialectical divergence. In the Shumagin Islands, late prehistoric settlement patterns are consistent with people moving their villages to be less visible to war parties. On Buldir, evidence for use of the island by both Rat and Near Islanders, alternating over time, may document a shifting political boundary between these two groups. Seguam, Uliaga, Yunaska, and Amukta, between Amlia and the Islands of Four Mountains, were, in late prehistory, occupied lightly if at all, and these locations

References

203

are specifically reported as hard-hit by warfare between the Andreanof and Fox Island Aleuts.

References Aigner, Jean. 1966. Bone Tools and Decorative Motifs from Chaluka, Umnak Island. Arctic Anthropology 3 (2): 57–83. Aigner, Jean, and Douglas W. Veltre. 1976. The Distribution and Pattern of Umqan Burial on Southwest Umnak Island. Arctic Anthropology 13 (2): 113–127. Allen, Mark W., and Terry L. Jones. 2014. Violence and Warfare Among Hunter Gatherers. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. Anders, Jacob J. 2013. Upland Archaeological Site Modeling and the Use of GIS to Explore New Aspects of Land Use in the Central Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage. Anders, Jake, and Diane K. Hanson. 2020. Radiocarbon Dates from the Central Aleutian Upland Archaeological Project, Southwest Adak Island: 2007–2012. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 18 (2): 754–781. Andreev, A.I. 1948. Report of the Tot’ma Merchant Stepan Cherepanov about his sojourn on the Aleutian Islands, 1759 1762. In Russkie Otkrytiia V Tikhom Okeane i v Severnoi Amerike v XVIII–XIX Vekakh (Russian Discoveries in the North Pacific and in North America in the 18th and 19th centuries), ed. A.I. Andreev, 113–120. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk. Ayers, Barbara. 1974. Bride Theft and Raiding for Wives in Cross Cultural Perspective. Anthropological Quarterly 47 (3): 238–252. Bank, Theodore P. 1953a. Biological Succession in the Aleutians. Pacific Science 7: 493–503. Bank, Theodore P. 1953b. Cultural Succession in the Aleutians. American Antiquity 19 (1): 40–49. Bank, Theodore P. 1977. Ethnobotany as an Adjunct to Archaeology: Studies in the Aleutian Islands. Anthropological Papers of the University of Michigan 61: 3–39. Bergsland, Knut. 1994. Aleut Dictionary/Unangam Tunudgusii. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Bergsland, Knut, and Moses L. Dirks. 1990. Unangan Ungiikangin Kayuk Tunusangin: Unangam Uniikangis Ama Tunuzangis: Aleut Tales and Narratives: Collected 1909–1910 by Waldemar Jochelson. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Bergsland, Knut. 1959. Aleut Dialects of Atka and Attu. 3rd ed. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 49 (3). American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Berkh, Vasilii. 1974. A Chronological History of the Discovery of the Aleutian Islands or the Exploits of Russian Merchants with a Supplement of Historical Data on the Fur Trade. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Black, Lydia T. 1984. Atka: An Ethnohistory of the Western Aleutians. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press. Black, Lydia T. 1987. Whaling in the Aleutians. Études/Inuit Studies 11 (2): 7–50. Black, Lydia T. 1998. Animal World of the Aleuts. Arctic Anthropology 35 (2): 126–135. Black, Lydia T. 2004. Russians in Alaska: 1732–1867. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Black, Lydia and Jerry Jacka 1999. False Pass: an Ethnography. In History and Ethnohistory of the Aleutians East Borough, ed. R. Pierce, Katherine L. Arndt, Sarah McGowan, 163–184. Alaska History, Vol. 49, R. Pierce, general editor. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Black, Lydia T. nd a. Near Islanders Culture. Draft book chapter. Manuscript on file at the Unangaˆx Heritage Library & Archive, Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Anchorage, Alaska. Black, Lydia T. nd b. The Qagun Inhabitants of the Rat Islands. Draft Book Chapter. Manuscript on file at the Unangaˆx Heritage Library & Archive, Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Anchorage, Alaska.

204

5 People on the Landscape

Black, Lydia T. nd c. The Commander Islands (Komandorskie Ostrova) USSR. Draft Book Chapter. Manuscript on file at the Unangaˆx Heritage Library & Archive, Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Anchorage, Alaska. Black, Lydia T. nd d. The Conquest of the Eastern Aleutians. Draft Book Chapter. Manuscript on file at the Unangaˆx Heritage Library & Archive, Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Anchorage, Alaska. Black, Lydia T. 1999a. Sanak. In The History and Ethnohistory of the Aleutians East Borough, ed. R. Pierce, Katherine L. Arndt, and Sarah McGowan, 59–78. Alaska History, Vol. 49, R. Pierce, general editor. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Black, Lydia T. 1999b. Unga: the People and the Community, an Ethnohistory. In The History and Ethnohistory of the Aleutians East Borough, ed. R. Pierce, Katherine L. Arndt, Sarah McGowan, 113–141. Alaska History, Vol. 49, R. Pierce, general editor. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Black, Lydia T. 2003. Aleut Art, 2nd ed. Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association, Anchorage, Alaska. Bland, Richard L. 1996. The Chaluka Site and Its Implications for Subsistence Regimes in the Aleutian Islands. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. Bronshtein, Mikhail, Kirill A. Dneprovsky, and Arkady B. Savinetsky. 2016. Ancient Eskimo Cultures of Chukotka. In The Oxford Handbook of the Prehistoric Arctic, ed. T. Max Friesen and Owen K. Mason, 469–488. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cherepanov, Stepan. 1762. The Account of the Totma Merchant, Stepan Cherepanov, concerning his stay in the Aleutian Islands, 1759–1762. In Russian Penetration of the North Pacific Ocean, 1700–1797: A Documentary Record, Volume 2, ed. B. Dymytryshyn, E.A.P. Crownhart Vaughan, and Thomas Vaughan, 206–213. North Pacific Studies Series Number 10, T. Vaughan, general editor. Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press. Clark, Fred. 1990. At the End of the Chain. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Fairbanks, Alaska. Collins, Henry B., Austin W. Clark, and Egbert H. Walker. 1945. The Aleutian Islands: Their People and Natural History. War Background Studies, Number 21, Publication 3775. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Coltrain, Joan Brenner, M. Geoffrey Hayes, and Dennis H. O’Rourke. 2006. Hrdliˇcka’s Aleutian Population-Replacement Hypothesis: A Radiometric Evaluation. Current Anthropology 47 (3): 537–548. Cook, John, James Dixon, and Charles Holmes. 1972. Archaeological Report Site 49 RAT 32, Amchitka Island, Alaska. University of Alaska. Submitted to Homes and Narver, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada. Prepared for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada Operations Office, Under Contract AT(29-2)-20. HN-20-1045. Cooper, D. Randall. 1990. A Brief Assessment of Lithic Resources and Technology on Agattu Island. Paper presented at the 17th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Fairbanks, Alaska. Corbett, Debra. 2011. Two Chief’s Houses from the Western Aleutian Islands. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 3–16. Corbett, Debra. 2016. Sagdag: To Catch Birds. Arctic Anthropology 53 (2): 93–113. Corbett, Debra, Christine Lefèvre, Thomas J. Corbett, Dixie West, and Douglas Siegel Causey. 1997. Excavations at KIS 008, Buldir Island: Evaluation and Potential. Arctic Anthropology 34 (2): 100–117. Corbett, Debra, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre (editors). 2001. Prehistoric Village Organization in the Western Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, ed. D. E. Dumond, 251–266. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Corbett, Debra, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre (editors). 2010. The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island. Aurora, Alaska Anthropological Association Monograph Series, Vol. 8. Anchorage: Alaska Anthropological Association.

References

205

Corbett, Debra. 1991. Aleut Settlement Patterns in the Western Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Corbett, Debra. 2012. Determinations of Eligibility for Sites on Tigalda Island. Anchorage, Alaska: US Fish and Wildlife Service. Coxe, William. 1970 [1787]. Account of the Russian Discoveries Between Asia and America, 3rd ed. T. Cadell, London. 1970 facsimile ed. Augustus M. Kelley, New York. Crowell, Aron, and Jeff Leer. 2001. Ukgwepet “Our Beliefs”: Alutiiq Spiritual Life and Traditions. In Looking Both Ways: Heritage and Identity of the Alutiiq People, ed. A. Crowell, Amy Steffian, and Gordon Pullar, 189–221. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Dall, William H. 1872. Notes on Prehistoric Remains in the Aleutian Islands. California Academy of Sciences, Nov. 4, 1872. San Francisco, California. Dall, William H. 1878. On the Remains of Later Prehistoric Man Obtained from the Caves in the Catherina Archipelago, Alaska Territory, and Especially from Caves of the Aleutian Islands. Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 318. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Dall, William H. 1896. Report on Coal and Lignite in Alaska. In: Seventeenth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey to the Secretary of the Interior 1895–96, Part I: U.S. Geological Survey Annual Report 17-1:763–908. U.S. Department of Interior, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Darwent, John, and ChristyAnn Darwent. 2014. Scales of Violence across the North American Arctic. In Violence and Warfare Among Hunter Gatherers, ed. Mark W. Allen and Terry L. Jones, 182–203. Walnut Creek, California: Left Coast Press. Desautels, Roger, Albert J. McCurdy, James D. Flynn, And Robert R. Ellis. 1971. Archaeological Report Amchitka Island, Alaska 1969–1970. Archaeological Research Inc. Report for Holmes and Narver, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada, Submitted to the United States Atomic Energy Commission Report TID-25451, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas. Dmytryshyn, Basil, E.A.P. Crownhart Vaughan, and Thomas Vaughan. (editors) 1988. Russian Penetration of the North Pacific Ocean, 1700–1797: A Documentary Record. Translated by B. Dmytryshyn, E.A.P. Crownhart Vaughan, and Thomas Vaughan. To Siberia and Russian America: Three Centuries of Russian Eastward Expansion, 1558–1867, vol. 2. North Pacific Studies Series Number 10, Thomas Vaughan, series editor. Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press. Dumond, Don E. 2009. A Note on Labret Use Around the Bering and Chukchi Seas. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 7 (2): 121–134. Eliade, Mircea. 1964. Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Translated by Willard R. Trask. Bollingen Series in Mythology Number 76. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 1990. Eskimo Iconography and Symbolism: An Introduction. Études/inuit Studies 14 (1–2): 7–22. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 2007. Yuungnaqpiallerput: The Way We Genuinely Live. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Frohlich, Bruno, and Sara B. Laughlin 2002. Unangan Mortuary Practices and the Umqan Burials on Anangula Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. In To the Aleutians and Beyond: The Anthropology of William S. Laughlin, ed. Bruno Frohlich, Albert B. Harper, and Rolf Gilberg, 89–119. Publications of the National Museum Ethnographical Series, Vol. 20. Department of Ethnography, National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen. Frohlich, Bruno, and David Kopjansky. 1975. Aleutian Site Surveys 1975: Preliminary Report to the Aleut Corporation. Anchorage, Alaska: Submitted to The Aleut Corporation. Funk, Caroline. 2010. The Bow and Arrow War Days on the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta of Alaska. Ethnohistory 57 (4): 523–569. Funk, Caroline. 2011. Rat Islands Archaeological Research 2003 and 2009: Working Towards an Understanding of Regional Cultural and Environmental Histories. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 25–51. Funk, Caroline, and Debra Corbett. 2011. Anthropology in the Aleutians: Introductory Comments. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 1–2.

206

5 People on the Landscape

Funk, Caroline, and Debra Corbett. 2020. Qaˆxun Settlement on a Sulfur Deposit (RAT-00162), Little Sitkin Island, Western Aleutians. Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 18 (2): 82–92. Georgi, Johann Gottlieb 1780. Russia: or, A Compleat Historical Account of all the Nations which Compose that Empire: Samoyede Nations, Mandshour Nations. Eastern Siberians. Eastern Islanders. Observations on the Formation of Mountains, vol. 3, Translated by W. Tooke. T. Cadell, London. Golder, F.A. 1907. Songs and Stories of the Aleuts. Journal of American Folklore 20 (77): 132–142. Golder, F.A. 1909. Primitive Warfare among the Natives of Western Alaska. Journal of American Folklore 22 (85): 336–339. Golodoff, Gregory. 1998. Interview of Greg Golodoff with Alice Petrivelli, for the Western Aleutians Archaeological and Paleobiological Project. June 1999. Tapes and transcripts on file with D. Corbett. Gordaoff, Roberta M. 2016. The House on the Hill: A 3800-Year-Old Upland Site on Adak Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage. Graburn, Nelson H. H., Molly Lee, and Jean Loup Rousselot. 1996. Catalogue Raisonne of the Alaska Commercial Company Collection. University of California Publications in Anthropology, Vol. 21. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. Haggarty, James C., Christopher B. Wooley, Jon M. Erlandson, and Aron Crowell 1991. The 1990 Exxon Cultural Resource Program: Site Protection and Maritime Cultural Ecology in Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska. Anchorage, Alaska: Exxon Shipping Company and Exxon Company. Hanson, Diane K. 2010. 2010 Archaeological Survey of the Caribou Peninsula, Adak Island. University of Alaska Anchorage. Report submitted to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska District. Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage. Hanson, Diane K., and Debra G. Corbett. 2010. Shifting Ground: Archaeological Surveys of Upland Adak Island, the Aleutian Islands Alaska, and Changing Assumptions of Unangan Land Use Patterns. Polar Geography 33: 165–178. Hanson, Diane K., and David P. Staley. 1984. An Inland Site on Adak Island, the Aleutians. In Paper presented at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Fairbanks, Alaska. Harrington, John Peabody 1941. Linguistic notes and records. In Papers of John Peabody Harrington, Accession #1976–95 NMNH-Harrington_mf1 Box 172, Alaska/Northwest Coast, microfilm 1, 10. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History, Washington, DC. Heizer, Robert F. 1938. Aconite Arrow Poison in the Old and New World. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 28 (8): 358–359. Heizer, Robert F. 1943. Aconite Poison Whaling in Asia and America: An Aleutian Transfer to the New World. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 133: 419–468. Hoffman, Brian 1999. Manufacturing Status: Eastern Aleutian Household Economy, ca A.D. 1650. Paper presented at 64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Chicago. Hoffman, Brian 2002. The Organization of Complexity: A Study of Late Prehistoric Village Organization in the Eastern Aleutian Region. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Holland, Katherine Marie. 1992b. In the Wake of North Pacific Sea Mammal Hunters. Arctic Anthropology 29 (2): 63–72. Holland, Katherine Marie 1988. A 1000 Year Long Akun-Kodiak Interaction Sphere. In The Late Prehistoric Development of Alaska’s Native People, ed. Robert D. Shaw, Roger K. Harritt, and Don E. Dumond, pp 307–318. Aurora Monograph Series No. 4, Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage. Holland, Katherine Marie 1992a. Rethinking Aleutian Prehistory as Viewed from a Lithic Database. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe.

References

207

Holland, Katherine Marie 2001. Regional Interaction as Seen from the Eastern Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, pp 173–182. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, Eugene. Hornbeck, Bobbi 2020. Unangaˆx Monumentality: Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer Transformations of the Rat Islands, Alaska, C. 4,000 BP – 1,000 BP. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of New York at Buffalo, Buffalo. Hrdliˇcka, Aleš. 1945. The Aleutian and Commander Islands and their Inhabitants. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology. Hultén, Eric 1937. Flora of the Aleutian Islands and Westernmost Alaska Peninsula with Notes on the Flora of Commander Islands. Bokförlags aktiebolaget Thule, Stockholm. Hutchinson, Isobel 1942. The Aleutian Islands: America’s Back Door. Blackie and Sons, Glasgow, Scotland. Jeannotte, Richard, Kirsten Nicolaysen, Floyd E. Dowell, Taylor Johnson, and Dixie West 2012. Griddlestones from Adak Island, Alaska: Their Provenance and the Biological Origins of Organic Residues from Cooking. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gualtieri, 269–288. BAR International Series 2322. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Jew, Nicholas. 2007. Exchange and Interaction in Western Aleutian Prehistory: The Efficacy of Geochemical Analysis of Lithic Raw Material Procurement on Amchitka Island. Master’s thesis. Department of Anthropology: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Jochelson, Waldemar. 2002. Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City, Utah. Originally published 1925, Publication 367, Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC. Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. History, Ethnology and Anthropology of the Aleut. Publication 432, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC. Jones, Dorothy Knee. 1976. Aleuts in Transition: A Comparison of Two Villages. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Keddie, Grant. 1989. Symbolism and Context: The World History of the Labret and Cultural Diffusion on the Pacific Rim. Paper presented at the Circum-Pacific Prehistory Conference, Seattle, Washington. Keeley, Lawrence H. 1996. War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage. New York: Oxford University Press. Kent, Ronald. 1986. 1985 BIA ANCSA 14(h)(1) Field Investigations on Amchitka Island in the Aleutians. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Fairbanks. Khlebnikov, Kyrill T. 1994. Notes on Russian America, Parts II IV: Kod’iak, Unalashka, Atkha, the Pribylovs. Translated by M. Ramsay. Alaska History Series 42. Alaska: Limestone Press, Fairbanks. Knecht, Richard, and Richard Davis. 2001. A Prehistoric Sequence for the Eastern Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 269–288. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, Eugene. Knecht, Richard, and Richard Davis. 2003. Archaeological Evaluation of Tanaxtaxak, The Amaknak Spit Site (UNL 00055), Final Report. Museum of the Aleutians. Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. Copies available from the Museum of the Aleutians, Unalaska, Alaska. Knecht, Richard, and Richard Davis. 2005. Unalaska South Channel Bridge Project Number MGS-STP-BR 0310(S)/52930 Amaknak Bridge Site Data Recovery. Museum of the Aleutians, Unalaska, Alaska. Report on file with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage.

208

5 People on the Landscape

Knecht, Richard, Richard Davis, and Gary Carver. 2001. The Margaret Bay Site and Eastern Aleutian Prehistory. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 35–69. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. University of Oregon Museum of Natural History, Eugene. Knecht, Richard. 1995. The Late Prehistory of the Alutiiq People: Cultural Change on the Kodiak Archipelago from 1200 1750 A.D. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. Kulkov, Fedor A. 1764. A Report Dictated in St. Petersburg by Fedor Afanasevich Kulkov concerning his 1762 voyage to the Aleutian Islands. In Russian Penetration of the North Pacific Ocean: A Documentary Record, 1700–1797, ed. and trans. B. Dmytryshyn, E. A. P. CrownhartVaughan, and Thomas Vaughan, 225–230. To Siberia and Russian America: Three Centuries of Russian Eastward Expansion, 1558–1867, vol. 2, North Pacific Studies Series Number 10, Thomas Vaughan, series editor. Oregon Historical Society Press, Portland. Langsdorff, Georg Heinrich von. 1993. Remarks and Observations on a Voyage Around the World 1803–1807. Translated by V. J. Moessner. Alaska History Series 41. Alaska: Limestone Press, Fairbanks. Lantis, Margaret. 1938. The Alaskan Whale Cult and its Affinities. American Anthropologist 40 (3): 438–464. Lantis, Margaret. 1970. The Aleut Social System, 1750 to 1810, from Early Historical Sources. In Ethnohistory in Southwestern Alaska and the Southern Yukon, ed. Margaret Lantis, 139–295. Studies in Anthropology 7. University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky. Laughlin, William S. 1961. Archaeological Investigations on Umnak Island. Aleutians. Arctic Anthropology 1 (1): 108–109. Laughlin, William S., and Jean S. Aigner. 1975. Aleut Adaptation and Evolution. In Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone, ed. William Fitzhugh, 181–201. The Hague, Paris: Mouton Publishers. Laughlin, William S., and Gordon M. Marsh. 1954. The Lamellar Flake Manufacturing Site on Anangula Island in the Aleutians. American Antiquity 20 (1): 27–39. Laughlin, William S. 1955. Chaluka Archaeology. Report submitted to the Office of Naval Research ONR 82 ed. GN 784. Arctic Institute of North America, Calgary, Alberta. Laughlin, William S. 1980. Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology. Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York. Liapunova, Rosa. G. 1996. Essays on the Ethnography of the Aleuts (At the end of the 18th and first half of the 19th century). Translated by J. Shelest. Rasmuson Library Historical Translation Series 9. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks. Loeb, Margary L. 1930. An Aleutian Burial. Unpublished manuscript in the Division of Anthropology Archives, American Museum of Natural History, New York. Lokanin, Mikhail Efim. 1949. Haneka Story. In Attu Aleut. Manuscript on file at the Alaska Native Language Center, File ALW948LM1949a, Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Marsh, Gordon H. 1952. Lexicon and Ethnological notes. Notes on File in Gordon Marsh Collection, Manuscript on file at the Alaska Native Language Center, File AL950B(B202) 1952, Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Marsh, Gordon H. 1971. Merculief, St. Paul. Manuscript on File in Gordon Marsh Collection, Manuscript on file at the Alaska Native Language Center, File AL971MI1971. Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Martinson, Charles. 1973. Aleut Settlements of the Makushin Bay Area, Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, University of Oregon, Eugene. Maschner, Herbert D.G. 1999a. Prologue to the Prehistory of the Lower Alaska Peninsula. Arctic Anthropology 36 (1–2): 84–102. Maschner, Herbert D.G. 1999b. Sedentism, Settlement and Village Organization on the Lower Alaska Peninsula: A Preliminary Assessment. In Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas:

References

209

Fifty Years Since Viru, ed. B. Billman and G. Feinman, 56–76. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Maschner, Herbert D.G. 2007. Heads, Women, and the Baubles of Prestige. In The Taking and Displaying of Human Body Parts as Trophies by Amerindians, ed. Richard J. Chacon and David H. Dye, 32–44. New York: Springer. Maschner, Herbert D.G. 2008. Fishtails, Ancestors, and Old Islanders: Chirikof Island, the Alaska Peninsula and the Dynamics of Western Alaska Prehistory. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 6 (1–2): 171–183. Maschner, Herbert, and Katherine Reedy-Maschner. 1998. Raid, Retreat, Defend (Repeat): The Archaeology and Ethnohistory of Warfare on the North Pacific Rim. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 17: 19–51. Maschner, Herbert, and Katherine Reedy-Maschner. 2008. The Evolution of Warfare. In The Edge of Reason: Science and Religion in Modern Society, ed. Alex Bentley, 57–64. New York: Continuum International Publishing Group. Maschner, Herbert H.D., James W. Jordan, Brian Hoffman, and Tina Dochat. 1997. The Archaeology of the Lower Alaska Peninsula. Report 4 of the Laboratory of Arctic and North Pacific Archaeology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison. Mason, Owen K., and Jean S. Aigner. 1987. Petrographic Analysis of Basalt Artifacts from Three Aleutian Sites. American Antiquity 52 (3): 595–607. Mason, Owen K. 2016. Thule Origins in the Old Bering Sea Culture: The Interrelationship of Punuk and Birnirk Cultures. In The Oxford Handbook of the Prehistoric Arctic, ed. T. Max Friesen and Owen K. Mason, 489–512. New York: Oxford University Press. Masterson, James, and Helen Brower. 1948. Bering’s Successors: 1745–1780. Seattle, Washington: University of Washington Press. McCartney, Allen P. 1971. A Proposed Western Aleutian Phase in the Near Islands. Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 8 (2): 92–142. McCartney, Allen P. 1974. Prehistoric Cultural Integration along the Alaska Peninsula. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16 (1): 59–84. McCartney, Allen P. 1972. An Archaeological Site Survey and Inventory for the Aleutian Islands National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska 1972. File report 1–1–72, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage. McCartney, Allen P. 1967. An Analysis of the Bone Industry from Amaknak Island, Alaska. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison. McCartney, Allen P. 1977. Prehistoric Human Occupation of the Rat Islands. In The Environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska, ed. Melvin L. Merritt and R. Glen Fuller, 59–113. National Technical Information Service, Energy Research and Development Administration, Springfield, Virginia. McCartney, Allen P. 1984. Prehistory of the Aleutian Region. In Arctic, ed. David Damas, 119–135. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 5, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. McGowan, Sarah. 1999. The Modern Village of Akutan: 1878 to Present. In History and Ethnohistory of the Aleutians East Borough, ed. R. Pierce, Katherine L. Arndt, and Sarah McGowan, 45–58. Alaska History Series, vol. 49. R. Pierce, general editor. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. McLain, Allison Young. 1998. Aleut Technological Organization, Amchitka Island, Alaska. Unpublished manuscript in possession of author. Merck, Carl Heinrich. 1980. Siberia and Northwestern America 1788–1792. Translated by F. Jaensch. Alaska History Translation Series No. 17. Limestone Press, Fairbanks, Alaska. Miraglia, Rita. 1986. Aleut Origins and Prehistoric Contacts. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, State University of New York-Binghamton, Binghamton, New York. Mitchell, Donald. 1984. Predatory Warfare, Social Status, and the North Pacific Slave Trade. Ethnology 23 (1): 39–48. Moss, Madonna, and Jon Erlandson. 1992. Forts, Refuge Rocks and Defensive Sites: The Antiquity of Warfare along the Pacific Coast of North America. Arctic Anthropology 29 (2): 73–90.

210

5 People on the Landscape

Nicolaysen, Kirsten, Taylor Johnson, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Virginia Hatfield, Dixie West, and Robert G. McGimsey. 2012. Provenance of Obsidian Artifacts Recovered from Adak Island, Central Aleutian Islands: Evidence for Long-Distance Transport of Lithic Material. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Virginia Hatfield, Dixie West, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gualtieri, 195–210. BAR International Series, vol. 2322. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford. O’Leary, Matthew, and Richard Bland. 2013. Aleut Burial Mounds: Ulaakan and Umqan. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 11 (1 & 2): 139–168. O’Leary, Matthew. 2002. Estimating Casualties for the Aleut Resistance, 1763–1775. Manuscript in the possession of the author. Oliver, Ethel Ross 1988. Journal of an Aleutian Year. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Hudson, Raymond (editor) 1986. People of the Aleutian Islands. Alaska Historical Commission Studies in Alaska History No. 196, Unalaska School District, Unalaska, Alaska. Petrivelli, Patricia J. 2004. Unangam Aleut Social System. Arctic Anthropology 41 (2): 126–139. Reedy Maschner, Katherine, and Herbert D. G. Maschner (editors) 2012. Sanak Island, Alaska: A Natural and Cultural History. Idaho Museum of Natural and Cultural History, Pocatello. Robert-Lamblin, Joëlle. 1982. An Historical and Contemporary Demography of Akutan, an Aleutian Village. Études/inuit Studies 6 (1): 99–126. Roe, Chris. 2007. Analysis of Aleut/Unangan Site Placement on Amchitka Island. Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Anchorage. Manuscript in possession of the author. Sarychev, Gavriil Andreevich. 1806. Account of a Voyage of Discovery to the North East of Siberia the Frozen Ocean and the North-East Sea. London: Blackfriars. Sauer, Martin. 1802. An account of a Geographical and Astronomical Expedition to the Northern Parts of Russia. London: T. Cadell. Sense, Richard, and Christy G. Turner. 1970. Catalog of Archaeological Site Survey Records, Amchitka Island, Alaska. Report for Holmes and Narver, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada, Report submitted to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas. Shacklette, H. T. 1969. Vegetation of Amchitka Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. US Geological Survey Professional Paper 648. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Shade, Charles I. 1949. Ethnological Notes on the Aleuts. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Smith, John D., ed. 2009. The Mahabharata. London: Penguin Classics. Snigaroff, Cedor L. 1986. Niigugis Maqaxtazaqangis: Atkan Historical Traditions. Alaska Native Language Center: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Spaulding, Albert C. 1962. Archaeological Investigations on Agattu, Aleutian Islands. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology No. 18, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Speakman, Robert, R. Game McGimsey, Richard Davis, Michael Yarborough, and Jeff Rasic. 2012. Obsidian in the Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula. Poster presented at the 77th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Memphis, Tennessee. Steffian, Amy F., and Patrick Saltonstall. 2001. Markers of Identity: Labrets and Social Organization in the Kodiak Archipelago. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 1 (1): 1–27. Suvorov, Ivan, and Alexey Yatchmeneff. 1976. Unangam Ungiikangin: Aleut Traditions: Aleut Traditions Collected in 1909–1910 by Waldemar Jochelson, I. Manuscript on file at the Alaska Native Language Center, File AL950B1976b, Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Swanson, Henry. 1982. The Unknown Islands: The Life and Tales of Henry Swanson. Cuttlefish Series, VI. Unalaska City School District, Unalaska, Alaska. Taksami, Natalia, Lydia T. Black, and Katherine L. Arndt. 1999. Appendix II. In History and Ethnohistory of the Aleutians East Borough, by Lydia T. Black, Sarah McGowan, Jerry Jacka, Natalia Taksami, and Miranda Wright, ed. Richard A. Pierce, Katherine L. Arndt, and Sara McGowan, 325–326. Alaska History Series, No. 49, Limestone Press, Fairbanks, Alaska.

References

211

Thomson, Greg, J. Arnold, and Jeff Wraley. 1993. Eradication of Arctic Foxes on Yunaska Island, Alaska in 1993. Report to the Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge, Homer, Alaska. Alaska Resources Library and Information Services, Anchorage. Tikhmenev, P. A. 1978. A History of the Russian American Company. Translated by R. Pierce and Alton S. Donnelly. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Turner, Christy G. 1972. Preliminary Report of Archaeological Survey and Test Excavations in the Eastern Aleutian Islands. Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 9 (2): 32–35. Turner, Christy G., and Jacqueline A. Turner. 1974. Progress Report on Evolutionary Anthropological Study of Akun Strait District, Eastern Aleutians, Alaska, 1970–71. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16 (1): 27–57. Turner, Christy G., and Jacqueline A. Turner. 1973. Report on the 1973 Anthropological Fieldwork on Akun Island. Report to U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Anchorage, Alaska. Turner, Christy G. 1974. The Use of Prehistory for Direct Comparative Baselines in the Study of Aleut Microevolution. In International Conference on the Prehistory and Paleoecology of Western North American Arctic and Subarctic: Proceedings of the 5th Annual Chacmool Conference, edited Scott Raymond and Peter Schlederman, 205–215. The University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta. Turner, Lucien M. 2008. An Aleutian Ethnography., ed. Raymond L. Hudson. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks. USBIA (United States Bureau of Indian Affairs). 1985. Report of Investigation for The Aleut Corporation, AA-12226, Konets Head, Unalaska. Report on file Bureau of Indian Affairs, ANCSA Projects Office, Anchorage, Alaska. USBIA (United States Bureau of Indian Affairs). 1986. Report of Investigation for the Aleut Corporation, AA-12019. Report on file Bureau of Indian Affairs, ANCSA Projects Office, Anchorage, Alaska. Veltre, Douglas. 1979. Korovinski: The Ethnohistoric Archaeology of an Aleut and Russian Settlement on Atka Island, Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Veniaminov, Ivan. 1984. Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Translated by Lydia T. Black and R.H. Geoghegan. Alaska History Series, No. 27. Limestone Press, Fairbanks, Alaska. Wadley, Reed L. 2003. Lethal Treachery and the Imbalance of Power in Warfare and Feuding. Journal of Anthropological Research 59 (4): 531–554. West, Dixie, Debra Corbett, and Christine Lefèvre. 2011. Petroglyphs from Gillon Point, Agattu Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 17–24. Weyer, Edward M. 1929. An Aleutian Burial. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, vol. 31, pt. 3. American Museum of Natural History, New York. Wheaton, Helen. 1945. Prekaska’s Wife, A Year in the Aleutians. Dodd, Mead and Company, New York. Willey, Gordon R. 1953. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Virú Valley, Perú. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 155, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Wilmerding, Mary Elizabeth. 2005. The Culture Sequence at the Nunik Site, Chernabura Island, Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Winslow, Margaret, and L. Lewis Johnson. 1989. Prehistoric Human Settlement Patterns in A Tectonically Unstable Environment: Outer Shumagin Islands, Southwestern Alaska. Geoarchaeology 4 (4): 297–318. Yesner, David. 1977. Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Aleutian Islands. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs.

Chapter 6

Making a Living

All tradition-bound peoples solve their economic problems today much as they did 10,000 years or perhaps 10,000 centuries ago. (Boettke and Heilbronner 2019) That weakling who went out would come back loaded with a dead animal. Leaving those (villagers) and staying away from them, to catch (animals) he looked only to that (the use of charms). Being paid attention to (as a provider), he enjoyed catching sea animals, and his wife was happy too, and his child was happy. (Isidor Soloviev, The Charm Seeker, in Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 91)

This chapter focuses on the techniques and technology Aleuts used to acquire food and raw materials. We want to convey the complexity of the economic system as well as the skill and knowledge necessary to earn a living. Because Aleut spirituality was based on relationships of mutual and necessary respect between humans and animals, it is briefly covered here. Processing technology and the products made from resources are covered in Chap. 7, Life at Home. The prehistoric Aleut economy was based on harvesting wild animals and plants, and the people are classified as hunter-gatherers by anthropologists. Nineteenthcentury naturalists, ranking human cultures using social evolutionary ideas, considered hunter-gatherers the most primitive of human societies. Hunting people’s lives were considered an unrelenting search for food. Agriculture was believed necessary before people could produce art, political institutions, laws, or complex social organization. By the 1960s, anthropologists finally accepted that hunting-gathering economies were rational, refined, and sophisticated (Lee and DeVore 1968). The goal of all economic systems is to coordinate individual efforts to provide goods and services to fulfill social needs (Boettke and Heilbronner 2019; Jochim 1976). People seek to acquire resources (income) while minimizing costs in time and effort. The principal occupations of Aleuts, both men and women, were hunting and fishing, and all activities related to those pursuits (Langsdorff 1993: 18). Decisions about where to focus their efforts were based on multiple factors. Desirability of prey can be calculated using variables such as weight of the animal, fat content, and non-food elements such as bone, ivory, hides, or fur. Ease of locating prey animals and finding them in sufficient numbers were also critical. Prey may also © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Corbett and D. Hanson, Culture and Archaeology of the Ancestral Unangaˆx/Aleut of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44294-0_6

213

214

6 Making a Living

have had higher social or prestige value due to rarity or the cost/effort required to obtain it. Sea mammals, especially whales, rank higher in value than sea urchins or greenlings. Sixty percent of the Aleut diet came from sea mammals and fish (Laughlin 1980; Unger 2014). Birds and eggs contributed about 20%, shellfish and sea urchins 15%, and plants about 5% (Laughlin 1980; Unger 2014). A meat and fish diet might be considered monotonous, but archaeologists have documented over 135 animal species used as food by the Unangaˆx. Incorporating a wide variety of meats, fish, and fats, traditional Alaskan Native diets are healthy and nutritious (Damas 1984). However, protein-based diets pose challenges, primarily the threat of “rabbit hunger,” or proteinuria. Proteinuria causes diarrhea, headaches, lethargy, and ravenous hunger. Ultimately, lowered blood sugar and low heart rates lead to death. Human livers use glucose from carbohydrates to break down protein and release nutrients. Traditional Alaskan diets provide only 10–20 g of carbohydrates per day versus 100 g day needed for normal digestion. However, livers can create glucose using fat. A high-meat diet requires lots of water to eliminate the urea resulting from this reaction (Cai 2011). Most meat-dependent humans acquire fewer than 50% of their calories from protein and up to 70% from fat (Damas 1984; Wrangham 2009). Aleuts knew that without fat, no matter how plentiful food was, they would starve or become ill (Veniaminov 1984).

Spiritual Authority for, and Obligations of, Hunting Hunting was a necessity. Men proved themselves by killing as many animals as possible (Black 1981, 1998). Among all Inuit related groups, killing was, and is, a moral and ethical obligation as fully described for the Yup’ik of southwest Alaska (Fienup-Riordan 1990a, b; Rousselot et al. 1988). Hunting is also a violent act against sentient beings. Marine mammals are transformed humans who live in human-like societies (Black 1981; Fienup-Riordan 1990b). They give themselves to hunters, expecting to be treated properly and respectfully (Black 1998; FienupRiordan 1990b). Humans receive the death of an animal as a gift with gratitude and reverence (Fienup-Riordan 1990a; Solomon and Higgins 1996). Relationships of mutual respect between humans and animals were the foundation of Arctic spirituality (Fienup-Riordan 1990c). Unangaˆx shared this philosophy, called Animism, with Alutiiq or Sugpiaq, Yup’ik, Iñupiaq, and Inuit people from Greenland to the Gulf of Alaska (Marsh 1954; Merkur 1991, 2013; Weyer 1969). Proper human behavior is a moral force responsible for cosmic order (Black 1981; Fienup-Riordan 1990b). Traditional values and behavioral norms linked past with present in a harmonious cycle (Nelson 1996). Proper individual behavior, personal rituals, and public ceremonies were obligatory for meaningful life (Fienup-Riordan 1994; Nelson 1996). Improper behavior unleashed hostile forces (Black 1981). The foundation of the human-animal relationship is found in the creation of Sea Otter (Bergsland 1959: 31; Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 324–327, 382–385, 406–409;

The Organization of Production

215

Golder 1905: 4, 6, 1907: 3; Veniaminov 1984: 309). A menstruating girl discovered her illicit lover was her own brother and fled. He chased her, the two of them leaping into the ocean. The Creator, Aguˆguˆx, transformed them into sea otters and, somehow, they also became Aˆgadaˆx, and Tugidam, Sun Woman and Moon Man. Aˆgadaˆx became the arbiter of human behavior and punishes evil deeds (Bergsland 1959: 31; Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 324–327, 382–385, 406–409; Golder 1905: 4, 6, 1907: 3; Veniaminov 1984: 309). All creatures have human-like awareness and an immortal breath soul (FienupRiordan 1990b, c; Merkur 1991, 2013). This soul imparts life, warmth, and breath. It appears as a tiny version of the individual and lives in joints (Eliade 1964). Treated properly, breath souls are reborn and reappear to respectful hunters (Fienup-Riordan 1990b). The more animals a good hunter kills, the more will appear to him for killing (Black 1981). After death, souls ascend to the sky world, where Tugidam transforms them into infantile forms for reincarnation (Marsh 1954; Merkur 2013). Abused animals’ souls cannot be reborn and instead become dangerous spirits, qugar, trapped on earth (Crowell and Leer 2001; Eliade 1964; Marsh 1954; Merkur 1991). They cause accidents, diseases, and death by stealing human souls (Eliade 1964; Merkur 1991). Every object, animal, phenomenon, and concept also has a consciousness, called the Owner or Person, in Unangam tunuu, tayaruu, which is the ideal spirit projection of that object, animal, phenomenon, or concept (Crowell and Leer 2001; Desson 1995; Fienup-Riordan 1990b; Marsh 1954; Merkur 1991). Tayaruun represent the ideal archetype of, for example, an adult female sea lion or an old male walrus (Jolles 2002; Marsh 1954). Unangaˆx called them the biggest or oldest animals (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 156–161, 164–193). Tayaruun control the activities of the individuals they represent, acting directly on the material and spiritual universe (Marsh 1954). Shamans harness qugar and tayaruun as helping spirits and bind them to amulets for the benefit of others (Campbell 1959; Marsh 1954; Merkur 1991). By requiring humans to behave properly, animals, who cannot act immorally, make humans more spiritual (Turner 1990). Proper treatment during and after a hunt and participation in public ceremonies demonstrate respect toward selfsacrificing animals and deflect the negative implication of killing sentient beings (Fienup-Riordan 1990a).

The Organization of Production Focusing exclusively on marine mammal hunting by men in kayaks, Laughlin (1980) viewed the Aleut economy as a complex structure, organizing profound knowledge of animal behavior with a lifetime of training and finely honed cultural practices. His “integrated bio-behavioral adaptation” consisted of five components: (1) childhood programming, (2) scanning for game, (3) stalking and pursuing, (4) killing, and (5) retrieving.

216

6 Making a Living

However, kayak hunting was not the only economic activity. Hunting, fishing, and foraging by women, children, and the elderly facilitated the establishment of settled communities, better infant survivability, and increased longevity in adults (Laughlin 1974, 1975; Laughlin and Aigner 1975). Because everyone contributed, the effects of periodic food shortages were mitigated. More usefully, McCartney (1975) described Aleut economics as a series of procurement systems. Eight elements make up each procurement system: (1) habitat; (2) organism; (3) tools; (4) extraction process; (5) knowledge and skill; (6) social group; (7) products; and (8) time, including season and individual effort. This simplified abstraction describes complex, interacting patterns of behavior by both hunter and prey, elaborate technology, and constantly changing physical conditions. McCartney assumed that most animals and plants available were used and that Aleuts had limited ability to manipulate their environment (McCartney 1975). Long-term flexibility lay in the ability to switch systems. He also assumed the Aleut economic system had considerable time depth (Fig. 6.1). It is impossible to reconstruct a complete procurement system from archaeology. Excavations can recover (some of) the organisms and (some of) the tools and weapons used. Incorporating modern ecological knowledge with judicious use of the ethnographic record can “synthesize the bare archaeological finds into a dynamic cultural process” (McCartney 1977: 77). The following discussion describes a generalized, reconstructed economy from the mid- to late eighteenth century (Table 6.1). Where changes are identifiable and dated, they will be emphasized.

Alaˆguˆx, the Open Ocean Open ocean habitats encompass three of McCartney’s (1975) procurement systems: offshore sea mammal hunting, offshore bird hunting, and offshore fishing.

Offshore Sea Mammal Hunting Hunting marine mammals on the open ocean was the quintessential job of an Unangaˆx man. Considering the profound importance of hunting, the lack of detailed descriptions for most techniques is striking. Information about hunting, except for commercial sea otter hunting and solo whale hunting, is scattered through myriad sources focused on other things. Extrapolating these vague references to other species is possible because the highly developed, specialized technology of the Unangaˆx targeted species occupying similar environments and exhibiting similar behaviors and lifestyles (McCartney 1977: 77). Kayak hunters were men, ages 16–55, trained from a young age to handle a kayak. As in any occupation, some men were specialists, having demonstrated special skill in, for instance, sea lion or seal hunting (Turner 2008). Whale hunting was limited

Fig. 6.1 Simplified Unangaˆx/Aleut seasonal schedule

Alaˆguˆx, the Open Ocean 217

218

6 Making a Living

Table 6.1 Aleut procurement systems McCartney (1975, 1977) procurement system

Modified McCartney model

Habitat

Sub-habitat

Offshore sea mammal hunting

Offshore sea mammal hunting

Marine

Offshore, nearshore

Bird hunting on water

Offshore bird hunting

Marine

Offshore, nearshore

Fishing offshore

Offshore fishing

Marine

Offshore, nearshore

–

Inshore fishing

Littoral

Inshore, reefs

Intertidal and beach collecting

Inshore collecting

Littoral

Reefs

Intertidal and beach collecting

Beach collecting

Littoral

Beach, talus, cliff

Bird hunting at nesting sites

Onshore bird hunting

Littoral

Inshore, cliffs, talus, lakes, streams

Onshore sea mammal hunting

Onshore sea mammal hunting

Littoral

Inshore, reef, beach, inland

Land mammal hunting

Land mammal hunting

Terrestrial

Inland, inshore

Land mammal trapping

Land mammal trapping Terrestrial

Inland

–

Terrestrial bird hunting Terrestrial

Lakes, streams, inland

Fishing onshore

Onshore fishing

Terrestrial

Lakes, streams

Onshore collecting

Onshore collecting

Terrestrial

Inland

to a select group of men, all of them shamans (Crowell 1994; Lantis 1938; Turner 2008). Kayak hunting involved approaching an animal close enough to hit with a harpoon. Upon striking an animal, the harpoon head separated from the shaft. The shaft became a drag float to tire the animal and mark its location. Bladder floats, inflated sea mammal bladders that served the same purposes, were less common. Wounded animals were killed with spears or clubs and then carried home in the kayak or towed to the beach (Black 1981: 63; Laughlin 1955).

Hunting Solo and with a Partner Kayak hunters could work alone, with a partner, or in groups. Hunting singly was risky, both in terms of hunter’s safety and success. It entailed a man paddling around, looking for prey, then stalking and killing it. An Atkan song vividly describes this risk. The hunter alone in his boat saw a sea lion: ...I took from the stern of my kayak the dart, took off the sheath, and placed the dart in front of me. I went on and coming close, shot at him, but failed to drive home the dart.

Alaˆguˆx, the Open Ocean

219

He became agitated and submerged. I followed him and shot at him, but was not able to do him any harm.... I kept looking behind me, looking for someone, but saw no one…” (Veniaminov 1984: 375–377)

Even hunting with a single partner increased the odds of a successful hunt, and some prey required at least two hunters. Hunting walrus in the water was dangerous, and only Near Island Aleuts dared the feat. From each side, two men approached a swimming walrus and struck simultaneously (Laughlin 1955). The dead walrus was towed to shore. Single-hunter whaling is particularly noteworthy. Solo Qirigun hunters in Unalaska Bay and the Krenitzin Islands stalked whales, attempting to harpoon one near the tail or a flipper (Crowell 1994; Heizer 1943; Kittlitz in Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 169; Langsdorff 1993: 20; Lantis 1938; Turner 2008; Veniaminov 1984). Whalers also used poison, actual or magical, to increase their hunting success (Bank 1977; Black 1987; Heizer 1938, 1943). After a successful strike, the hunter returned to land, entered a special house, and fasted while waiting for the stricken whale to drift ashore. After three days, he bathed and claimed the carcass. In Unalaska Bay, alyamaˆx (humpback whales) were so numerous in the nineteenth century that they impeded ships (Veniaminov 1984: 45, 92, 358). Aleut hunters there could spear 20–50 per year, but unless winds blew from the north, not all would be recovered. This “Koniag style” of whaling is known only from Kodiak and the eastern Aleutian Islands (Crowell 1994; Heizer 1943; Lantis 1938). Koniag-style whaling probably originated on Kodiak during the Ocean Bay tradition, 2500–1800 BP, although some consider it evidence of cultural exchange with people in Kamchatka and northern Japan (Bank 1977; Black 1987, 2003; Crowell 1994; Heizer 1943; Lantis 1938). An influx of ground slate tools, Kodiak-style ulus, and dogs appearing in Akun Island sites after 1170 BP may pinpoint introduction of this form of whaling to the Aleutian Islands (Holland 1982, 1988, 1992). Whale hunting was limited to specialist whaler shamans on both Kodiak Island and the Aleutians (Crowell 1994; Lantis 1938; Turner 2008). The role was hereditary, but apprenticeship was long and arduous. Apprentices had to risk using power linked to inimical forces that could lead to madness, disease, and early death. The reward was glory, desired above life itself (Eliade 1964; Graves 1955; Lantis 1938; Squire 1975; Veniaminov 1984). Whale hunters transformed into killer whales, becoming imbued with dangerous power (Bergsland and Dirks 1990; Black 1981, 1991, 2003). Masks from Aknanh Cave, XPM-00002, on Unga Island illustrate this transformation. The humanoid faces have bulbous noses representing killer whale snouts, some with fangs (Fig. 6.2; Black 2003). Closed crown hunting hats with teeth, or tooth iconography, also transformed hunters into killer whales (Black 1991). This transformation was linked to Thunderbird, another manifestation of Aˆgadaˆx, and through her to volcanoes, the sun, and creation (Bergsland and Dirks 1990; Black 1991). Their power and unpredictable behavior set whalers apart from polite society (Campbell 1959).

220

6 Making a Living

Fig. 6.2 Mask of human to killer whale transformation. Modified from Black (2003: 82–83). Shared mask/whale features include a circular blowhole between the eyes, small inconspicuous eyes, angular teeth, bulbous nose, and scratches/scars

Whaling conflicted with most other subsistence seasons, making reliable and abundant non-whale resources necessary before the venture could be supported by society (Crowell 1994; McCartney 1980). Employing a few men as whalers avoided subsistence conflicts while making available whale meat and fat, prized as an elite food. Chiefs appropriated part of each kill to host celebratory feasts (Black 2003; Crowell 1994; Turner 2008).

Alaˆguˆx, the Open Ocean

221

In some cases, men followed the hunter, finishing off the stricken whale(s) with lances, then towing them to shore (Heizer 1943; Langsdorff 1993: 20; Merck 1980: 73). In folklore, towing dead whales is undertaken by heroes with supernatural powers. In the story “Kanaagutux,” the hero kills a whale and, using his Eagle guise, carries it to his abused mother (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 328–333). Future Head, the Spirit of Makushin Volcano, marries a human woman and tows a whale home to prove to his father-in-law that he can provide for her (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 156–161). The hero twins Daylight Lifter and Mainland Slayer each kill and tow medium-sized whales to serve as rations during an expedition to Kodiak (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 164–193).

The Hunting Surround The most common technique for hunting sea lions, fur seals, sea otters, and presumably porpoises was a surround. Men of a single village, or neighboring villages, banded together for periodic hunts involving up to 100 hunters. The resulting kill was shared with all the participants. The surround is best known as the technique used for commercial sea otter hunts up until 1911 (Andreev 1948: 27; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 266; Elliott 1886; Liapunova 1996; McCartney 1977; Ransom 1946; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 57; Veniaminov 1984): ...without a word being uttered the canoes separate forming a huge semi-circle, each baidarka about fifty to a hundred yards distant from the next, and the occupants keeping always a vigilant lookout…. As soon as a hunter sights the glossy head of an otter he raises his paddle and points in the direction in which an animal was seen. The scattered baidarkas then close up to form an extended circle about the spot indicated and still in silence await the reappearance of the otter…..Should he come up within the circle of boats they gradually close in, beating the water with their paddles to bewilder the animal and to keep it within the ever narrowing ring…..As soon as the pursued animal shows himself within spears [sic] throw, the earnest hunter, rising to his knees, hurls a shaft at it. (Fassett 1890)

Communal hunting of whales is described for the Islands of Four Mountains (Black 1987, 2003). Groups of men in single-hatch iqyaˆx stalked whales using harpoons attached to inflated bladders. Stricken whales were pursued, dispatched with lances, and towed to shore. Communal whale hunting is shown on a hunting hat from the early or middle nineteenth century (Ivanov in Black 1991: 111). Whale hunting on southeastern Unalaska Island was also a group effort. Whales entering small bays within Beaver Inlet were trapped by a grass rope stretched across the bay, then killed and towed to the village (Black 1987; Harden 1985). Black’s consultant thought the rope must have been a net, but whalers on Kodiak deployed grass ropes greased with human fat to make barriers impassible by whales (Black 1987). In “End of Land Man,” the hero sought a specific grass that would allow him to kill whales (Harrington 1941). Grass, augmented with spiritual power, is fully capable of corralling whales. Whales could also be trapped in a bay by “dead man’s fat” spread at the mouth of a bay (Bergsland and Dirks 1990; Lantis 1938).

222

6 Making a Living

Hunting at the Ice Edge Walrus, polar bears, bearded seals, ribbon seals, and ringed seals are all associated with pack ice and truly Arctic environments. Each of these species, except polar bears, may be found in the Aleutian Islands during years with extensive sea ice. On rare occasions, polar bears made their way, riding on pack ice, to the Pribilof Islands, where their bones have been found in caves dated before 4500 BP. During the Neoglacial Period (4700–2500 BP), faunal remains from Unalaska present strong evidence that Unangaˆx were hunting on sea ice. At Margaret Bay between 4700 and 4100 BP, 50% of the remains were from marine mammals and more than half were from harbor and ringed seals. Ringed seals depend on sea and near shore ice for rest and shelter; bearded, ribbon, and ringed seals, as well as walrus, require ice for mating, pupping, and molting. Remains from at least four polar bears, whose main food is ringed seals, were also recovered at Margaret Bay (Davis 2001). At Amaknak Bridge, bearded seals made up 4% of the mammal remains. Adult, unweaned pups, and fetuses are definitive proof of the presence of sea ice 3000 years ago. Age and sex profiles indicate spring hunts. Ringed seals, contributing 36% of the remains, require ice floes and near shore fast ice. Many ringed seals were yearlings hunted in summer and early fall (Crockford et al. 2005). Other ice edge mammals—spotted seals, ribbon seals, walrus, and polar bears—each made up less than 1% of the faunal assemblage (Crockford 2012; Crockford et al. 2005). The Margaret Bay toolkit differs from the later Aleutian tradition, possibly because of the ice hunting specialization (Davis 2001; Knecht and Davis 2005). The lithic assemblage is dominated by basalt bi-pointed knives and bifaces, some with slight stems (Knecht et al. 2001). Bone tools include bilaterally barbed harpoon points with prominent eared line guards. Ivory artifacts and scraps were abundant (Knecht et al. 2001). At Amaknak Bridge, small stone arrow points were common. Bone harpoon points were self-armed and bilaterally barbed with shouldered bases. Eight toggling harpoon points were recovered, the earliest known for the Aleutian Islands.

Offshore Bird Hunting Migratory birds, present in huge numbers during summer, were caught and preserved for winter (Hrdliˇcka 1945; Khlebnikov 1994; Turner 2008). They were eagerly anticipated as the first fresh meat after a long winter of eating preserved foods. Birds also provided a welcome change in a diet of fish and sea mammals (Bank 1971). In the eastern Aleutian Islands, short-tailed albatrosses (Phoebastria albatrus) were the

Iqyaˆx, The Unangaˆx Kayak

223

most important avian food source (Causey et al. 2005: 273; Okada and Okada 1974; Yesner 1976). Yesner (1976) believes they were hunted incidentally during other hunts, but the numbers found, and the co-occurrence with other pelagic birds such as shearwaters and fulmars, indicate targeted hunting of all these large seabirds.

Iqyaˆx, The Unangaˆx Kayak If perfect symmetry, smoothness, and proportion constitute beauty, they are beautiful; to me they appeared so beyond anything that I have ever beheld. (Sauer 1802: 123)

Without boats, human existence in the Aleutians is impossible. All North American Arctic people built kayaks of driftwood covered in skins. The usual form is a slender, double-pointed boat with a hole for a single rider, in Unangam tunuu an iqyaˆx. Depending on the conditions, this form was modified for stability, maneuverability, speed, sea ice, or rough waters. Iqyaˆx, the supreme technological achievement of the Unangaˆx, was built for speed and rough seas (Fig. 6.3; Dyson 1986; Laughlin 1980; Zimmerly 1986). Two-hatch kayaks, uluˆxtaˆx, uluˆxtaadaˆx, were common. Threehatch kayaks are reported in the earliest sources from the Near Islands: “…they pursue the animal (sea otters) in small hide baidarkas with one, two or three men in each…” (Andreev 1948). This form was exported by the Russians to the eastern islands and beyond. The Near Island term is iyˆgasugaayaˆx. Elsewhere they were known as qaankun uluˆxtaˆx, or uluˆxtalguˆx (Bergsland 1994: 211, 437). Steller (1988: 92) wrote a wonderful, succinct picture of the first iqyaˆx seen by Europeans: The American boats are about two fathoms long, two feet high, and two feet wide on the deck, pointed toward the nose but truncate and smooth in the rear. To judge by appearances, the frame is of sticks fastened together at both ends and spread apart by crosspieces inside. On the outside this frame is covered with skins, perhaps of seals, and colored a dark brown. With these skins the boat is covered flat above but sloping towards the keel on the sides; underneath there seems to be affixed a shoe or keel which at the bow is connected by a vertical piece of wood or bone representing a stem piece, so that the upper surface rests on it. About two arshins from the rear on top is a circular hole, around the whole of which is sewn whale guts having a hollow hem with a leather string running through it, by means of which it may be tightened or loosened like a purse.

The earliest occupants of the Aleutian Islands had to have boats to reach the islands and make a living, but the rare archaeological examples are much more recent. Iqyaˆx parts have been found in caves in the Islands of Four Mountains and on Ship Rock. Laughlin et al. (1991) report that the frames of iqyaˆx were abundant in the Warm Cave of Kagamil though none were collected. All the examples were single-hatched, and one complete specimen had a horizontal bow cleft (Laughlin et al. 1991). Wooden iqyaˆx model fragments, including at least three bow pieces dating from 1230 ± 40 to 320 ± 60 BP, were recovered from Buldir Island (Fig. 6.4; Lubischer 1997). One piece may represent a split bow. Excavation of Asˆxaanaˆx Cave on Carlisle Island

224

6 Making a Living

Fig. 6.3 Igyaˆx bow styles, top to bottom: curved bifurcate bow, 1770–1790, upcurved bifurcate bow, by 1825, straight bifurcate bow, pre-1780, Atkan round bow

in 1990 yielded 23 kayak parts, including gunwales, cockpit coaming, deck beams, deck stringers, bow keelsons, and ribs (Johnson 2016). The finds also included a kayak model and five paddle fragments. The single date for the cave is 701 BP. The parts from this cave exhibit features similar to kayaks from the Bering Straits region and are stylistically different than known Unangaˆx iqyaˆx to the east. Early descriptions and drawings of kayaks came from men trained in ship construction and observation. Skin boats fascinated them, and they strove to convey

Iqyaˆx, The Unangaˆx Kayak

225

Fig. 6.4 Archaeological Igyaˆx parts. a Deck beams. b Ribs. c Bow pieces. d Gunwale. e Paddles. Drawings a, d, e modified after Johnson (2016)

the technological wonder to others equally savvy. Prior to the 1780s, all illustrations of Unangaˆx iqyaˆx show a split bow with the upper fork projecting straight out past the lower one (Dyson 1986). To keep debris out of the split, a stick was placed vertically across the cleft. Alutiiq kayaks from the 1770s show the split bow upturned or the lower piece projecting past the upper. Around 1788, Unangaˆx iqyaˆx began to show this style of bow. By 1827, the upturned bows prevailed.

226

6 Making a Living

Veniaminov considered the Unalaska style, the perfect form (Veniaminov 1984). Iqyaˆx used by the people of Tanaga and the Delarof Islands were larger and heavier than those used by Atkans and Unalaskans (Sauer 1802: 170). An ivory iqyaˆx model collected in 1853 shows an Atkan iqyaˆx with a Yup’ik-style bow ring (Black 2003).

Capabilities Veniaminov (1984) lavished praise on iqyaˆx, writing “the Aleut baidarka is so perfect of its kind that even a mathematician could add very little if anything to improve its seaworthy qualities” (Veniaminov 1984: 272). The boats were beautiful, swift, and made with the “severest symmetry” of ship construction (Sauer 1802: 203). Pre-Russian iqyaˆx were so narrow they needed riders to stay upright, and so light they could outpace birds on the water (Davydof 1977: 202). A seven-year-old child could carry a full-sized boat (Litke 1987: 97; Sauer 1802: 124). Men formed a symbiotic relationship with their living and sentient boat. In a story, two cousins, Dried Meat and Little Guillemot, were caught in a storm while hunting. As they fought for their lives, their iqyaˆx spoke to them. Dried Meat’s iqyaˆx confirmed he “used to rub against me your skin which touched your wife” and then carried him safely to shore (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 225). Little Guillemot’s iqyaˆx capsized and drowned him after reminding him he had failed to “rub against me your skin which touched your wife.” Confronted with the results of her jealousy, Little Guillemot’s widow promised to raise their young son to share himself with his iqyaˆx. The best “sea riders” easily overcame 12 km per hour currents in the interisland passes. They routinely cruised at 7 and 10.6 km per hour for 12–18 h (Veniaminov 1984: 271). Over short distances, speeds could approach 18 km per hour (Dyson 1986: 30–31, 64). Olympic sprint racers reach speeds of 24 km per hour for distances up to 5 km (Carter 2012). Modern average kayakers cruise at 2.5 km per hour, while fit and experienced kayakers cruise at about 8 km per hour (McNaughton 2020). Iqyaˆx skim over the water surface, reaching planing speeds around 7 knots (Dyson 1986, 1991; Zimmerly 1986). The lower arm of the split bow, changiˆx, slices through waves, increases directional stability, and reduces water turbulence (Brand 1991; Dyson 1986). The flaring upper, iiguyaagin, prevents the bow from dipping below the waves (Sauer 1802: 124). It catches the bow spray of the moving boat and provides lift. The rearward cockpit allows the front of the boat to rise over waves and gives the paddler better control (Brand 1991). The flat stern, kagaluˆx, reduces drag. At cruising speed, it channels water to act like a rudder (Brand 1991). The hull stringers create a hard smooth surface, reducing drag from passing water (Brand 1991). The lack of stringers close to the keelson allows the skin cover to bow inward, creating a deep V-hull, further reducing drag (Dyson 1986). Modern kayak builders have not been interested in the carrying capacities of iqyaˆx. However, men had to carry their hunting kits and bring prey home. A man, boat, and all his gear could easily weigh 100 kg. A large cockpit allowed for easy entry and egress as well as greater access to items stored inside (Brand 1991; Brinck

Iqyaˆx, The Unangaˆx Kayak

227

1995). Sloping decks shed water, allowed more storage for weapons, and gave the hunter more legroom. The estimated load capacity of a single-hatch kayak is 350 kg (Robert-Lamblin 1980). A two-hatch kayak with crew could carry 360 kg (Fassett 1890). Larger prey was towed.

Construction Modern researchers have reconstructed detailed and illustrated instructions on the construction of traditional Unangaˆx iqyaˆx (Brinck 1995; Dyson 1986; Lubischer 1991; Robert-Lamblin 1980; Zimmerly 1986). Men truly achieved manhood when seated in boats they built themselves (Merck 1980: 183), though skilled craftsmen made fine boats for others. Every iqyaˆx was custom-fitted. During construction, the user sat in the frame for adjustments to be made. Single-hatch iqyaˆx reached 5 m long. Three-hatch iqyaˆx reached 6.4 m long. “The bare collecting together of as much wood on the shore as is requisite for a baidar, is attended with infinite toil and trouble” (Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 73). Frames need straight-grained, knot-free wood, with a year or more needed to carve the parts (Dyson 1986). Craftsmen preferred spruce for the frame and yellow cedar (Cupressus nootkatensis) for the ribs (Robert-Lamblin 1980). The bow piece was fashioned from a naturally bent spruce root (Steinbright 2001). Tools included polished stone adzes, wedges, hammers, drills, spokeshaves, chisels, knives, and abraders. When the iqyaˆx was complete, a feast and dancing welcomed the new boat to the community (Bergsland and Dirks 1990). “In the best one-hatched baidarka, in order to make it speedy, up to 60 small bones were set into all its joints to serve as nuts, pivots, mortise-locks, and plates, etc. In a baidarka so constructed, when underway, almost every member was in movement” (Veniaminov 1984: 271). Additionally, Langsdorff (1993: 42) notes, “Two flat bones are bound crossways over the joints on the inside… this art is not known to all, and is kept very much a secret by those who possess it.” Most excavations contain examples of these worked bone plates. From the Nunik site on Chernabura Island, Wilmerding (2005) describes five thin, flat slices of bone with the inner cortex cut away. McCartney (1967: 454) describes a “small, well-made, flattened bone piece.” These objects may be the thin bone plates. The joints in the bow and tail sections were shaped from single pieces of wood, cut in half, and lashed back together, possibly with an ivory ball and socket joint, as were joints in the keelson (Lubischer 1991; Zimmerly 1986). A smooth ivory oval, 4 × 2.5 cm in diameter, recovered from Tanaxtaxax in Unalaska Bay, is the only known part of a ball and socket joint (Knecht and Davis 2003). Stringers along each side of the iqyaˆx supported the ribs. Vertical sticks set into “concavely hollowed nails” kept the stringers from compressing toward each other (Jochelson 2002; Langsdorff 1993: 269; Lubischer 1991). Crutch-shaped bone pieces, changayaasiˆx, found in archaeological sites, may equate to “nails” (Bergsland 1994: 131; Fig. 6.5). The precise way in which the changayaasiˆx were installed

228

6 Making a Living

or functioned is unknown. Only Jochelson (2002) specifically identifies them as parts for kayaks. Holland (1982) describes “peg-like crutches” as labrets and notes this was the most popular prehistoric style. They may actually be changayaasiˆx. Desautels et al. (1971) describe two crutch-like labrets from late prehistoric contexts at 49-RAT-32. Careful examination of bone and ivory peg-like objects is necessary to determine which are changayaasiˆx. All these possible and actual kayak parts likely date to 1451 BP or later. Preparation of the hide cover by women also took a year or longer. Four to five female or young male sea lion hides with no scars or holes were needed for two-hatch boats (Robert-Lamblin 1980; Merck 1980: 88; Varjola 1990). Boats needed a new cover every year (Khlebnikov 1994: 192). Skins were de-haired by piling them up to “sweat,” then scraping them with blunt knives, then drying until the skins were needed (Elliott 1976; Robert-Lamblin 1980). To make them pliable for sewing, they were soaked in freshwater. The skin cover gave rigidity to the flexible frame (Brinck 1995; Sauer 1802: 203; Steinbright 2001). It had to be tight. Loops cut in the edges of the hide made handles. They were then lain over the upside-down frame to be shaped, stretched taut, cut, and stitched with sinew thread, yaˆgiˆx, using a long bone needle, chunkulix, chunkuusiˆx

Fig. 6.5 Igyaˆx skeleton with bone and ivory bones. a Deck beam over deck stringer with bone plates. b Ball and socket joint in keelson. c Crutch support between stringers. d Bow assembly. Photo from the C. Willard Evans Collection, 2019.007.158. Special thanks to the Museum of the Aleutians

Iqyaˆx, The Unangaˆx Kayak

229

(Bergsland 1994: 154, 463; Brinck 1995). Bird feathers, animal hair, and small beads might be incorporated into the seams (Robert-Lamblin 1980).

Iqyaˆx Accessories Double-bladed paddles, haqadguusiˆx or xˆ aasix, were fitted to the paddler, extending from the ground to the tips of the fingers stretched overhead. Refined through thousands of years of use and experimentation, paddles maximized performance while conserving energy and reducing wear and tear on wrists, elbows, and shoulders (Freedman 2008). Spruce wood was best as it is strong and light. The shaft, a rounded triangle for strength and grip, was slightly wider than shoulder width (Brinck 1995; Robert-Lamblin 1980). Paddles used in winter had rounded blades, kadatul, while summer blades had pointed ends, kadan chutxidigal (Bergsland 1994: 166). The blades were long and narrow, about 7.6 cm (3 inches) wide. The small surface area of the blade eliminated the need to feather the paddle to reduce wind resistance, and it reduced stress on the paddler’s joints. The power face, pushing against the water, was slightly hollowed, and the back slightly bowed (Freedman 2008). The long blade distributed water pressure along the entire surface, allowing the blade to enter the water at a low angle, making strokes longer. Sea riders sat on sealskin pads called inqiliˆx —“place for juggling on the buttocks” (Bergsland 1991, 1994: 203; Robert-Lamblin 1980). Mats or skins, linaˆx, lined the floor in front and behind the paddler (Bergsland 1991, 1994: 255). If needed, flat rocks, quganaˆx, sat on the floor as ballast. To remove water, paddlers carried a pump, muunhmaˆx, or something “to sponge with,” chxul iguda, or a pump chxuusiˆx (Bergsland 1994: 134, 279). Every man had an uxtuqaˆx, a 60 cm (2-foot) long cylindrical sealskin bag with drawstring closure (iidgiichaadaˆx ), to hold survival gear, including a sewing kit with needles, thread, and patches, a fire-making kit with tinder, and amulets. A gear hook with a bone tooth, changadusiˆx, was used to retrieve items stored inside the boat (Bergsland 1991, 1994: 131). Hunters also carried a small lamp, spare harpoon and spear heads, and a lump of blubber for boat repair (Robert-Lamblin 1980). Deck straps, taamˆxaaˆx, taamˆgaaˆx, secured hunting weapons, water container, and floats or nayuˆx, made from seal or sea lion stomachs for emergency self-rescue. Carved caribou antler “atlatl rests” are reported from Sanak Island (Reedy-Maschner and Maschner 2012). These held the spearthrower when not in use. On the left side of the hatch, a pole, angaaˆguˆx, prevented fishing lines from cutting into the hide cover. On the right side, a hook, xˆ aachˆxiiluˆx or haachaˆgiiluˆx, of bone, baleen, or ivory, held the paddle when it was not needed. On two-hatch boats, a pair of sticks between the hatches was kuliˆxxˆ iiluˆx “place for having” a deck load. The deck might also hold a club, fishing lines, and a knife in a wooden sheath (Robert-Lamblin 1980).

230

6 Making a Living

Hunting Clothes Hunters wore a chigdaˆx, a light waterproof parka made of sea mammal or bear intestines. Called kamleika by the Russians, these had a hood, kang(a), closed with a drawstring, inamnaˆx. The sleeves amˆxaˆx also closed with a drawstring, silaˆx. When outfitted, only the rider’s face and hands were exposed (Robert-Lamblin 1980). A spray skirt, sukaˆx, attached to the coaming around the cockpit of the igyaˆx with a baleen cord, taxchiˆx. The sukaˆx wrapped around the rider’s chest with quick-release cords laced through rings in the parka where it covered his chest. Sea mammal hunters in the central and eastern Aleutians wore conical bentwood hats, chagudaˆx, elaborately painted and decorated with ivory carvings, sea lion whiskers, feathers, macrame loops, and, historically, glass beads (Black 1991; Coxe 1970 [1787]; Georgi 1780; Merck 1980). The dominant style was a conical, open-crowned visor. Leaders, whale hunters, and possibly sea otter hunters wore elaborately decorated, closed-crown hunting hats (Fig. 6.6; Black 1991). The headgear functioned as a mask, harnessing the power of the Thunderbird/raven to transform the hunter into a being capable of killing sea mammals and men (Black 1991; Ivanov in Black 1991). Bentwood hats and visors originated in the Bering Sea region about 2000 years ago (Black 1991). Few examples are known archaeologically from the Aleutians. A visor painted with curvilinear designs was found by Hrdliˇcka at Ship Rock, UNL00001, dating between 371 and 954 BP (Black 1991; Coltrain et al. 2006; Hrdliˇcka 1945). A closed-crown hat in a burial sarcophagus on Split Rock, UNL-00097, near Kashega, Unalaska Island, dated from the late 1700s to early 1800s (Weyer 1929). A fragment of a possible bentwood visor was recovered from AMK-00009 on Carlisle Island (Johnson 2016). The single date from this site is approximately 700 BP. An engraved albatross humerus from Buldir Island, KIS-00008, unfortunately undated, shows a man in a long parka wearing a conical hat (Corbett et al. 1997). Historically, regional styles of shape and decoration probably indicated differences in individual rank as well as hat function. Historic visors in the Central Aleutian Islands were decorated with feathers and painted curvilinear designs (Fig. 6.7; Black 1991). Unimak and Sanak hats sported painted rosettes. Early historic Unalaska visors had simple curvilinear designs. By the mid-eighteenth century, they were enhanced with sea lion whiskers and feather decorations. By the end of the century, beads, ivory figures, and volutes had been added (Black 1991). Ivory figures were present on Shumagin Island hats by the mid-eighteenth century. Alaska Peninsula headgear was more similar to Alutiiq hats, with high crowns and short bills.

The Hunting Kit

231

Fig. 6.6 Conical wooden hunting hat (top) and open-crowned visor. Modified from Black (1991: 60, 83)

The Hunting Kit Russian hunters were fascinated by Aleut hunting technology, and their brief descriptions hint at the elaborate and specialized tool kit (Fig. 6.8). Hunters used spears, darts, javelins, arrows, and lances tipped with bone or stone heads (Black 1991; Coxe 1970 [1787]; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988; Merck 1980; Sarychev 2016 [1807]).

232

6 Making a Living

Fig. 6.7 Decorative motifs used on visors and hats

Depending on the prey, spears varied in length, heft, and type of point (Langsdorff 1993; Merck 1980; Sarychev 2016 [1807]; Sauer 1802). Iglax, or shafts, were made from lightweight, straight-grained, tough wood, probably yellow cedar. The shafts were various lengths, from 1.2 to 2.7 m (4 to 9 feet) long (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988; Merck 1980; Sarychev 2016 [1807]). To make long shafts, craftsmen joined two pieces of wood (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 120). Finished weapons were painted red or red and black (Sarychev 2016 [1807]; Sauer 1802).

The Hunting Kit

233

Fig. 6.8 Schematic diagram of spear and harpoon parts and assembly. Left: spear, middle: harpoon, right: toggling harpoon. Redrawn from Jochelson (2002: 55)

234

6 Making a Living

Bone heads were attached to the shafts with lines, an’gaˆx, of braided whale sinew. Examples of braided lines have been recovered from caves on Kagamil Island (Hrdliˇcka 1945). On Unalaska, hunters tied inflated seal “gut,” ornamented with red feathers and white goat hair, to darts to serve as floats (Sarychev 2016 [1807]; Sauer 1802). In the Andreanof Islands, sea otter bladders were used as floats on sea otter spears (Black 1991: 63). Rather than gut, floats were made from whole inflated seal skins with all the openings sewn shut. A hole left to inflate the float was closed with a bone or ivory plug (Liapunova 1996). Float plugs are rarely described in Aleutian collections, but labrets, ornamental spools, bladder nozzles, and “problematic” ivory objects from Amaknak, Amchitka, Akun, and Tigalda may be float plugs (Desautels et al. 1971: Fig. 148; Holland 1982; Hrdliˇcka 1945: 469, Fig. 210; McCartney 1967; Spaulding and Pierce 1953). Round labrets encircled by a deep groove between 3 and 5.6 cm (1 to 2 inches) long, from Chaluka and Kagamil Island, are almost certainly float plugs (Black 2003; Bland 1996). More common than skin or bladder floats, the harpoon shaft itself served as the drag float (Fig. 6.9; Hrdliˇcka 1945; Liapunova 1996; Veniaminov 1984). When prey was struck, the bone harpoon head detached inside the animal but remained connected to the shaft by a line. The line and shaft dragged behind a wounded animal, tiring it. The shaft, weighted by the bone foreshaft, stood on end, jutting from the water for visibility. Spears and harpoons were “adapted with the greatest judgement to the different objects of the chase” (Sauer 1802: 122). For generic animals, the darts were short, 1.2 m (4 feet) long, and tipped with bone or wood points with a single barb (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Sarychev 2016 [1807]; Sauer 1802: 122). Seals in the Andreanof and Fox Islands were hunted with floats, either bladders or harpoon shafts (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Merck 1980; Sauer 1802; Veniaminov 1984). The harpoons were tipped with bone tips, 1 vershok, or 4.5 cm (1.7 inches), long, with “sharp teeth,” or barbs (Dmytryshyn et al. 1988; Merck 1980). For sea lions and fur seals, the bone points had more barbs and were tipped with stone (Merck 1980: 171, 219; Veniaminov 1984). Even whales were hunted with these weapons, but the stone point was made of obsidian (Langsdorff 1993: 20; Merck 1980: 171, 219; Veniaminov 1984). Sea otters on Attu Island were hunted with short harpoons a little over 1 m long (Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 210). Similar short spears were used elsewhere. The tips were barbed bone points about 5 cm long, attached with a line to the shaft (Merck 1980: 171, 219; Veniaminov 1984). Bird spears were light, with three to four barbed bone points tipping the shaft (Merck 1980; Sarychev 2016 [1807]; Sauer 1802; Veniaminov 1984). Observers noted long, medium, and short spears and harpoons equipped with both heavy and slender shafts. Short weapons were used for smaller animals, most specifically sea otters. Long, robust weapons were for large animals and war. Medium- to long-shafted spears and harpoons were used for larger game, but not for whales. Long, slender weapons were for harbor seals and younger animals. Toggling harpoons are mentioned in the earliest descriptions but must have fallen out of use soon after the arrival of the Russians.

The Hunting Kit

235

Fig. 6.9 Three styles of drag floats with float plug insets. Top, weighted spear shaft standing vertically; middle, float fixed to shaft; bottom, large float attached by a line to a harpoon head

236

6 Making a Living

Iglax is the generic Unangaˆx term for any projectile thrown with a throwing board. Agalˆgiˆx, and uˆgaluˆx, are the oldest recorded words for large harpoon/spear. Kadamaˆgusiˆx, “spear/lance,” and ayaqudaax, “small spear/harpoon for hunting sea otters,” have ancient roots, kada and ahya, shared with other Inuit related languages (Bergsland 1994: 115, 221). Igiqaˆx, “large spear/lance for sea lions and whales,” were also used in war (Bergsland 1994: 178). Half of Jochelson’s (2002) numerous terms for spears and harpoon for Aleutian projectiles in the early twentieth century refer to sea otter spears, reflecting the historic emphasis on sea otter hunting. He also recorded specific terms for harpoons with bladder floats (akligaˆx, ayaasaqaˆx), spears with stone tips (amalax, aˆxchus), and toggling harpoons (akaˆgusiˆx ). Chuyngilgiˆx have bone points without stone or metal tips, and chudugasiˆx are barbless spears for animals or humans. Clearly, Unangaˆx drew fine distinctions between different types of throwing/ thrusting weapons, but translations are too imprecise to allow these to be applied to archaeological finds. The primary distinction seems to be between large spears for large mammals, including whales and humans, and small spears for sea otters. Unangaˆx terminology supports a distinction between spears and harpoons with line attachments and/or toggling heads. Each hunter carried multiple weapons on his iqyaˆx. Ivory carvings and kayak models made for sale in the 1800s depict kayak decks laden with armaments (Graburn et al. 1996; Varjola 1990). Single-hatch iqyaˆx carried two to eight spears plus a bird spear. Double-hatch kayaks carried two to ten spears plus a bird spear. Men always carried a spear for whales (Merck 1980: 169). In the earliest depiction of a man’s hunting kit, Mikhail Levashov (Anichtchenko 2017) illustrated: • A medium harpoon, with unilaterally barbed, self-armed point, set in a bone fore shaft. • A bird spear with a long, unilaterally barbed central prong with three unilaterally barbed bone prongs. • A long, robust, harpoon with a stone point in an unbarbed shaft, set into a bone fore shaft. A line attached to the shaft attaches to the fore shaft. • A long, slender harpoon with a stone point set into a bilaterally barbed bone point set, in turn, into a bone fore shaft. A single line, tied at the base of the bone point, is attached to the shaft. • Two short spears with a self-armed, unilaterally barbed bone point, one set in a spear thrower. • A short spear with a stone tip attached directly to the wooden shaft. • A toggling harpoon with a stone tip tied to an unbarbed bone fore shaft. Vosnesensky’s 1830s hunting kit from the eastern Aleutian Islands listed (Liapunova 1996): • • • •

Sea otter spears, including some with floats. Whaling spears. Sea lion/seal spears, including one with a float. Sea bird spears.

The Hunting Kit

237

• Spears for young seals. • A decorative spear left on deck.

Hasxuˆx, The Throwing Board Hunters hurled spears and harpoons with a “board,” a hasxuˆx, (Black 1991; Coxe 1970 [1787]; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988; Langsdorff 1993; Merck 1980). Throwing boards extend the throwing arm and act as a lever to impart greater force and extend the range of the projectile (Merck 1980; Sauer 1802). They are long-range weapons, and skilled hunters could easily hit targets 20–40 m (65–130 feet) away (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 120; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 240). Speeds reach 150 km per hour (93 mph; Carson 1943; Economist 2008). Liapunova (1996) describes two forms. One is rectangular, with a “slight palm grip” and finger opening. The board might be plain or painted red and black, or only black. Sword-shaped hasxuˆx had a wide hand grip narrowing to the throwing end. The carved grip had both palm and finger grooves, and some had an ivory thumb rest. The back might be decorated with a carved sea otter embellished with beads or teeth. Both kinds are 44–55 cm long and up to 6 cm wide. They were custom-fitted to the user (Fig. 6.10). Few throwing boards have been recovered from excavations. Collections from Kagamil Island caves do include examples (McLain personal communication). Two possible broken throwing boards were recovered from Carlisle Cave. One had been painted red. Both had dimples in the handle end used for kindling fire with a bow drill (Johnson 2016). A nearly complete specimen was recovered from Saa, UNI-00048, on Akun Island (Holland 1992). Bone or ivory pegs that held the butt of the projectile to the end of the hasxuˆx are sometimes found in excavations. The oldest examples from Amaknak Bridge have a 2–4-cm-long shaft topped by a lipped, conical tip at a slight angle to the shaft (Knecht and Davis 2005). From Akun, “ornamental pins” with slightly curved cylindrical shafts topped by flat, pointed flanges, and J-shaped bone objects with drilled holes are described as throwing board pins (Holland 1982). Three forms with long bases, squared ends, and conical projections are described from Amchitka (Desautels et al. 1971; McLain 1998). Trapezoidal pegs have a grooved rectangular body, round pegs have cylindrical shafts, and flanged pegs have a square body with a cylindrical shaft at one end and a conical tip at the other.

Harpoon and Spear Foreshafts and Sockets, Tumgaˆx Foreshafts and sockets were designed to connect bone projectile points to wooden shafts. On harpoons, the foreshaft loosely held the point so it could detach, making

238

6 Making a Living

Fig. 6.10 Hasxux—throwing boards with pin insets

the projectile reloadable. Hand-thrown projectiles need mass to be effective. Foreshafts add weight to a projectile. They also protect wooden shafts from splitting or breaking on impact. These are unassuming artifacts and rarely receive much attention in archaeological reports. Only 292 foreshafts from 24 sites have been described or illustrated.

The Hunting Kit

239

Tuhmuˆx, Rings Bone sockets or rings connected foreshafts to wooden shafts on some spears and harpoons. Two-piece rings, sockets, or foreshafts consist of two identical halves, tied together, with a conical pit in the point end (Jochelson 2002; McCartney 1967). Each half has a projecting tang, at the butt for attachment to the shaft. Five archaeological examples are known. The only decorated example, from Amaknak, has a carved sea mammal face above the tang (McCartney 1967: 244). One example looks like a short, thick penis with a lashing groove at the base. Single-piece, cylindrical sockets have a sharply defined tang for attachment to the shaft. Decoration, consisting of raised and depressed grooves, likely helped hold lashing cords in place. A third style is conical with either a smooth tang, called blunt cones, or sharply indented tanged cones. These are only found on Umnak and Unalaska. Tanged cones reach 30 cm long and are often elaborately decorated. Two possess intricate bands of closely spaced lines separated by wider fields with small dot or triangle engravings. Six have human or sea mammal faces directly above the tang ends. Engraved lines parallel the shaft and are filled with circle/dot designs clustered in pairs. A fragment of a very similar carving, found in a grave at Port Moller, may be an example of this style of socket (Okada et al. 1976).

Spear Foreshafts Spear foreshafts are bone rods with a rounded base to rest in a hollow on the end of the wooden shaft. A bevel lap splice joint at the tip connected with the base of some forms of bone point. The bevel’s slope and step on both foreshaft and point increase resistance to tension, making this joint stronger than a scarf joint. Of 139 examples, 85 are from the Andreanof, Rat, and Near Islands.

Toggling Harpoon Foreshafts Toggling heads rested loosely on the rounded tip of a foreshaft. A line through the head attached it to a float or to the shaft of the harpoon. The most common style, with 38 examples, incorporates bone rods 4–14 cm long with a rounded wedge base. These are found at Amaknak Bridge, dated at 4000 years ago and continued in use into the historic period. Examples from Port Moller and Sanak Island have a line hole instead of a wedge base. A second style, with 28 examples, consists of bone rods 6–15 cm long. The tips are rounded and the bases flattened. This variety is similar to Ipiutak and Okvik foreshafts

240

6 Making a Living

in Northwest Alaska. They are common from Agattu to Unalaska Islands but are not reported or described farther east, likely due to their unassuming appearance.

Harpoon Foreshafts Harpoon foreshafts are oval to round cylinders of bone with a hollow at one end for receiving the butt end of a detachable bone point. The most common, with 79 examples, have bifurcated, forked tangs. Seven examples, from Unalaska and Umnak Islands, have drilled holes for a line attachment. They are slender, 0.8–0.3 cm in diameter. Foreshafts fall into two groups by length, from 17 to 35 cm long and from 4.3 to 14 cm long. Long foreshafts are a western style from the Near Islands and Atka Island. Short foreshafts are found from Attu to Akutan Islands. Only 15 have been found on Akutan, Umnak, and Kagamil Islands. Four examples from Amaknak Island and Eider Point are made from sea mammal phalanges and may have been used with arrows (McCartney 1967). Another, from Umnak Island, is made of bird bone. A small number of foreshafts have plug tangs. These are found from the Near Islands to Unalaska. One example, from Amaknak Island, is identical to two-piece sockets, with a carved sea mammal face directly above the tang on the body. A short, thick foreshaft with a tang as wide as the body, has tiny pips, or ears, to hold the lashing lines in place. A unique example from Unalaska, nearly 30 cm long and weighing nearly 1 kg, is socketed on both ends (McCartney 1967). A distinctive foreshaft style is an important spatial marker for the Near Islands (McCartney 1967). The socketed end expands into flattened flanges said to represent bird wings (Jochelson 2002: 78). These have both bifurcated and plug tangs. One is decorated with incised lines and has a chopped groove around the head, giving it a human-like silhouette.

Harpoon and Spear Points To archaeologists, points are anything that arm spears, harpoons, or arrows. It is not always possible to tell if any given point topped a specific kind of weapon and point avoids assigning a specific function. Arctic archaeologists describe bone harpoon and spear points in excruciating detail. These descriptions organize masses of data into distinctive types that are used to define cultural traditions and periods within traditions. Artifact types are used to infer ethnicity and interactions between different groups and to trace population movements through time. No standard pan-Aleutian spear and harpoon point typology exists. Instead, multiple regional typologies have resulted in a confusing proliferation of overlapping types. Aleutian archaeologists have described 80 types of spear points and 188 types of harpoon points, many represented by only one example. Using information on

Harpoon and Spear Points

241

958 spear points and 1182 harpoon points, illustrated in readily accessible published and unpublished works, we propose a pan-Aleutian bone point typology of 25 types of spears and 30 types of harpoon points. Descriptions of harpoon and spear points are based on analysis of components, or attributes that are both functional and stylistic. The function of a harpoon or spear point is to capture animals. Artifacts also have social and ideological functions not inherently obvious in their shape. Style is a “specific and characteristic manner of doing something that is peculiar to a time and place” (Sackett 1977: 370). Style is used in several ways by archaeologists. One way is to focus on the object itself. With so many variations of points, barbing and base types, spear and harpoon points are a natural focus of obsessive description. Every researcher of Unangaˆx culture has developed different descriptive schemes based on their interpretations of the importance of point length, base shape, tip type, and barbing. Bases have been called tanged, wedge-shaped, plug-tanged, conical, cylindrical, peg-like, bulbous, bi-lobed, projecting, tapered, shouldered, or double key (Aigner 1966; Laughlin 1955; McCartney 1967). Barbs descriptions focus on minute descriptions of their appearance (Aigner 1966; Desautels et al. 1971; Laughlin 1955; McCartney 1967). Ultimately, the conclusion has been “[T]he form of the barb is different in the various examples, each appearing to be the result of the individuals preference” (Turner 2008: 93). A second way archaeologists use style is to combine artifacts into units defined by space and time and define the results in what we call cultures, or phases. Here, the artifacts assume the tangible manifestation of historic relationships over time (Sackett 1977: 374–375). Related to this is the use of style to identify religious, social, and political groups whose membership share symbols and meanings that excludes outsiders (Sackett 1977: 375–376). Attributes used in our typology include point tip style, base style, and barbing style. Both spears and harpoons have three possible point types. Self-armed points taper to a sharp bone tip. Slotted points hold a stone point in a slot carved into the bone tip. Basin-tipped points have a shallow, cup-shaped depression which is also used to hold a stone tip (Fig. 6.11). Bases connect the point to the spear or harpoon shaft, or to the foreshaft, which is then attached to the shaft. Evidence for a line attachment is the single characteristic that determines whether a bone point belonged to a harpoon (Aigner 1966; Bland 1996; Holland 1982; Laughlin 1955; McCartney 1967). The most obvious are points with a hole for a line tie. Absent a hole, harpoon lines were attached around wedgeshaped tangs with sharply defined shoulders, ears or knobs, or grooves gouged into the base (Fig. 6.12; Aigner 1966; Laughlin 1955; McCartney 1967). Spear points do not come off in use. The bases are designed to hold the point in place. Described bases are beveled, tapered, footed, conical, and tabbed. Bevels have a smoothly cut, sloping face. Tapered bases narrow from the shaft to a blunt end. The footed style projects at the base, and conical bases taper to a sharp tip, sometimes inset from the base of the shaft. Tabbed bases have a tang as wide as the shaft but cut back on front and back (Fig. 6.13). A single spear point from the Krenitzin Islands is grooved.

242

6 Making a Living

Fig. 6.11 Spear and harpoon point tip styles

Barbs hold points in a wounded animal to prevent escape and aid recovery. While barbing has a simple function, the creation of barb patterns is anything but simple and barb patterns on the weapons of North Pacific sea mammal hunters are complex and elaborate. Barbed spear and harpoon descriptions focus on minute details of their appearance (Fig. 6.14; Aigner 1966; Desautels et al. 1971; Laughlin 1955; McCartney 1967). Barbing can be unilateral or bilateral. Unilateral barbs are arranged down one side of the point. Bilaterally barbed points have barbing down both edges of the

Harpoon and Spear Points

243

Fig. 6.12 Spear and harpoon point barbing styles

point that may be symmetrical, directly opposite each other, or asymmetrical, with the barbing completely different on either side of the point.

244

6 Making a Living

Fig. 6.13 Spear point base styles

Spear Points Spear points are overwhelmingly self-armed with 784 examples. Forty-one basintipped points are primarily from Umnak and Unalaska, but ten have been recovered from the Andreanof Islands and one from Attu. Slotted spear points (99) are widespread. Most are less than 19 cm long, but some from Unalaska reach 40 cm, the largest points in the Aleutian Islands. Slotted and basin tips seem to be associated with warfare and whale hunting.

Harpoon and Spear Points

245

Of 958 described spear points, bases were visible on 895. representing beveled (321), tapered (295), footed (175), conical (57), and tabbed (46) styles. Beveled bases with smoothly cut, sloping faces are the most common with 321 examples. Tapered bases narrow from the shaft to a blunt end. They are the second most common with 295 examples. Footed bases (175) project at the end, and conical bases (57) taper to a sharp tip, sometimes inset from the base of the shaft. Tabbed bases (46) have a

Fig. 6.14 a Sunburst charts of Near and Rat Island spear types. b Sunburst charts of Andreanof Islands and Umnak Island spear types. c Sunburst charts of Unalaska (top left), Port Moller (bottom center), and Krenitzin Islands (top right) spear types

246

6 Making a Living

Fig. 6.14 (continued)

tang as wide as the shaft but cut back on front and back. A single spear point from the Krenitzin Islands is grooved. Spear points are almost evenly split between unilateral and bilateral barbing. Unilaterally barbed spear points (374) are an eastern style; only 54 have been recovered from the Rat and Near Islands. Twenty percent of the unilateral points from Unalaska and Port Moller have slotted tips. The 425 asymmetrically, bilaterally barbed spear points are predominantly found on Umnak, Unalaska, and in the Krenitzin Islands, only 20 are reported from the central islands, and none from the west or east. Spear points with baroque barb patterns were exclusively used in warfare (Laughlin 1955; McCartney 1967). Bilaterally, symmetrically barbed spear points are the rarest style, with 44 examples, most from Unalaska and Umnak (Fig. 6.15).

Harpoon Points Jochelson defined toggling and simple harpoon types, based on their point shape (Jochelson 2002). Liapunova (1996), examining hundreds of harpoons in museum collections, described light non-toggling, heavy non-toggling, and toggling harpoon

Harpoon and Spear Points

247

Fig. 6.15 Toggling harpoon points

types. Harpoons are designed so that the point separates from the shaft. The point stays in the struck animal, and the shaft can serve as a float, or be retrieved and used again.

248

6 Making a Living

Akaˆgusiˆx, Toggling Harpoons Akaˆgusiˆx turn, or toggle, under the skin of prey animals, preventing escape. These are often used with drag floats. Toggling harpoons are the dominant hunting weapon north of the Alaska Peninsula, the largest of these being whaling weapons. South of the Alaska Peninsula, toggling harpoons are rare. Aleutian toggling harpoon points were not related, except in the most general way, to northern Alaskan styles, but circle/dot decorative patterns on a few from Unalaska are “suggestive” of Punuk and Dorset traditions (Quimby 1946). Only 76 akaˆgusiˆx have been described or illustrated (Fig. 6.15). All are closedsocketed, having a shallow drilled hole in the base for insertion of the foreshaft, and have a single spur, or barb, extending past the base. The oldest, eight points from Amaknak Bridge, date to 3470–2540 BP. These all have slotted tips and differ from later styles by having paired barbs at the tip (Knecht and Davis 2005). The remaining examples span the last 3000 years. The most common style, with slotted tips, are found from the Near Islands to Port Moller. Near Island slotted points have indentations at the tip for lashing to hold the stone point. Two are decorated, one with incised lines and one with ten rows of circle/dot designs. Self-armed and open-basin points are rare, with 12 and nine examples, respectively. Self-armed points are distributed from the Near Islands to Port Moller. All basin-tipped points come from Amaknak Island. Five are decorated with lines descending from the line hole, incised parallel lines, or incised X motifs (McCartney 1967). Small 3.5 cm and 4.8-cm-long points from Amaknak Island, and one 4-cm-long point from Amchitka, are identified as toys (Desautels et al. 1971; Knecht and Davis 2005; McCartney 1967). The Amchitka specimen was found with its stone-end blade mounted on a foreshaft and shaft.

Simple Bone Harpoon Points We have distilled 188 simple harpoon point-type descriptions into 30 types based on 4 different line attachments, three tip types, and three barbing types. The four categories listed here are harpoon points with line holes and shouldered, eared, and grooved harpoon points (Fig. 6.16).

Harpoon Points with Line Holes In these points, a hole is cut or drilled through the base to attach a line. One-fifth of all harpoon heads, or 239 of 1182, had line holes. None are reported from the Near Islands. We lumped 21 described types into two: self-armed (114) or basintipped (119 examples; Aigner 1966; Bland 1996; Desautels et al. 1971; Holland 1982; Laughlin 1955; McCartney 1967).

Harpoon and Spear Points

249

Fig. 6.16 Harpoon point base styles

Unilaterally barbed points are found from Umnak to Port Moller, with two from Amchitka. All unilaterally barbed, line-hole harpoon points are self-armed. Symmetrical barbing includes the largest harpoon points, up to 25 cm long. These are an eastern style, with only 20 of 147 found west of Umnak. Asymmetrically barbed points are shorter, between 8 and 11 cm long. Only two asymmetrically barbed points are found west of Umnak Island. Most of these are self-armed. Basin-tipped harpoon points of all types are relatively rare, with only 187 examples of 1187 total harpoons. Of these, 119 (64%) are found on line-hole harpoons.

250

6 Making a Living

Shouldered Harpoon Points Shouldered points are the most common style, with 595 examples. Shouldered harpoon points are characterized by a wedge-shaped basal tang with prominent tabs on both sides. Single-shouldered points have a tab on only one side. Researchers have described 42 types, here reduced to three: unilaterally barbed and symmetrically and asymmetrically barbed shouldered harpoon points (Aigner 1966; Bland 1996; Desautels et al. 1971; Holland 1982; Laughlin 1955; McCartney 1967). All shouldered harpoons are self-armed. Unilaterally barbed points span the region from the Near Islands to Port Moller but are rare west of Umnak Island. They are typically less than 15 cm long, but one from Attu reaches 25 cm. Three examples found at Margaret Bay date to between 3850 and 2350 BP, making them among the oldest dated types. Symmetrically barbed, shouldered points have a more limited distribution between the Near and Krenitzin Islands. None are reported from Umnak Island. Most are between 4 and 16 cm long. The longest, and only decorated, shouldered point is an 18.9-cm-long example from Shemya Island. Bilaterally asymmetrical points are overwhelmingly the most common type of Aleutian harpoon point, with 424 specimens or 36% of the total. They are distributed from Port Moller to Attu. They range in size between 3.8 and 16 cm but one, from Attu, is 25 cm long. Bilaterally barbed, shouldered points are well attested between 1150 and 550 BP.

Eared Harpoon Points Eared points have either a pair of projecting pips or a flaring diamond-shaped projection above the base. Barbing can be unilateral or both symmetrically and asymmetrically bilateral. All three point tip types are present. The 195 eared points are here classified into nine types. Unilaterally barbed examples are found from the Near Islands to Port Moller. Most (53) are self- armed, but six basin-tipped examples hail from Umnak. A 20-cm-long example came from Amchitka. One decorated example is known from Umnak. They range in age from 1550 to 550 BP. Bilaterally barbed, eared points are a predominantly eastern style. Only nine are known from the Rat and Near Islands. One self-armed point was found on Atka. Sixty asymmetrically barbed points come in three length groupings: 5–8 cm long, 16.5–17.5 cm long, and over 27 cm long (Aigner 1966; McCartney 1967). About a third of these points possess saw-blade-type serrations on one edge. The larger examples are decorated with incised lines. More than half (35) have a basin tip. These are limited to Umnak and Unalaska. Three slotted tipped points were found at Port Moller. None are dated. These attributes are associated with weapons used in war and whale hunting. Symmetrically barbed, self-armed points are small, between 4 and 10 cm in length, but two specimens 20 cm long are reported from Amchitka. None are decorated.

Harpoon and Spear Points

251

Forty-nine are self-armed. They are found from Port Moller to Attu. In the eastern Aleutians, they are an old type dating to 4700–4100 BP on Sanak and 2830–2370 BP at Margaret Bay. Basin-tipped points are limited to Umnak (23), with a single specimen from Atka. Six slotted tips from the Krenitzin Islands date to 1170–570 BP.

Grooved Harpoon Points The least common harpoon point type, with 158 examples, is grooved with a carved or gouged notch defining the base. We describe nine types. Unilaterally barbed, grooved points possess all three tip treatments. They are found from the Rat Islands to Port Moller and span a 1300-year time range from about 1550 to 250 BP. Eight basin-tipped points are found only on Unimak and at Port Moller. Those with slotted tips extend from Umnak to Port Moller. Symmetrically barbed, grooved points are found from Attu to Unalaska Island. Most are self-armed. Asymmetrically barbed, grooved points are known from the Rat Islands to Unalaska. Bilaterally barbed points with slotted tips are found only on Umnak Island.

What Does This Mean? Artifact style is used by archaeologists to distinguish temporal or geographic variations in archaeological cultures called phases. McCartney (1971, 1974) defined geographically based Izembek and Near Island phases from differences in the artifact assemblages in these two widely separated ends of the Aleutian region. These phases represent cohesive social groupings who differ from their otherwise closely related neighbors. More recently, researchers have defined temporal phases in Unalaska Bay and at the south end of the Alaska Peninsula (Knecht and Davis 2001; Maschner 1999). These phases highlight chronological changes in the Aleutian tradition. This is not the place for a detailed analysis of harpoon and spear point styles, but some trends can be emphasized. The three barbing styles are pan-Aleutian and found in every period. Self-armed points are the most popular style across the Chain and through time (Fig. 6.17). The Near Islands are different. Spear point bases come beveled or conical, never any of the other styles. Points are self-armed except for a single example with basin tip. Near Island harpoon heads do not have line holes. There is only one style of eared and grooved harpoon point in the Near Islands, both are unilaterally barbed and self-armed. Elsewhere the picture is of overlapping variation in regional styles. Basin-tipped points are not found in the Near Islands or in the Krenitzin Islands. Slotted harpoon tips are found from Umnak to Port Moller, but nowhere else. The central Aleutians, with admittedly small samples, lack unilaterally barbed spear and harpoon heads. Unalaska and Port Moller lack asymmetrically barbed spear points.

252

6 Making a Living

Combining analysis of harpoon and spear heads with other artifact classes, especially fishhooks and stone points, could refine a geography of distinct but shifting political and social units.

Fig. 6.17 a Sunburst charts of Near and Rat Islands harpoon types. b Sunburst charts of Andreanof Islands and Umnak Island harpoon types. c Sunburst charts of Unalaska Island, Krenitzin Islands, and Alaska Peninsula harpoon types

Harpoon and Spear Points

253

Fig. 6.17 (continued)

Whaling Weapons? Whaling weapons are identified ethnographically, but archaeologists can rarely distinguish specific functions for excavated remains (McCartney 1980). On a very basic level, large tools correlate with hunting large animals. Black (1987) and McCartney (1967) identified unilaterally barbed bone points, 27–33 cm long and with barbs 8–9 cm apart, as whaling points. Published sources illustrate 538 bone harpoon and spear points longer than 16 cm, which we consider suitable for hunting whales. The longest harpoons are unilaterally barbed points 20–40 cm long. Most (58) are slotted to hold stone points. The 307 bilaterally barbed harpoon points have basins for stone tips (218), are self-armed (75), or slotted (13). Unilaterally barbed spear points range from 16 to 40 cm long. Half (33) were self-armed, and half were slotted. Bilaterally barbed spear points reaching 26 cm long are basin-tipped (24), slotted (13), and self-armed (45). Basin-tipped and slotted harpoon and spear heads were tipped with stone points. Black (1987) and Turner (2008) identified stone blades 6–9 cm long as whaling points. On Agattu, long, slender stone points were used on lances for large sea mammals and men (Hrdliˇcka 1945; Spaulding 1962). Parallel sided bifaces, often with serrated edges and up to 24 cm long, are the most common points from Shemya (Corbett et al. 2010). On Amchitka, the largest points are 7-cm-long lanceolate or

254

6 Making a Living

leaf-shaped bifaces. Large asymmetric, serrated points from Idaliuk Bay (SAM00042, SAM-00043) reach 16 cm in length (Aigner 1983a). At Chaluka, points up to 12 cm long are possibly lances (Laughlin 1955). At Chulka, ground slate points similar to Kodiak-style whaling lances and a variety of chipped lanceolate and oval points are found (Holland 1992). Large knives for cutting up large animals are found across the archipelago. Bifacially chipped knives in several forms are found in the east. At Amaknak Bridge, asymetrically bladed knives, large-stemmed knives, and flake knives were used on large animals (Knecht and Davis 2005). At Chulka, flaked oval blades and chipped ulus of tabular shale were used on large animals (Holland 1992). On Attu, stemmed, saw-like knives with spatulate ends are identified as flensers (Turner 2008). Turner (2008) also described large handheld knives for severing large chunks of fat and meat. Hrdliˇcka (1945) described ovoid bifacial knives up to 17.7 cm long from Agattu. Some marginally chipped slabs up to 18 cm long, unique to the Rat Islands, were used as knives (Desautels et al. 1971; McCartney 1977). Boulder spall knives had edges up to 10 cm across. Two types of bifacially worked knives reached 10–18 cm long. It is virtually impossible to prove the presence of active whaling in prehistory. Whale bones are common in sites but debate rages over whether they represent hunted or drift whales (McCartney 1980). Archaeologists generally agree the presence of weapons suitable for killing whales, whale bone in the sites, and artistic depictions of whale hunting, to be direct evidence for active whale hunting (Black 1987; McCartney 1980; Souders 1995; Yarborough 1995; Yesner 1995). Whaling is ethnographically reported in Unalaska Bay and the Krenitzin Islands, Islands of Four Mountains, and Unalaska’s Beaver Inlet. Archaeological evidence indicates whaling was far more widespread in prehistory. Based on archaeological and the ethnographic evidence, Unalaska, Umnak, and the Krenitzin Islands were a major and long-lasting whaling center. Whaling here was clearly influenced by and probably originated in the Kodiak Archipelago. Evidence for whaling in the Rat and Near Islands is robust, based on the presence of large bone and stone points, large knives, and the common use of whalebone in architecture and burials. Little is known about the central Aleutian Islands, but a handful of large bone and stone points, and a suite of weapons associated with a burial in a cave, suggest at least limited involvement in whaling took place here as well. Masks depicting humans transformed to killer whales suggest whaling in the Shumagin Islands as well.

Bird Spears Fully equipped kayaks carried at least one chataasiˆx, nugin, or uˆgaluˆx, or bird spear (Liapunova 1996; Varjola 1990). Chataasiˆx consist of a wooden shaft 1.2 m long, a central bone point, igiqaˆx, 10–30 cm long, and three bone side prongs (Jochelson 2002: 84–86; Liapunova 1996: 97; McCartney 1967). Igiqaˆx often exhibit elaborate barbing patterns, including paired barbs, clusters of three to five barbs, and varied spacing between barbs (Jochelson 2002).

Offshore Fishing

255

Side prongs, changadusim agaluu, nugin, or chataasiˆx, 7–27 cm long, were attached below the igiqaˆx (Holland 1982; Jochelson 2002; Liapunova 1996; Veniaminov 1984). They are unilaterally barbed with up to 13 barbs (Jochelson 2002; Liapunova 1996; McCartney 1967). A sinew cord connected the point and side prongs to the shaft to prevent loss if the prongs detached (Liapunova 1996: 97). The side prongs gave bird spears a shotgun-like effect and could be used to catch multiple birds in a single throw (Laughlin 1980; Liapunova 1996; Nelson 1983: 153; Turner 2008; Yesner 1976). To avoid spooking the birds, spears were thrown underhand into dense flocks.

Fishing for Birds Men also fished for birds at sea using utuux and aguˆgdaˆx, (gorges), double-pointed bone, or wood slivers wrapped with meat and floated on the ocean’s surface (Bergsland 1994). Foraging birds swallowed the gorge and could be reeled in like a fish. This method is ubiquitous throughout southern coastal Alaska (Nelson 1983: 170; Steffian et al. 2015: 190; Stewart 1977). Archaeological gorges are splinters of bird bone tapering to a sharp point on both ends (McCartney 1967: 302; Veltre 1979: 425). These double-pointed bone slivers are often labeled split bird bone awls (Desautels et al. 1971: 254; Holland 1982: 122; Knecht and Davis 2003; Laughlin 1955; Spaulding 1962). They are found from every period in all Aleutian Island sites.

Offshore Fishing Fish was of equal importance to sea mammal meat in the Aleut diet. Qaˆx, fish, also means to eat. Fish are abundant, predictable, and reliable resources. Of the 90 species living in Aleutian waters, 62 were harvested by Aleuts. Successful fishing required intimate knowledge of fish behavior as it varies with location, season, and weather (Turner 2008; Veniaminov 1984). The tool kit was elaborate and highly developed, with specialized hooks to target species and prey size. Because it required use of kayaks, open ocean fishing was a male activity undertaken individually or with a partner (Jochelson 1933; Liapunova 1996; McCartney 1977). The only method was using a hook and line (Veniaminov 1984). Fishermen purified themselves by bathing in the sea, fasting, and abstaining from sex. Hooks were armed with charms, including pieces of albatross wing feathers, gum-rosin, octopus, a sweet root called ami, flowers, and carved hematite amulets (Hudson 1992; Veniaminov 1984). Fishermen whispered incantations over hooks as they were lowered into the sea. Hooks may have been sentient and active partners in the chase (Emmons 1991: 117).

256

6 Making a Living

Pollock (taaqaˆx ) and Atka mackerel (tmadgiˆx ) school in large numbers in the strong currents of the interisland passes (NOAA 2012; Turner 2008). They are easily caught: [Atka mackerel] were in schools and it was easy to get great numbers; in fact, one would be kept very busy hauling in the fish and taking them off the hook... When first hooked they would come up very readily, in fact they seemed to swim upward until near the surface when they would become alarmed and dart back and forth in their efforts to free themselves. The sport was very exciting. During 4 hours fishing 9 persons with 26 lines took 585 fish... (Jordan and Evermann 1923)

Sometimes a man and a boy would head out together to catch Atka mackerel. The boy held the boat still in the kelp bed while the older man used a pole with a barbed-hook point to jig for fish. Within two hours, they could catch up to 300 fish.

Offshore Fishing Gear The North Pacific halibut hook (kulusaˆx, “fishline with hook for halibut”), found from the Aleutian Islands to central British Columbia, is one of the most interesting fishhooks invented (Bergsland 1994: 248; Clark 1984; Emmons 1991; Rousselet et al. 1988; Stewart 1977). Halibut draw in prey with strong suction. If the object cannot be swallowed, they forcefully spit it out. The V-shaped hook with a bone barb embedded the barb in the lower jaw when expelled (Emmons 1991; Stewart 1977). Unangaˆx halibut hooks, qanaaˆgasiˆx, were made to catch specific sizes of fish, generally 20–100 pounds (Turner 2008). The upper, unbarbed arm, halayaˆx, was pegged to the lower inusdan, with a strong bone barb, uˆxtam qixiˆga or qixiˆgii, lashed to the inusdan (Fig. 6.18; Bergsland 1994: 51, 318; Hudson 1992). A line attached to the inusdan set and retrieved the hook. A second line on the hook attached to a sinker stone (Hudson 1992). Men fished for halibut in pairs. When a large halibut was caught, one man played the fish to the surface where the other clubbed it (Turner 2008: 137). Much less is known about Aleut cod hooks. Unlike halibut which suck food into their mouths, cod “hit” their prey and bite. In experiments cod bit hooks so hard they broke the barbs. Breakage patterns matched bone barbs found in sites (Croes 1995: 104). At site ATU-00061 cod was the most common vertebrate remains, yet we found no fishhooks. During a break in a meeting with Elders from all the Aleutian region villages in the mid-1990s, I explained this find and asked how Aleut cod hooks looked. The men described a compound V-hook with a wood shank and a bone barb (Emmons 1991: 121; Stewart 1977). The precise placement and angle of the bone barb determined fishing success and size of the catch (Croes 1995: 104). No wooden halibut or cod fishhook parts have been recovered archaeologically, but the bone barbs should be plentiful. Halibut barbs from southeast Alaska are 6– 8 cm long. Cod barbs averaged 3.2 cm long (Croes 1995: 96). A broad and vaguely defined group of bird bone artifacts match descriptions of halibut and cod hook

Offshore Fishing Gear

257

Fig. 6.18 Halibut and cod fishhooks

barbs. These are among the most common tool types found in Aleutian sites, but archaeologists usually identify them as awls (McCartney 1967). Type D awls are sections of wing bone shafts averaging 7 cm long with singly or doubly pointed ends (McCartney 1967). Western Aleutian examples are symmetrical and finely made. Amchitka’s splintered bird bone awls are ground to a single point with rough butt ends, some with a bevel or indentation. They span the midden period

258

6 Making a Living

on Amchitka from 2250 ± 95 to 310 ± 60 BP (Desautels et al. 1971: 270). Similar splinter awls from Akun had polished points and unfinished butts, some with a notch (Holland 1982). The 285 examples comprise 10% of the bone tools at Chulka from 1170 to 50 BP. They range from 1.8 to 18.7 cm long. It is likely many, if not most, of these splintered bird bone pieces are in fact barbs for halibut and cod hooks. Fishing lines, qidmax, were made of kelp (Nereocystis spp.), cut into thin strips, soaked in freshwater, then dried and stretched (Jacka 1999; Liapunova 1996). They were thin as wire and stronger than the hemp ropes used by the Russians (Hrdliˇcka 1945). The fisherman retrieved the line by pulling it in hand over hand (Jacka 1999). Lines were supported at the surface by a seal stomach float, yaxutaˆx (Bergsland 1994: 463). Fishhooks were held on the bottom by stone sinkers (Fig. 6.19). Sinkers are extremely abundant in sites but rarely rate more than passing mention in reports. The overwhelming majority are fist-sized or larger cobbles with notches made by pecking an indentation at the ends of the long axis. A sample of 67 sinkers from Shemya measured 41–115 mm long, 40–87 mm wide, and 16–67 mm thick and weighed 29–783 gm. Sinkers from Sanak Island and the Alaska Peninsula are smaller, 1.3– 13.4 cm in length, weighing 2–541 gm. It is not clear if these are made on oval beach cobbles or on flatter beach rocks. If made on flat rocks, they would be like sinkers from Kodiak (Clark 1997). Grooved sinkers have a pecked groove all around the long axis, short axis, or both. Only 146 are described from the entire archipelago (Cordell 2009; Desautels et al. 1971; Hanson 1983; Huffman 2007; Jochelson 2002; Knecht et al. 2001; McLain 1998; Spaulding 1962). Plummets are oval or teardrop-shaped with a groove at the narrow end, resulting in a knob. They are an old style, restricted to eastern sites. At Margaret Bay and Amaknak Bridge, they are considered a horizon marker for the period from 5450 to 4450 BP (Knecht and Davis 2005). At Hot Springs Village, XPM-00001, they dated to 3950–2950 BP (Huffman 2007; Maschner et al. 2004). Seven at Izembek dated between 4950 and 3250 BP. Some young examples from Hot Springs Village came from levels dated to 1450–1100 BP (Maschner et al. 2004). Long, symmetrically ground rods from the Amaknak Bridge and Margaret Bay sites are 6–15 cm long and 3 cm wide, with a groove encircling the long axis (Knecht and Davis 2005). Perforated stone sinkers are rare and probably underreported (Hanson 1983; Huffman 2007; Jochelson 2002; McLain 1998; Turner 2008; West et al. 2003). All are on beach cobbles with natural holes. Three from Chaluka are dated to 670 BP (Hanson 1983). At Hot Springs Village, holes were drilled in flat cobbles from the oldest levels of the site dating between 4950 and 3950 BP.

Faunal Evidence for Offshore Hunting and Fishing Archaeologists derive much of their knowledge of the Unangaˆx economy from studying bones and shells recovered from sites. Early excavation reports provide only lists of species present. In some cases, even these identifications are suspect

Faunal Evidence for Offshore Hunting and Fishing

259

Fig. 6.19 Stone fishing sinkers

(Causey personal communication; Harrington 1987). More recent excavations have taken greater care in the recovery and identification of faunal remains. Material we consider useable has been examined by specialists in faunal analysis, providing specific numbers of individual bones from identified excavation units. Quantifiable data with reliable identifications are available from 99 sites. Most provide detailed

260

6 Making a Living

Table 6.2 Sites and faunal remains Number of sites

Number of bones

Site range

Site average

Mammals

87

56,060

3–7920

644

Birds

37

30,713

56–11,646

830

Fish

17

138,606

146–49,290

8153

Shellfish

41

N/A

N/A

N/A

information on mammals (87), followed by 41 reporting shellfish. Information on birds is available for 37 sites. Only 17 report good data on fish. Fauna from several excavations have never been analyzed but could substantially improve these totals (Aigner 1983a, b; Cook et al. 1972; Laughlin 1955, 1974/1975; Turner 1972; Turner and Turner 1974; Veltre 1979; Veltre and McCartney 2001; Table 6.2). Total numbers of bones might imply a wealth of information available for these sites. In reality, factoring in the geographic span of the sites and a time range of 6000 years, the number of bones is quite small. Results suggest trends but are far from definitive and leave wide latitude for interpretation.

Marine Mammals Sea mammals are well represented in collections, with 34 species reported. Offshore and nearshore species are both discussed here. The most commonly reported sea mammals, from 65 sites, are harbor seals. Including results attributed to small seal/ phocid, they yielded a total of 20,000 bones. Only 17 sites have yielded more than 100 bones, and only four have more than 1000 bones. Although numerous, these bones have received almost no detailed analysis regarding age, sex, butchering patterns, or seasonal use, so details on their use and importance to the Aleuts are lacking. Fur seals are next in numbers with 10,295 bones found in 39 sites from Shemya to Izembek Lagoon, although in 21 sites they are represented by fewer than ten bones. They comprise 18% of all mammal bones found. On Shemya, remains of unweaned fur seal pups in three of four excavated sites indicate the presence of breeding rookeries from the earliest occupation by humans, around 2500 BP through 1200 BP (Corbett et al. 2010). At Amaknak Bridge and Margaret Bay on Unalaska, unweaned pups comprise 61% of the fur seal bones, again indicating the presence of sizable breeding rookeries (Crockford et al. 2005; Davis 2001). In the late precontact period, fur seal remains are dominated by immature specimens the analysts considered were likely captured during the fall migration south from breeding colonies in the Pribilof Islands (Knecht and Davis 2003). Sea lion provided 8990 bones from 64 sites extending from the Near Islands to the Alaska Peninsula. Fourteen sites yielded over 100 bones each, and two produced over 1000. Sea lions have received more analytical attention than fur seals and seals from archaeologists. They are found in larger numbers where locally breeding fur

Faunal Evidence for Offshore Hunting and Fishing

261

seals were not present (Crockford 2012). In early sites on Unalaska, only 1–2% of the total mammalian assemblage are sea lion, but adult males were overwhelmingly dominant, comprising 82% of all sea lion bones present. The animals may have been targeted at haul-outs where nonbreeding males congregate during breeding season (Crockford 2002). The low total numbers of sea lions in these sites may indicate that populations were depressed during the Neoglacial period (Crockford 2002). In warmer post-Neoglacial levels on Adak (2000–970 BP), sea lions made up 4% of the mammal remains, increasing to 19% in later sites during the Little Ice Age (400–250 BP). The remains were predominantly juveniles and subadult/adult females (Crockford 2012). On the Alaska Peninsula at Adamagan (2550–1850 BP), sea lion/ pinniped remains were abundant. Most of the skeletal elements were represented, indicating the animals were brought to the site for butchering. Skull bones, many with blunt force trauma, suggest the animals were clubbed at rookeries or haul-outs. The only site where sea lions dominated the mammal assemblage is on Buldir (1200– 280 BP). That assemblage included three adult males, two females and two pups, indicating hunting at a rookery (Corbett et al. 2010). Addressing the effects of human selection on prey populations, Yesner (1977) noted natural populations of phocids consist of 36% adult animals, 42% subadults, and 22% infants or juveniles. The age proportions of the archaeological sample from Oglodax, on Umnak, was 61% adult sea lion, 32% subadult, and 7% infant/juvenile. Hunters were selecting for adult, breeding animals. Sea otters are represented by 5956 bones in 55 sites extending from the Near Islands to Izembek Lagoon. Twelve sites yielded more than 100 bones, with one, Chaluka, furnishing 1932, which is 32% of the total number for the entire Chain. The role of sea otters in structuring nearshore environments has been exhaustively studied (Corbett et al. 2007; Desautels et al. 1971; Estes 1990, 1996; Estes and Duggins 1995; Jones and Kain 1967; Paine and Vadas 1969; Palmisano and Estes 1977). Prehistoric coastal ecosystems were very different than the modern environment as documented by biologists since WWII (See Chap. 3). Prehistorically dense human populations led to very low numbers of sea otters near villages. As a consequence, sea urchin populations were high and the nearshore environment near villages was largely free of kelp forests. Sea otters were found and hunted in mature kelp forests remote from human settlement (Corbett et al. 2007; Crockford 2012; Estes 1990, 1996). This pattern was stable over at least 3000 years, through multiple periods of warming and cooling. One localized exception may have been northern Adak Island, where otters made up 61% of the mammal remains in early sites and 26% in later sites. Fish and bird remains from ADK-00009 and ADK-00011 indicate the presence of substantial kelp forests around Clam Lagoon and Kuluk Bay despite large sea otter populations nearby (Crockford 2012). Walrus follow sea otters in the total count, with a distant 698 bones from 28 sites, all from Unalaska Bay to Izembek Lagoon. Almost 71%, or 493 bones, come from Adamagan at the end of the Alaska Peninsula. Except for UNl-00058, with 49 bones, and XFP-00052, with 36 bones, all other sites have one to nine individual bones. Aside from mentioning their presence, no researcher has described these remains. The fewest sea mammal remains are sea cow rib bones reported in archaeological

262

6 Making a Living

contexts from two sites on Kiska Island (Corbett et al. 2007; Domning et al. 2007; Lech et al. 2012). Whale and porpoise bones are common in Aleutian Island archaeological sites but have received almost no analytical attention. As a result, whales are not included in dietary analysis and are considered incidental to other prey. This is almost certainly wrong. An average humpback whale weighs 36 metric tons, equivalent to 273 harbor seals or 120 adult female sea lions (Denniston 1974; McCartney 1980). Small, 4–5 metric ton minke whales yield as much meat and fat as 48–60 harbor seals or 10–12 sea lions. Whale meat and fat were crucial for elite displays and feasting. Bones, blubber, intestines, baleen, tendons, fins, and tongue were all critical commodities (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 178; Langsdorff 1993: 20). Fat-rich whale bone was burned as fuel. Heaps of burned whalebone were found in the excavated chief’s house on Attu. Burned whalebone was common in ATU-00003 on Shemya Island and in hearths at Reese Bay (Mooney 1993), Tigalda Island (Spaulding and Pierce 1953), and the Shumagin Islands (Wilmerding 2005). The catalog of whale species identified archaeologically is thin. Their bones are rarely whole, having been cut apart for food or for secondary use in tools. The fragmentary nature of the material and lack of comparative material makes analysis difficult. Generic whale bones are reported from almost every site. Large and small whales are reported from Amchitka, Atka, Amaknak, Adak, and Shemya (Corbett et al. 2010; Crockford 2012; Davis 2001; Desautels et al. 1971; Jochelson 2002; Knecht and Davis 2005). Weyer (1930) reported small whales, porpoise, and beluga were plentiful at the Hot Springs Village. Multiple species were recognized at Attu (West et al. 2003), Amaknak (Knecht and Davis 2003, 2005), and Sanak and on the lower Alaska Peninsula (Smith 2003; Tews 2005). Few projects have successfully identified whales. Humpback whales, Stejneger’s beaked whales, and minke whales are reported in late prehistoric contexts on Adak (Crockford 2012). Jochelson (2002) reported bowhead, fin, and Cuvier’s beaked whales on Attu; he also reported Pacific right whale on Umnak. Amaknak Bridge yielded long-finned pilot whale, beluga, and Baird’s beaked whales (Crockford et al. 2005: 702; Knecht and Davis 2005). Margaret Bay yielded beluga and killer whale. On Shemya, killer and minke whales were found in three sites (Corbett et al. 2010). Remembering that the 56,000 sea mammal bones from sites span 1600 km and 6000 years, are there any trends visible in the remains? Seals, fur seals, and sea lions are found in virtually every site in low numbers throughout the Chain and across time. Adult animals seem to have been preferred. It is impossible to identify fluctuations in species populations through time from the available evidence. Sea otters are widespread but found in low numbers. These low numbers have profound implications for ecosystem function and productivity. Walrus have been recovered from the eastern islands and Alaska Peninsula. Despite ethnographic and historic accounts of their use in the Near Islands, they have not been recovered archaeologically. The historic importance of whaling has not prompted a corresponding interest by archaeologists in analysis of whale remains. Part of this is due to the size and

Alaˆgum Achidaa, At the Seashore

263

fragmentary condition of most cetacean remains. We will never understand Unangaˆx economic adaptations without more attention to the role of whales.

Offshore Birds Short-tailed albatross, short-tailed shearwaters, and northern fulmars, all large birds available in large numbers, were favored prey. Twenty percent (12,478) of recovered bird bones from 28 sites across the Aleutians belong to albatrosses, shearwaters, and fulmars. They are found in sites as old as 4000 years and as recent as sites dated after the arrival of the Russians. A short-tailed albatross hotspot occurs between Buldir and the Near Islands, and 42% of the recovered albatrosses are from sites in the Near Islands and Buldir (Corbett et al. 2010; Gibson and Byrd 2007; Lefèvre et al. 1997; Siegel-Causey et al. 1993). On Shemya Island, albatrosses, shearwaters, and fulmars comprise 70% of the bird remains recovered in four sites. Over 1300 shearwaters from Unalaska site UNL-092 represent 31% of all shearwaters identified from the entire Chain.

Offshore Fish Six species are included in this discussion of offshore fish. Only 12 reports contain good, quantifiable information on fish bones. The reports span the Chain from Shemya to Izembek Lagoon and include information from 17 sites. Forty-nine percent of all fish bones (97,600) are from offshore species, the overwhelming majority from Pacific cod (42,536), pollock (86), and general gadids (2378). Halibut are represented by only 868 bones. They are found from Adak to the Shumagin Islands but not in the west or in Alaska Peninsula sites. Atka mackerel yielded 1425 bones. East of Unalaska Island, the only offshore fish reported are cod and a few halibut. Fish remains from Nunik indicate that cod were brought to the house whole and processed (Wilmerding 2005).

Alaˆgum Achidaa, At the Seashore Within the littoral zone, McCartney (1975, 1977) identified three procurement systems: onshore sea mammal hunting, bird hunting at nesting sites, and intertidal and beach collecting. Here, we propose five procurement systems that include onshore sea mammal hunting, onshore bird hunting, inshore fishing, inshore collecting, and beach collecting.

264

6 Making a Living

Onshore Sea Mammal Hunting Two techniques were used to kill sea mammals close to shore. Ambush hunting, practiced by men singly or in groups, targeted animals at haul-outs on the beach or swimming offshore. Game drives on land were communal hunts designed for mass harvest of animals.

Ambush Hunting Harbor seals were commonly ambushed in shallow nearshore waters (Johnson 2005; Liapunova 1996; Veniaminov 1984). Hunters in boats who spotted seals near shore could drive them to the beach, where they were shot with harpoons or rifles. From shore, hunters lured curious seals close using decoys made from whole painted seal skins placed at water’s edge. A hunter sat behind the decoy, moving it and making seal noises. When a seal approached, the hunter harpooned it, pulled it ashore, and clubbed it. When using guns, hunters waited until the seal lifted its nose skyward to take a breath before shooting. Seals with full lungs do not sink (Veltre and Veltre 1983). Seals, sea lions, and sea otters shot from the beach would drift ashore or were retrieved with boats. If an animal sank, hunters used two wooden stakes and a line to locate them (Veltre and Veltre 1981). Shore-based observers moved the stakes to triangulate with the last sighting, and a hunter in a boat followed the line to the lost prey. This technique may postdate the arrival of the Russians. Attuans and Atkans pursued sea otters on land or in shallow coastal waters (Elliott 1886). Otters only came to land during storms or on dark nights, and only in remote spots, so only the bravest hunters would stalk them. Two men, each in a boat, approached an offshore rock with sleeping otters. The bravest leapt from the boat and clubbed the otter, while his partner held his boat. On Attu, men approached otters on beaches from downwind, or lowered themselves down cliffs to isolated beaches, then crept close enough to club the animal (Khlebnikov 1994). Hunters also crawled into caves or rock crevices to drag sea otters out to be clubbed. In calm seas, fine nets were tied to rocks or kelp near sea otter haul-outs (Khlebnikov 1994; Liapunova 1996; McCartney 1977; Netsvetov 1980). Nets were also laid on the tops of floating mats of kelp where a hunter suspected an otter might come to rest. This method was among the least reliable techniques. Netted otters were clubbed if they had not drowned.

Whales Dumond (1995) raised the possibility that the shallow lagoons on the north coast of the Alaska Peninsula were used as traps for gray whales. Izembek and Moffett Lagoons, Nelson Lagoon/Port Moller, Unangashik and Ugashik Bays, the mouth of

Alaˆgum Achidaa, At the Seashore

265

Cinder River, and possibly Port Heiden provide suitable feeding grounds for gray whales. In a technique like that used for hunting sea cows, hunters could have driven whales into shallow waters where they would be trapped at low tide and butchered. This hypothesis is not supported by ethnographic data and may be impossible to demonstrate archaeologically.

Game Drives The most common land hunting technique was a hunting surround. It is best known from the Pribilof Islands, where families from the eastern Aleutian Islands were moved to harvest the vast herds of fur seals. This ancient technique consisted of herding groups of sea mammals from coastal rookeries to inland locations where they were clubbed, speared, or, in historic times, shot (Elliott 1976; Jochelson 1933; Laughlin 1955; Liapunova 1996; Veltre and Veltre 1981, 1983; Veniaminov 1984). The technique was industrialized by Russian administrators and adopted whole cloth later by Americans who came to exploit the fur seal herds. During the commercial fur seal harvest, men arrived before dawn and slipped between the sea and the resting animals. When everyone was in place they leapt up, waving their arms, and yelling. Awakened, the fur seals fled inland, away from the noise. The captives were inspected, and old males, females, and pups taken back to the beach. Young males were driven to a killing ground, surrounded, stunned with a club, spread out in rows, stabbed through the heart, and skinned (Elliott 1976; Jochelson 1933; Veltre and Veltre 1981). Prehistorically, all animals caught in a round-up were likely harvested. The meat was distributed throughout the community. Historically, the Russians salted or dried some of the meat for shipment to Sitka and other colonial centers (Khlebnikov 1994). The hides were dried, baled, and shipped to Russia and China. Sea lion drives differed slightly (Elliott 1976; Johnson 2005; Veniaminov 1984). Hunters avoided herds guarded by large males. Sea lions facing land fled toward land. Those facing the sea charged toward the water. Captives were held in a “corral” of upright posts tied with cloth streamers until enough sea lions had been gathered. Females and young captives were speared. Older males could only be killed by shooting them in the mouth or ear. The dead sea lions were then skinned, and the hides were piled in heaps until decomposition loosened the hair. The Russians distributed cleaned hides for kayak covers. Intestines were collected, cleaned, and dried. The oil was rendered. Walrus were hunted at haul-outs on the barrier islands on the Alaska Peninsula and on Amak Island (Khlebnikov 1994; Liapunova 1996; Veniaminov 1984). They could occasionally be found on Umnak, Amchitka, and the Near Islands (Fifield and Corbett 1988; Ransom 1946). As in other drives, hunters approached along the shore, then rose up and rushed the herd. Walrus attempt to flee toward the water, so hunters had force them inland. They were speared where their hides are thinnest. The spear was twisted to enlarge the wound and quickly kill. Historically, walrus were shot (Khlebnikov 1994; Veniaminov 1984). Walrus were dangerous prey, and men

266

6 Making a Living

sent on walrus hunts by the Russians prepared for death and told their companions goodbye (Khlebnikov 1994).

Onshore Bird Hunting The most productive bird hunting was at seabird nesting colonies. Colony nesting birds were hunted by individuals or groups (Liapunova 1996), and women were expert bird hunters (Turner 2008). Flocks were so dense that boys using poles could simply knock birds out of the air (Unger 2014). Puffins, auklets, and murres could be shot or caught in nets as they flew around the colonies. Puffins, and probably other auklets, were pulled from their nests by hand and killed with a bite to the skull to preserve the skins. Iguuˆgulix means “to pull birds out of their holes” (Bergsland 1994: 181). Iiguuˆguusiˆx is a stick with a small crosspiece for “enticing” out puffins by grabbing their skins to pull out of the hole (Laughlin 1980). Modern biologists use nooses on poles to entice puffins out of their burrows for study. Baleen threads bent into slipknot nooses and set outside nest burrows or on nesting ledges caught puffins and murres (Turner 2008). Laughlin (1955) described a puffin noose as a 46-cm-long wooden stake with a noose of sinew. In the evening, after the birds had settled, hunters set sinew nooses around burrow entrances, using a wooden stake to hold them in place. Leaving their burrows at a run, the puffins essentially hung themselves (Laughlin 1955; Turner 2008). Snaring, noosing, and enticing birds could be done by women and children as well as men. On offshore islets and rocks, cormorants and sea ducks were caught with a variety of techniques. Men clubbed or hand-caught the birds during stormy weather (Liapunova 1996; Turner 2008: 109). Both men and women used udˆgalix or udˆgaadaˆx, nooses held like a lasso or on a stick, iidgichaadaˆx, and nets to capture birds (Bergsland 1994: 172, 415; Laughlin 1955: 26; Liapunova 1996: 91; Turner 2008: 109, 113). Laughlin suggests children and the elderly also exploited this habitat, activity that was likely tempered by weather and sea conditions (Laughlin 1980; Laughlin and Aigner 1975). Cormorants were also caught in specialized hand nets called saˆguˆx (Bergsland 1994: 347). Attuans used small hand nets to catch nesting eider ducks on bright nights with a hard wind, which presumably covered the sounds made by approaching hunters (Turner 2008: 121). Other nesting birds were caught with bag nets thrown over them on nests. Close to shore, hunters used guns, spears, nooses, and snares to catch seabirds and saltwater ducks (Liapunova 1996; Veniaminov 1984). After Russians introduced klisaˆx, fox traps, Aleuts set them for geese on beaches. Ducks and other swimming birds could also be caught using an ihngitˆxuˆx, a series of noose snares on a long line stretched across a channel in the reefs (Bergsland 1994: 207).

Alaˆgum Achidaa, At the Seashore

267

Eggs Eggs, highly prized, were available in enormous numbers at rookeries in May and June. Murre eggs, abundant and big, were the most important. Murres nest on rocky cliffs, and their eggs were collected by agile young men lowered on ropes. They gathered eggs in baskets by hand or using a 3–5-m-long scoop net. All the eggs were collected from small, selected areas of a colony. A week later, men returned to collect from the same area, knowing the eggs were fresh. In the Pribilof Islands, tons of eggs could be gathered in a few hours of work. Kittiwake, cormorant, and highly prized fulmar eggs were incidentally taken while on the cliffs. Smaller quantities were gathered from burrow-nesting birds such as ancient murrelets, puffins, and least auklets. Despite their small size, least auklet eggs were highly prized. Part of the harvest was stored in oil or buried in cold mud to preserve the eggs up to a year (Langsdorff 1993: 8; Osgood et al. 1915; Unger 2014; Veltre and Veltre 1981, 1982, 1983). Gull eggs were nearly as important as murre eggs. Duck and oystercatcher eggs were also harvested.

Inshore Fishing Women and children caught greenlings, commonly called pogies, Irish lords and other sculpins, and rockfishes on the reefs. Pricklebacks, blennies, and gobies live in holes or crevices under rocks in tidal pools at low tide. Most are very small, only 15– 18 cm long, but a few, including high cockscombs (Anoplarchus purpurescens) and gunnels (Pholis laeta and P. ornate), reach 25–30 cm. The most desirable were pogies or greenlings. Pogies could be caught using gaffs (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 14) or among the boulders (kuchix) using a hook and line (Bergsland 1994: 319; Elliott 1976: 137; Oliver 1988; Turner 2008). Sculpins, including great sculpins (Myoxocephalus polyacanthocephalus), and Irish lords occupy tidepools and rocky crevices in reefs. Rock sole (Lepidopsetta bilineata), a flatfish, is also found in tidepools where children caught them by hand (Bank 1956, 1971; Oliver 1988; Turner 2008). Young girls learned to process and dry fish using pogies they caught themselves (Alice Petrivelli personal communication). Chalil, “fish from shore,” chamchuxsix and chamchxiˆx, “to fish with a line from land,” and chavchiˆx, “short line to fish for small fish from shore,” describe kinds of line fishing, with the former presumably less specific as to gear used. Fishing with a hook and hand line among the rocks was kuchilix (Bergsland 1994: 245; Jochelson 1933; Laughlin 1980; Turner 2008). Made of kelp, plaited sinew, or smoked sealskin, the lines were stout to avoid cutting the fisherman’s hands and because thin lines would be cut by barnacles and rocks (Oliver 1988). Qaˆgdaˆxsix, “to seine fish from the beach,” required anchoring one end of a seine net on shore and pulling the free end in a wide arc around a school of fish. The free end corralled fish, and people pulled the full net to the beach (FAO 2001). Seines targeted flounder, herring (Clupea pallasii), and greenlings (Jochelson 1933). The

268

6 Making a Living

net, kudmachiˆx, hangs vertically in the water with its bottom edge, or footrope, held down by weights, kudmachin kayuxtangin, and the top edge, headrope, buoyed by floats, kudmachin maˆgin (Bergsland 1994: 236, 246, 271). On Attu, people caught tons of herring with seines and dried them (Turner 2008). The antiquity of this method is unknown, but nets are an ancient technology and were certainly well known to the Unangaˆx. On occasion, onshore winds with onshore surf drove cod close enough to the beach to be caught by hand (Oliver 1988). Capelin (Mallotus villosus) were gathered in large numbers by hand when they came ashore to spawn, then strung on grass lines and air dried (Turner 2008).

Inshore Collecting on Reefs Gathering plants, shellfish, and other materials provides a more reliable and stable food source in most traditional economies than hunting, but meat is associated with prestige and power. Plants, berries, and shellfish lack glamor and were mainly harvested by women and children. Gathering required only simple tools—digging sticks, knives, and carrying baskets—but the knowledge required to exploit these varied resources was voluminous. Harvest times depended on the desired product. Women needed to know where plants were found; when and how to harvest, process, and store each kind; and for what purpose the plants were used. The same type of knowledge was needed for collecting birds, fish, shellfish, and other reef creatures. Shellfish are plentiful, easily collected, and reliable (Oshima 1986: 44). Laughlin (1980: 49) estimated 15% of the Unangaˆx diet consisted of invertebrates, mainly sea urchins. Their importance was noted by early explorers (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 178; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 249; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 58). Invertebrates were sometimes the only food available in spring when people turned “to the use of shellfish, and some eat edible kelps” to prevent starvation (Bank 1971; Oshima 1986). The importance of shellfish in human economies has been the source of much debate in archaeology. Laughlin (1980: 15, 45, 91) emphasized the importance of intertidal resources to sedentism, individual longevity, and cultural complexity. Despite their importance, invertebrates were sometimes viewed by Europeans and Americans as marginal or starvation food (Dmystryshyn et al. 1988: 210; Georgi 1780: 224; Okada et al. 1976: 44; Sauer 1802: 171). Traditionally, “the main activity of women, children and elderly people” was “to gather the gifts of the sea” (Liapunova 1996: 92; Okada et al. 1976: 45). Invertebrates were available to children, the elderly, and less mobile individuals, including pregnant women (Laughlin 1980: 45). Low in calories, shellfish are a valuable source of protein, polyunsaturated fatty acids, and trace elements such as iron, copper, and magnesium. By far the most important invertebrates were sea urchins or sea eggs (aguˆgaadaˆx, aguˆgnaˆx ). “The numbers of echini that will be consumed as a single sitting is more than surprising. During certain seasons the ovaries are filled with eggs which are

Alaˆgum Achidaa, At the Seashore

269

devoured by the people with evident relish, at times they form an important factor in the diet…” (Turner 2008: 153). Sea urchins grow as large as 8.3 cm across. They are only edible when the orange-yellow gonads (aguˆgaadam udmaa) are full of fat, in mid- to late winter, before they form eggs or sperm. They spawn around April and remain empty water filled shells for three months. Sea urchins were picked up from the shallow pools where they congregate. Women could collect half a bushel (18 L) of urchins in a few minutes. For plucking them from deep waters, women used itus, chunigasiˆx, or chuhniˆguusiˆx, pronged spears with a small scoop (Bergsland 1994: 154, 219; Jochelson 2002: 84; Veltre and Veltre 1982; Veniaminov 1984: 285). Urchin spines were rubbed off on clumps of grass or on the sides of the baskets used to carry them from the reefs. They were broken open with a hand stone (Turner 2008). Other shellfish form a tiny proportion of the remains found in sites. Chitons, mollusks with one large foot and eight shell plates, and limpets, with conical shells, are abundant and available all year round. The most common are kasiiˆguˆx or kasugiˆx, “bidarkis” or black Katy chitons (Katherina tunicata), but agamgiˆx, “gumboots” (Cryptochiton stelleri), and saygi, mossy chitons (Mopalia muscosa), were also used. Shallow, intertidal limpets (Lottia spp., Acmaea spp.), chiknaˆx or chiiknaˆx, aggressively defend territories up to 1 m across. They use their single foot to cling to rocks, and quick action or levers are needed to pry them free. Live limpets were scooped from their shells by the empty shells of other limpets (Ransom 1946). Shellfish gathering tools included laalalix, “to be used for gathering,” which were rib pry bars or thin bone plates (Jochelson 2002: 78–79; Ransom 1946: 610). Sea mammal ribs, split lengthwise to make them thinner, were used as digging sticks. Some are rounded and polished from use. Today, people use butter knives to loosen shellfish from the rocks (Golodoff 2003; Veltre and Veltre 1983). Bay or blue mussels (Mytilus trossulus) and California mussels (Mytilis californianus) form dense beds on rocks. Various snails, periwinkles, whelks, tritons, and dogwinkles all occupy the rocky intertidal zone. Periwinkles prefer relatively sheltered waters, while other snails can tolerate more turbulent intertidal zones. Barnacles found in upper intertidal areas were boiled as a laxative (Kudrin and Prokopioff 1980). Broken bone splinters with polished tips may be “picks” for extracting periwinkles and other snails from their shells (Johnson and Bonsall 1999). Soft-bodied animals not preserved in middens include sea cucumbers (aanghliqiitaˆx, anxliqitaˆx, angtuˆx, or aanaqliitaˆx ) and sea anemones (utuˆx, maalguuda; alaˆgum maalaˆguudangin, utuugmigiˆx, qaamidan). Sea cucumbers could be found in the intertidal zone or washed up on beaches after storms but were also caught on fishhooks. Octopuses, amˆguˆx, aaqanaˆx, or ilgaaˆguˆx, were and are a favored food. The giant Pacific octopus (Octopus dofleini) is one of the largest species, reaching an average of 15 kg (33 pounds), with an arm reach up to 4.3 m (14 ft). The exception to the dominance of women in shellfishing was the monopoly men had on catching octopus (Laughlin 1980: 44). They were caught using itus, or 1.2 m (4-foot) gaffs called qigdaˆx (Bank 1971: 92; Okada et al. 1976: 46; Turner 1886: 113). The gaff slid under the octopus in a crack in the rocks and, with a quick jerk, the animal was

270

6 Making a Living

lifted from its shelter (Bank 1971: 92; Okada et al. 1976: 46; Turner 1886: 113). Octopuses could also be pulled in with a hooked fish on a line (Turner 1886: 113). Seaweeds were also important resources. Large-bladed, brown seaweed is usually called kelp, and the Aleuts identified at least five kinds. Kelp, ulva, fucus, and other seaweeds were gathered and eaten raw or cooked in soups (Bank 1971; Liapunova 1996; Okada et al. 1976; Ransom 1946).

Beach Collecting Communities owned beaches, and the sea cast “on its shores many delicacies which require no labor to obtain. In this manner the inhabitants pass an easy life heedless of futurity” (Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 58). No one could collect beach finds without permission from local residents. Tukus carefully guarded flotsam, especially whales and driftwood, from trespassers (Veniaminov 1984). Infringement was punishable by death (Turner 2008; Veniaminov 1984).

Drift Whales Beached or drift whales were critical resources (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 178; Georgi 1780: 225; Sauer 1802: 171). Sarychev (2016 [1807]) recorded a celebration for a beached whale in Makushin village on Unalaska in 1791. Tons of meat, fat, and other bounty from a single beached whale could make the occupants of a village wealthy. Drift whales washed up reliably on the north coast of Unimak Island and the Alaska Peninsula where, depending on winter weather, three to 20 whales annually came ashore (Veniaminov 1984). Unangaˆx whaler shamans harnessed spiritual forces to lure dead whales to land. Kashega village on Unalaska once possessed a rock that looked like a whale. “The other villagers always wondered why it was that many dead whales were beached at Kashega” (Marsh 1952). Qatxaykusax, chief of Aagusaˆx in the Islands of Four Mountains, learned it was because of the rock (Marsh 1952). He captured the rock and carried it to his village where “whales began to beach at Aagusaˆx.” When a drifting whale was found, any means might be used to capture the windfall. On Umnak, in the early twentieth century, a young menstruating woman was carried on a raft seaward of a drift whale. Her ritually impure state drove the carcass to shore (Laughlin 1980).

Beach Invertebrates Cockles (Clinocardium sp. and Serripes sp.) and clams, chalaˆx or chahlaˆx (Leukoma staminea and Saxidomus giganteus), live in sand or mud beaches in quiet bays. Horse mussels (Modiolus modiolus) can be found in gravel or on rocky beaches. They were harvested with a chalasiisiˆx, “shovel for digging clams” (Bergsland 1994: 128).

Alaˆgum Achidaa, At the Seashore

271

Scallops (Pecten sp.), jingle shells (Pododesmus macrochisma), and sponges live in deeper waters but are washed ashore in large numbers after some storms. Though rare in sites, they are consistently found in excavations. Pelagic gooseneck barnacles, angugax or anguxax (Lepas anatifera), occasionally found in middens, are edible, live on driftwood, and are also thrown ashore during storms.

Beach Vegetation At least 25 plants found predominantly on beaches were used as food and medicine (Bank 1953; Golodoff 2003; Kudrin 1980). The most important were lovage (Ligusticum sp.), scurvy grass (Cochlearia sp.), and sandwort (Honckenya peploides). Leaves and stalks of ten species were eaten raw or cooked. The roots of four were eaten, always cooked. Leaves of nine species were used crushed in poultices for sores, infections or pain, teas for respiratory illnesses, fevers, rheumatism, and urinary tract disorders. Stalks and roots of the beach pea (Lathyrus maritimus) were used in weaving (Jochelson 1933).

Driftwood All wood for construction, tools, utensils, and fuel was driftwood (Khlebnikov 1994). Today, some beaches are covered with dense piles of driftwood, but in the past, driftwood was rare and extremely valuable. Wood thieves were violently punished (Turner 2008; Veniaminov 1984: 241). Gathering wood was hard work (Shade 1949). In the early twentieth century, young men spent considerable time in boats looking for logs to tow home, cut up, and store for later use (Bank 1953; Dan Prokopeuff personal communication). In the nineteenth century, communities mounted expeditions to remote areas for larger quantities and bigger logs (Shade 1949; Wheeler and Alix 2004). To complete construction of one house on Atka in the early 1830s, as many as 60 men spent 44 full-time days looking for the necessary wood (Netsvetov 1980). Driftwood identifications are often general: cedar, spruce, willow. Cherepanof (1762) reported oak, beech, and aromatic cedar, probably Cryptomeria japonica, from Asia, found in the Near Islands. Large stumps came from America and South Sea islands (Khlebnikov 1994). Among the more specific identifications are yew (Taxus spp.), willow (Salix spp.), spruce (Picea spp.), cedar (Chamaecyparis spp., Thuja plicata or Cupressus nootkatensis), cottonwood (Populus spp.), and birch (Betula spp.; Bank 1953). Curved and bent wood needed for the bow and stern pieces of iqyaˆx were the most valuable of cast-up treasures (Turner 2008). The primary concern of Aleut woodworkers was with the working characteristics of wood (Bergsland 1994). They identified ten types corresponding to species: cottonwood, birch, alder, larch, red and yellow cedar, spruce, hemlock, mahogany, and bamboo. One of the four terms for spruce, yakaadax, describes it as “soft” wood. Twenty-six terms describe wood as springy, limber, tough, resinous, fibrous, hard,

272

6 Making a Living

hard to split, or knotty. Wood was also described as curved, stump, root, or branching. All these characteristics affect the working qualities and ultimate use. A list of driftwood recovered on Amchitka included cedar, hemlock, spruce, Douglas fir, tamarack, willow, true fir, western red cedar, yellow and white pine, alder, cottonwood or aspen, and birch (Koeppen 1969). Another study found 11 types of wood from beaches on Unga, Unimak, and St. George Islands (Alix and Koester 2002). Red and yellow cedar, hemlock, spruce, cottonwood, aspen, and red alder probably came from Southeast Alaska. On St. George, spruce, cottonwood, and aspen could have come from Interior Alaska via the Yukon River. Douglas fir, Pacific silver fir, and grand or subalpine fir had to come from farther south. Archaeologists rarely find wood and even more rarely identify the kinds that are found. An excavation on Buldir Island yielded abundant wood scraps (Corbett 1994). Samples submitted for identification yielded spruce, cottonwood, and willow. Wooden artifacts recovered from Saa, UNI-00048, on Akun were probably made of cedar (Holland 1992; Turner 1973).

Fishing Gear Aleuts fished with highly specialized technology that included myriad ingenious and unique fishhooks along with sinkers, nets, and traps and weirs (Liapunova 1996; Rousselet et al. 1988; Turner 2008).

Fishhook Primer Fishhooks are among humanity’s oldest tools, and Ewalt (2006) ranked them as one of the 20 most important tools ever developed. Fishhooks 40,000 years old have been found in East Timor in the South Pacific (Bellwood 2017). By at least 7000 years ago, the technology was global. This seemingly simple technology is subject to almost infinite functional variations targeting specific types of fish in specific water conditions. Specialized English vocabulary describes the complex anatomy of fishhook parts among which are the eye, shank, bend, point, gape or gap, and bite or throat (Fig. 6.20; Kaminsky and Schwipps 2011). The eye is a loop at the end of the shank through which the line is secured. Eye position determines the rigging style. Straight eyes are used with weighted lines to cast, pitch, or flip. Pitching refers to various motions that include tossing the hook by hand and dropping hooks off the end of the rod (Kaminsky and Schwipps 2011). Turned-up and turned-down eyes are used for live bait. These eyes require heavier lines tied, or snelled, so the line and hook point pulled in the same direction. On flattened shanks, used for medium-sized fish, the leader is snelled directly to the shank (Kaminsky and Schwipps 2011).

Fishing Gear

273

Fig. 6.20 Fishhook anatomy. Redrawn after Jochelson (2002: 87)

Fishhook shanks extend from the eye to the bend. Short shanks are used with baits and have good penetration in soft-mouthed fish. Long shanks are essential for sharp-toothed fish and those that suck in their food, such as flounder and trout. They are easier to remove than hooks with short shank (Kaminsky and Schwipps 2011). Shank shapes vary from straight shafts to those with curves, kinks, bends, and offsets (Kaminsky and Schwipps 2011). The shape contributes to hook penetration and bait-holding ability. Straight shanks need no description. Humped hooks have bends to keep the hook from turning. Sliced shanks are barbed to hold soft bait. Bends cause the hook to turn and penetrate quickly. Keel shanks put the weight under the hook so the bait floats.

274

6 Making a Living

The bend is the curve between the shank and the point that defines two important dimensions. The gape, or gap, is the distance between point and shank across the bend. The bite, or throat, is the distance from the apex of the bend to its intersection with the gape. Larger gapes and bites ensure deeper penetration of the point and better holding power over the fish (Kaminsky and Schwipps 2011). Hook points are the sharp end which penetrates the fish’s mouth (Kaminsky and Schwipps 2011). Point profile and length influence penetration. There are myriad variations. In beaked, rolled, or bent-in points, the tip bends toward the shank in front of the barb. This tip is designed for fast penetration and makes it harder for a fish to break free. The beak point is regarded as the best for bait fishing in saltwater. Superior or spear points are straight with variations. Needle points have a conical shape for fast penetration. They are less likely to slice out of a fish’s mouth but are easily blunted. Knife edge points are very sharp, with the inner surface ground flat and wide to better hold big fish. Dublin points bend away from the shank for quick penetration, desirable in small flies and big-game hooks. Kirbed and reversed hooks are offset left or right of the shank, but both types function to increase the potential to hold (Kaminsky and Schwipps 2011). Hook points are also either barbed or unbarbed. Barbs were initially introduced to hold bait on hooks. Barb angle and elevation influence penetration and holding power. Barbless hooks are easier to set and easier to remove from the fish than barbed hooks. Microbarbs are very small barbs on small hooks for lightweight fishing (Kaminsky and Schwipps 2011).

Qanaaˆgasiˆx, Qasaaˆguusiˆx, “Instrument for Fishing, Fishhook” Unangaˆx used five styles of fishhook. Halibut and cod hooks as well as gorges are described in the Offshore Fishing and Offshore Bird Hunting sections. Two hook types used for inshore fishing are single piece bait hooks and compound bait hooks.

Duˆxtaadaˆx, Fishhook, Simple One Piece Fishhook Simple U-shaped hooks were used for small fish in shallow water (Jochelson 2002: 86). From the Amaknak Bridge site, 16 examples were made from mammal bone dated to 3360–2540 BP (Knecht and Davis 2005). Half of these hooks are tiny, between 2 and 4 cm long. They all have a notched and flanged “eye” and are unbarbed. Two are from Umnak. One has a grooved “eye” with a tip barb, and one is 10 cm long. An ivory hook from Atka is 4.9 cm long and has a pair of bilaterally symmetrical barbs.

Fishing Gear

275

Duˆxtaˆx, Fishhook, Compound Bone Fish Hook The Aleut compound fishhook is the closest match to modern hooks. Compound fishhooks have shanks called chagiˆx (shaft for fishhook), mugiˆxaga (whalebone fishhook shank), and umxiˆx the “bow-shaped section of fishhook made of sea lion tooth” (Bergsland 1994: 440). The names for points in Unangam tunuu are qix, qigisiˆx (curved point of a bone fishhook made on a sea lion tooth), or uˆxtam qiga (fishhook barb; Bergsland 1994: 318). The point is attached to the shank by uˆxtam agitingin (sinew threads) covered by akax (bird quill covering) to prevent the thread from being cut. A tiny piece of birchbark (sitiknaˆx ) placed between the two parts prevented slippage. The leader, a plaited sinew thread (inghluˆx, duˆxtam inglungis, qulalimaˆgasim igluu, akagdaˆx), fastened to the shank. In some hooks, ami’dux, a root believed to attract fish, was tied to the hook. Bait was attached to a folded cormorant quill, or “ear” (uˆxtam tutusii), attached to the bend by a thread (umˆxilqaaˆgusiˆx ). Some believe bone points are not sharp enough to pierce a fish and the hook had to be swallowed (MacWelch 2014). Accounts of men catching hundreds of fish in a few hours suggest the hooks were very effective at catching and holding fish (Jordan 1923).

Shanks Fishhook shanks are common in archaeological collections, with 716 described, but because they are small and easily missed, they are not evenly reported across the Chain. As with harpoon points, a proliferation of fishhook shank types has been described, with length of the shank, line attachment end, hook attachment, and shaft modifications the most commonly recorded attributes. Shanks are made of mammal, bird, and fish bone as well as ivory. Mammal bone is by far the most common material. Fishbone shanks are very tough and flexible. The small proportion of fishbone shanks reported is likely due to lack of recognition of these bones as tools by excavators. All known bird bone or fishbone shanks are from the Rat and Near Islands. Only six are made of ivory, possibly because it may be more prone to breakage. Based on published illustrations, we have divided shanks into straight, curved, angled, and L-shaped categories (Fig. 6.21, Table 6.3). Straight and curved hook shafts are roughly equivalent to modern J-hooks. Angle and L-shaped shanks functioned like modern circle hooks. Maximum length measurements are available for 623 shanks. The majority are 4.0–10.0 cm long. One hundred six shanks range between 11 and 15 cm long. Large shanks, up to 18.6 cm long, were found in several sites on Amaknak Island (McCartney 1967). Shank modification in the form of notching or incisions is a western trait. Of 189 modified shanks, 181 are from the Rat and Near Islands. The predominant modification is between two and eight notches carved along the outside margin of the shaft. Bilateral notching is found on 21 shanks. Eight shanks are marked with

276

6 Making a Living

Fig. 6.21 Fishhook shanks Table 6.3 Shank and hook shapes Straight

Curved

Angled

L-shaped

Shank

26

581

16

33

Point

354

441

14

6

Fishing Gear

277

Table 6.4 Hook eyes distribution Line-end treatment

Near Islands

Rat Islands

Andreanof Islands

Fox islands

Alaska Peninsula

Knob

230

196

10

122

6

18

–

–

–

–

Tapered

7

–

–

4

–

Flanged

21

3

8

2

–

Side flange

2

2

2

29

–

Rear flange

47

41

–

145

2

Double-rear flange

4

5

–

–

–

69

–

–

9

–

Unilateral knob

Unknown

incised lines. Notches may be equivalent to barbs in modern hooks, which secure bait.

Inghluˆgiiluˆx, Eye of Fishhook All Aleut shanks have flattened “eyes” with seven styles of end treatment (Table 6.4). The most common, the “knob,” is a grooved or notched ring around the shaft, leaving a nubbin at the end. Knobs come in a variety of shapes that may reflect the maker’s personal style. Unilateral knobs are grooved on one to three sides, not cut all around the line end. Tapered shanks are shaved down, so the line end is smaller than the shank diameter. On flanged shanks, the line end protrudes beyond the diameter of the shank. Simple flanges consist of two tabs extending to the sides of the shank. In some cases, the entire top of the shank extends outward, creating a small cap. Side-flanged shanks have a tab extending to one side of the shank. Rear flanges extend to the rear, and double-rear flanges have a protruding nub directly below the top rear flange. Eyes influence the direction of the pull when a fish was hooked. Most Aleut eyes seem designed to pull straight back. Side flanges may have turned the hook to the side.

The Hook End Bone fishhook points are attached to the shank in the bend. Most shanks have a beveled notch cut in the hook end, leaving a step to hold the hook. Eight shanks have additional modifications opposite the bevel. Two have a lip at the base, three have a notch, and three are grooved around the base. One of these is from Atka, and the rest are from Umnak. Nine shanks from Margaret Bay have an encircling groove for the attachment.

278

6 Making a Living

Hook Points Compound fishhook points are made of bird or mammal bone and also of ivory. They can be barbed (571) or unbarbed (237; Fig. 6.22). Length and material are standard metrics for describing these artifacts. Lengths for 305 points range from 1.6 to 9 cm long, with most under 4 cm long. Only ten are longer than 7.6 cm. The shape of fishhook points is critical to understanding hook function and is the one attribute archaeologists have not recorded. Using published illustrations, approximate shapes can be assigned to 784 hook points. Like shanks, they can be straight, curved, angled, or L-shaped. On a small number of straight and barbed points, the tips are “beaked,” or pointed toward the shank. Modern beaked points are used for bait fishing in salt water. They reduce penetration but make it harder for fish to break free. Points are attached to the shank bevel by a variety of base treatments (Table 6.5). The most common, 441 of 615, are notched. Typical of Unangaˆx technology, there are variations. Most common are single-paired notches on either side of the base or double-paired notches. Two points from Amchitka have paired basal notches with a bevel. On Akun points, the basal notches are connected by a groove. Some have one or two notches on one edge with one to three notches opposite. Five points have one to three notches cut into a single side of the base. In the Near Islands, elegant diamond-shaped tangs are formed by a single notch or a double V-shaped notch.

Fig. 6.22 Fishhook points

Fishing Gear

279

Table 6.5 Hook point bases Near Islands

Rat Islands

Adak and Atka Islands

Eastern Islands

Notch

50

88

2

57

Notch/groove

–

–

1

46

Notch/flange

–

–

–

16

Notch/bevel

8

91

–

–

Bevel

–

–

2

2

Flat

2

27

1

22

Groove

–

–

9

15

Tab

–

–

–

1

Lip

47

13

–

23

Ground

–

7

–

–

Diamond

226

–

–

–

Pommel

7

–

–

–

Post

6

–

–

–

Agaluˆx, “Barb, Prong” The function of modern fishhook barbs is to secure bait to the hook. On Aleut hooks, bait was attached via the umxilqaaˆgusiˆx, attached at the hook bend, so the barbs had a different function. Their shape, size, and location can influence penetration and holding power. When people sought large fish in challenging conditions, barbs increased success (Bulmer 2015). Fishhook point barbs are in the internal curve of the point (204), external curve (50), or both (274). Tiny barbs immediately behind the tip of the point are almost exclusively an older, eastern style, with most examples from Amaknak Bridge. There is no clear modern analog, but they may have helped hold fish.

Again, What Does This Mean? With two elements both of which exhibit a lot of stylistic variation, fishhooks should be sensitive indicators of social and political groups through time. Although there is no space here for detailed analysis some trends can be seen. All six line-end treatments on fishhook shanks are found in the Near and Rat Islands. Five of the six are found in the Fox Islands. Numbers of hooks are much smaller in the central islands and on the Alaska Peninsula, and these two areas have less variation. Of the 189 decorated shanks 167 came from Amchitka and 16 from the Near Islands. Two were found in the Central Aleutians, and five on Umnak. All but two of 237 unbarbed hook points are from the western islands. Points with tip barbs are almost exclusively eastern, from the Fox Islands. Points with decorative

280

6 Making a Living

touches are more common in the western islands, with 155 compared to 65 from the Fox Islands. Diamond tangs are exclusively found in the Near Islands. Pommels and ground tangs are also western styles. Notched, flat, and lipped tangs are found from Attu to Port Moller. Beveled and grooved hook point bases are found in the central and eastern islands. Generally fishing technology is more varied in the western islands, supporting the faunal evidence that fishing was more economically important in the west.

Faunal Evidence for Inshore Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering Birds Four families of birds found mainly in the nearshore littoral zones were intensively exploited for meat, eggs, skins, feathers, and bones. A wide range of species were identified, but the number of bones is small, totaling 14,041, or 23% of all bird remains from all sites in the region. Thirteen species of cliff and talus-nesting alcids were the most common, with 8633 bones recovered from 30 sites stretching from the Near Islands to Izembek Lagoon. Alcids were more common west of Unalaska, where 19 sites yielded 351 bones per site. On the Alaska Peninsula, 11 sites yielded 178 bones per site. Breeding birds arrive in late March, with egg-laying in late May and early June. The colonies are largely empty by September (Gibson and Byrd 2007). On Shemya Island, the dominant species in the earliest site (ATU-061) were large alcids, puffins, and murres. One thousand years later, alcids were still present but had been replaced in abundance by offshore species including albatrosses, shearwaters, and fulmars. On a small island such as Shemya, growing human populations may have overexploited any small breeding colonies, causing hunters to switch their efforts to the large offshore species (Corbett et al. 2010). Cut marks indicate that as early as 3000 years ago, birds were being harvested for their skins, which were probably used for clothing (Corbett et al. 2010). On Buldir, alcids comprised 76.6% and 91.5%, respectively, of the bird remains in two small excavations. The most common were whiskered auklets (27–39%) and ancient murrelets (15–26%). The emphasis on smaller auklets in this site suggests that the birds were selected for use in clothing (Lefèvre et al. 1997). Again, small sample sizes can skew results, making broad generalizations risky. Buldir Island yielded 44% of the ancient murrelets, 53% of the Cassin’s auklets, 60% of the crested auklets, and 82% of the whiskered auklets recovered from all sites and all time periods. In Adak Island sites roughly 2000–1000 years ago, ancient murrelets (43%) and puffins (23%) dominated the bird assemblage, and interest in the skins for clothing may have driven the selection. In later sites, 37% of the bird bones came from ancient murrelets (Crockford 2012).

Faunal Evidence for Inshore Hunting, Fishing, and Gathering

281

Analysis of alcid remains from multiple areas raises questions about the assumption that Unangaˆx harvested species in the proportions they were found in the environment (Crockford 2012; Yesner 1981). Selecting high percentages of smaller birds indicates strong preferences for non-food uses, especially clothing that signaled social status and rank (Crockford 2012; Crockford et al. 2005). Ducks and geese are next most abundant inshore birds, with 2352 bones from 17 species recovered from 22 sites. They were more common in eastern sites, with 1063 found in 11 sites on the Alaska Peninsula and Shumagin Islands. Eight sites from Unimak to Umnak yielded 850 duck and goose bones. Relatively small excavations on Adak in two sites yielded 250 bones, while nine in the Rat Islands yielded 189 bones. No ducks or geese have been identified from the Semichi Islands in the far west. Four species found in sites—green-winged teal, mallard ducks, harlequin ducks, and common eiders (Somateria mollissima)—are year-round residents. Pintails, northern shovelers (Anas clypeata), Eurasian widgeons (Mareca penelope), greater scaup, and long-tailed ducks (Clangula hyemalis) are resident in every month in low numbers. Large common eiders were the most frequently captured ducks, with 444 bones from 7 sites. Seven species are winter residents from Umnak to the east and were likely important supplementary food sources. White-winged scoters (Melanitta deglandi; 423 bones) and Emperor geese (Chen canagica; 282) were the most commonly found. In general, these birds were not a large part of the diet or materials supply line, but they were important supplemental resources, available when other foods were scarce or non-existent. Cormorants are available all year round, and in addition to being eaten, their iridescent feathered skins were prized for clothing (Lefèvre et al. 1997; Langsdorf 1993: 16). Cormorant bones were vitally important materials for awls, needles, and fishhook points. Because their bones were so widely used for tools, they may be underrepresented in faunal collections. Three species of cormorants from 31 sites yielded only 1905 bones. The geographic distribution is from the Near Islands to Cold Bay. Sites on the Alaska Peninsula averaged 104 cormorant bones, while those in the Chain averaged 42 per site, a difference not readily explainable by the size of the excavation units. Larids, or gulls, include five species of gull, red and black-legged kittiwakes, and terns. They contribute 1151 bones from 30 sites. Except for 35 bones from Adamagan and 15 from Sanak, all kittiwake bones are from the Near and Rat Islands. Arctic and Aleutian terns are only found in the Rat Islands except for two bones each from Adamagan and XCB-055 on the Alaska Peninsula. Glaucus-winged gulls are the most common gull, with 149 bones from 12 sites, nine of them west of Adak Island. Larids are widespread and common but seem to have only been used in the western islands. Use in the east is incidental.

282

6 Making a Living

Fish Over 42,000 fish bones from 34 species of fishes have been recovered from 16 sites (Corbett et al. 2010; Crockford 2012; Crockford et al. 2005, Funk 2006, 2008, 2011; Knecht and Davis 2003, 2005; Lefèvre et al. 1997; Morrison 2016; Smith 2003; Tews 2005). Sites contain between two and 22 species of fish, and two to 16,000 bones each. The most common fish are greenlings, with 23,505 bones. ADK-009 yielded 12,000 rock greenling or pogie bones. They were the most common fish in five sites. Sculpins followed with 6620 bones. Irish lords and great sculpins were most common, with 2000 and 1000 bones, respectively. Rock sole and flounder numbered almost 6500 bones, most only identified as “flatfish.” Rockfishes round out the major families recovered, with 2500 bones. Herring and capelin together provided 2797 bones. The final 10 species contributed 845 bones. The greatest number and diversity of fish were found in the western islands. Shemya sites contained four to 22 species and 8200 bones. Three sites on Adak contained four to 16 species and over 25,000 bones, mostly rock greenling. Sites on Unalaska, Unimak, Chernabura, and Sanak Islands contained two to five species and just over 4000 bones among them. Some of this is certainly due to sampling and analytical effort, but the evidence clearly shows fishing effort to be more important in the west than in the east. The oldest site with faunal remains, ADK-171 on Adak, yielded over 4000 bones representing four fish species. This site is the only one with saffron cod bones, indicating colder nearshore temperatures during the Neoglacial period. By 4500– 2500 BP, the pattern of greater diversity in the western islands is well established and holds throughout prehistory.

Shellfish/Invertebrates Only 12 reports from 43 sites provide quantifiable information on invertebrate use (Corbett et al. 2010; Crockford et al. 2005; Foster 2005; Johnson 2005; Knecht and Davis 2003, 2005; Krylovich et al. 2019; Morrison 2016; Smith 2003; Tews 2005; Yesner 1981). The most important invertebrates were sea urchins collected for their rich orange-yellow mass of gonads. Sea urchin shells, or tests, make up 20 to 40% of the soil volume in midden sites and 60% of the shell weight of all invertebrates (Corbett et al. 2010). Few sites lack sea urchin. Sizes of sea urchins harvested prehistorically can be determined by measuring the demi-pyramids making up the complex “mouth” (Corbett et al. 2007; Desautels et al. 1971; Simenstad et al. 1977). Lengths of the demi-pyramids correspond directly to the diameter of the urchin. Size of urchins in turn determines the nearshore environment near prehistoric middens, as shellfish are harvested and eaten near their source (Claassen 1998). Analysis of urchin remains from Amchitka and the Near Islands indicates harvest pressure on urchins by Aleuts increased over time, making the

Tanadgusim Akuuˆgigan “Behind the Village, Away from the Shore” …

283

average size of the urchins smaller (Corbett et al. 2007; Desautels et al. 1971). The continuing presence of large sea urchins near sites throughout Aleut history also indicates a lack of sea otters, whose foraging efficiency effectively reduces sea urchins to small, scattered individuals. The resulting urchin-rich, sea otter poor, nearshore environment is dramatically different than that recorded by modern biologists.

Other Shellfish Forty-two species of gastropods and bivalves have been recovered from Aleutian sites. Compared to sea urchins, they comprise a tiny proportion of the remains in sites. Diversity of species is very different between three island groups. Near Island sites counted 13 species, including barnacles, chitons, the jingle shell, clam, limpets, and mussels, and four types of snails. Periwinkle and dogwinkle (Littorina spp. and Nucella spp.) snails comprised 84–98% of the invertebrate remains, excepting sea urchin, in the sites. Periwinkles are very small and may have incidentally arrived in the sites on harvested seaweeds. However, coastal people around the world harvest periwinkles and cook them simply in salt water. They can be sucked out of their shells or pried out using a sharp bit of bone, a periwinkle pick (Johnson and Bonsall 1999). In two sites, chitons made up 12–15% of the shellfish recovered. In the Fox and Krenitzin Islands, 36 species included three barnacles, two chitons, eight clams, five cockles, jingle shells, four limpets, three mussels, and nine snails plus the only reported occurrence of oysters. Twenty-eight species were recovered from Amaknak Bridge. This assemblage was made up of 75% butter clams and dogwinkle snails, and 12% little neck clams, three species of limpet, and periwinkles. The site had few sea urchins, chitons, and mussels compared to sites elsewhere (Foster 2005). These species were collected from the upper to middle intertidal zone (Foster 2005). On Sanak Island, 11 species included one barnacle, one chiton, four of clams, one cockle, one jingle shell, one mussel, and two species of snails have been identified. Sites on the Alaska Peninsula yielded 16 species, including abalone, one species of barnacle, one of chiton, six species of clams, two species of cockles, jingle shell, one species of mussel, and scallop, and two species of snails.

Tanadgusim Akuuˆgigan “Behind the Village, Away from the Shore”: Terrestrial Habitats and Organisms McCartney identified four procurement systems to describe exploitation of terrestrial resources: land mammal hunting, land mammal trapping, onshore fishing, and onshore collecting. Here, we add terrestrial bird hunting for a total of five land-based procurement systems.

284

6 Making a Living

Land Mammal Hunting Information on the hunting and use of land mammals and birds is limited to fragmentary tidbits scattered through historic sources. Bears were hunted with bows and arrows, weapons also used in war. Kodiak Island bear hunters purified themselves with bathing and used clean clothing and bedding on the hunt. After the kill, hunters removed or cut the bear’s eyes, so the animal could not see who had captured it. Koniag or Sugpiaq and Yup’ik bear hunters buried the skulls facing mountains, so the spirit would be reborn (Crowell and Leer 2001; Fienup-Riordan 2007). Unangaˆx bear hunters certainly followed similar regulations for hunting bears. Young men were sent by their uncles to kill bears as a rite of passage (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 563–589). Kamleikas made from bear intestines were stronger than those from sea mammals, at least partly because of the bear’s power (Black 1998). Hides were used for bedding, and hair was embroidered into clothing in the Islands of Four Mountains (Dove and Peurach 2002). The Unangaˆx word for bear is tanˆgaaˆx, but they were called tanam algaa “land animal,” algalguˆx “big animal,” or tanam aliˆga “old man of the land” (Bergsland 1994: 51, 52, 54). Avoiding calling this powerful animal by its name is a circumpolar trait. Northern Europeans refer to them as bruin, bjorn, or bear meaning brown, rather than the true name derived from Indo-European, hrtkas, as in Greek arktos and Latin ursus. Tanˆgaaˆx was a powerful guardian spirit or qugaanguusiˆx, offering protection from the widest array of dangers and spirits (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 448–457; Black 1998). Seven bear amulets, presumably harnessing this power, have been reported. One, from Agattu, is the only bear figurine west of Umnak Island (McCartney 1971: 102, 138). The oldest, from Saa, is from levels dated to approximately 2450–1500 BP (Holland 1982). Aishishik Point (UMK-00006, Sedanka Point, UNL-00057, and Split Rock bears are from historic levels (McCartney 1971; Weyer 1929). Itˆxayax or caribou were hunted with bow and arrows (Jochelson 2002; Liapunova 1996). Animals swimming across Pavlof Bay could be killed by men in kayaks with spears or harpoons (Veniaminov 1984). The women of the Alaska Peninsula villages made a fine chamois-like suede from their hides (Veniaminov 1984). Caribou hair was used in fine embroidery on clothing (Liapunova 1996). Historically Russian administrators sent crews to the Alaska Peninsula in July and August to hunt caribou (Khlebnikov 1994). Virtually nothing is known about wolf hunting or use. Wolves, aliiˆxxiˆx, possess power corresponding to killer whales and to Thunderbird, the “fiery power of the Volcano incarnate” (Black 1998). Wolf bones are only identified in deposits dating between 2350 and 2050 BP on the Peninsula. Canids, which could include wolves, dogs, or foxes, were found in several sites between 2800 and 1350 BP on the Alaska Peninsula and Sanak (Tews 2005). Red fox bones have been recovered from sites on the Islands of Four Mountains, Unalaska, and Akun (Davis 2001; Holland 1992; Knecht and Davis 2005; Krylovich et al. 2019; Vasyukov et al. 2019). A single red fox bone, grooved to make a bone

Tanadgusim Akuuˆgigan “Behind the Village, Away from the Shore” …

285

needle, was found at Agayadan (Hoffman 2002). Sites on the Alaska Peninsula yield small numbers of fox remains (Tews 2005). In folklore, foxes appear as qugaanguusiˆx and as spirit wives (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 116–129). Like Chinese and Japanese fox spirits, they are mischievous shapeshifters demonstrating the power of intelligence over strength (Kang 2006). Even less is known of the hunting of small land mammals. To hunt ground squirrels is uulngiiˆgdiganaaˆxsix and “a trap for ground squirrels” is uulngiiˆgdnaaˆgasin. A tiny trap called chilkaanaˆx, a version of the chalkaanaˆx fox trap, was used to trap mice. These small animals were likely harvested for their furs to be used in clothing.

Land Mammal Trapping Trapping land mammals for furs was introduced by the Russians in the late 1700s. Although individually less valuable than sea otter pelts, red and arctic fox furs yielded more wealth for the Russian-American Company (Black 2004). American red foxes have silky hair, and those on the Alaska Peninsula were “the best of their kind” (Bachrach 1953; Khlebnikov 1994). They come in three color variants: red; “cross,” with black stripes down the back and across the shoulders; and “silver,” black with white tipped guard hairs. Cross and silver pelts were worth the most, and red individuals were culled to increase numbers of the more valuable animals (Khlebnikov 1994; Veniaminov 1984). To trap red foxes, teams of trappers were transported to selected islands in October. Trappers used a klisaˆx trap, consisting of a hollow drum, called a stock, and a lever arm set with sharp bone teeth. The stock sat parallel to a fox trail. The lever arm, powered by twisted cords, rested away from the trail. When triggered, the arm arched over the drum and pinned the fox to the ground. Experienced trappers received 25 klisaˆx, but most took ten. The Unga artel, a group of hunters working a specific area, distributed 750 traps annually (Khlebnikov 1994). Trapping ended in February. Arctic foxes are normally white furred, but those from the Pribilof and Commander Islands show a high percentage of rare slate blue pelts worth 15 times the white pelts in European and Chinese markets (Bailey 1993; Elliott 1976; Isto 2012). As early as 1750, Russian traders moved blue foxes to Attu to increase the numbers (Black 1984). By 1819, these foxes had also been planted on Atka, Amlia, Kiska, Amchitka, Segula, and Semisopochnoi (Black 2004; Isto 2012). Blue fox trappers brought their families with them to odinochka, or camps with permanent shelters. The main harvest came from St. George Island, which produced 1500–1800 pelts per year (Veniaminov 1984). Blue fox trappers used several types of traps in addition to klisaˆx. Kulema or kamchadaˆx consisted of a semi-circular pen outlined with stakes that led foxes to bait. When foxes took the bait, a log or boulder pinned the animal. Nooses, itxuliˆx, and daliiˆx, snares of braided gut, were set across trails (Bergsland 1994: 160, 214). Chalkaanaˆx were set over entrances to fox dens. A bow mounted on top drove a bar down, like a guillotine, breaking the fox’s neck

286

6 Making a Living

(Hudson 1992). Usy, long, notched baleen rods, were twisted into a fox’s fur to pull the animal out of a den (Veniaminov 1984).

Terrestrial Bird Hunting Women and children dominated bird hunting on land (Laughlin 1980). In inland areas, where birds were scattered and success uncertain, nets, snares, and traps maximized the catch. Simple snares and traps yield good returns for low-energy expenditures. Their use requires intimate knowledge of desired prey to be effective. Snares set near water or around nests targeted waterfowl and ptarmigans (Hudson 1992; Liapunova 1996: 91). Tuumliidaˆx, loop snares, set in clearings in the snow, targeted sparrows, swallows, and rosy finches (Laughlin 1955: 26). Qasuuˆx, a tiny, specialized snare set on top of cow parsnip flowers, caught finches and other very small birds (Bergsland 1994; Laughlin 1955: 26; Marsh 1952). Chaachmaadaˆx, pitfall traps, rigged with a twig grate held by a trigger baited with worms, were dug along bird trails (Marsh 1952). When tripped, the grate dropped, corralling the bird. Mesh net bags held open with a wooden frame, samingii, were dropped over birds sitting on nests (Bergsland 1994; Khlebnikov 1994: 248; Laughlin 1955: 27; Turner 2008: 109). Net hunters used weather, darkness, or superlative stalking skills to get close to nesting birds. Women may have strung nets between shrubs where birds foraged or rested as their Yup’ik neighbors did (Fienup-Riordan 2007; Nelson 1983: 122). In the Near Islands, specialized nets were strung along pond margins to catch cackling geese congregating at dusk. These nets, up to 10 m long, were stiffened with strips of baleen “interwoven with sinew strands set a few inches apart,” so they would stand upright (Turner 2008: 109). The hunter held a line and pulled the net over the birds when they gathered under it (Turner 2008: 124). On Agattu Island, rock cairns found on the opposite shores of two small ponds could have helped support a bird net (Cooper et al. 1996). Women and children used bolas, slings, and bows and arrows to hunt (Turner 2008: 111). Bolas sanaaˆgasin, or chavlaqutraˆx, were used across the Arctic to hunt flying geese. Using a three-stone bola, Unangaˆx women hid in a defile or on a hill and threw the bolas into a flock. Entangling a goose was “certain,” and often two or three birds could be caught with a single throw (Turner 2008: 111). The stone weights, kayuxtaˆx, were the size of chicken eggs and notched to hold the thong in place. These stones were “often designated as sinkers for nets” by archaeologists (Turner 2008: 111). Aleuts also used aakalngaadaˆx, bolas with six to ten oval weights of ivory, walrus teeth, carved bone, or stone (Bergsland 1994: 43; Black 2003: 95; Graburn et al. 1996: 91–93; Nelson 1983: 134). Sea lion canine teeth, in the form of asymmetrical, roughly pointed ovals, weigh about 50 g, a little heavier than ethnographic bolas weights. Usually interpreted as necklace pendants, some may be bolas weights. If so, evidence for this hunting method is common throughout the Aleutians. Children used a qagachigdaˆx or qaxchaadaˆx, a sling. Sling cord length controls the range of

Tanadgusim Akuuˆgigan “Behind the Village, Away from the Shore” …

287

the missile (Harrison 2006). Accuracy and range of the sling is comparable to bows, and slings 60–100-cm-long launch stones up to 219 m (Harrison 2006). A pouch in the middle holds a missile weighing 30–50 g (Dohrenwend 2002: 37). Men and women hunted waterfowl on lakes with arrows, spears, bolas, and slings (Liapunova 1996; Turner 2008; Veltre and Veltre 1981, 1982, 1983). Geese overnight on sheltered lakes after foraging during the day (Veltre and Veltre 1983). The best hunting conditions were partly cloudy with a light breeze, in part because the breeze would blow dead birds ashore. Dead geese were propped up as decoys, chuuchilaˆx (Bergsland 1994). Hunters hid, erasing all traces of disturbance to avoid scaring the birds. They shot at birds on the wing, nalitulix, as they landed, and again as they took off. Unangaˆx also constructed hunting blinds. Small deep holes found along the shores of a long, narrow lake on Adak Island may be hunting blinds (Hanson 2011). Young cackling geese, caught before fledging, were held for food in the Near Islands (Murie 1959; Turner 2008). Flight feathers were clipped to keep the birds from migrating. Warm sod house roofs kept grass green through the winter, and young birds remained close to graze.

Onshore Fishing Four species of Pacific salmon spawn in Aleutian Island streams and lakes. King or Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) were caught only by beach seines or by hook and line at sea (Turner 2008). Every culture on the Pacific coast of North America feted the first salmon caught with a ceremony. The first salmon caught was greeted, prepared, and distributed to everyone. After the feast, the bones were put back in the water to serve as messengers to report to the multitudes on treatment of the fish. If people had been properly grateful and humble, the runs would begin. Almost nothing is known of Aleut First Salmon ceremonialism, but historically at Unalaska, masked dances were held (Veltre and Veltre 1982). Spawning from April to August, red or sockeye salmon (O. nerka; hanuuˆx ) were, and are, the most popular fish (Jochelson 1933; Laughlin 1955; Veniaminov 1984). Because they require lakes for spawning, they have a limited distribution. Streams on the Alaska Peninsula are prime red salmon spawning areas, with exceptional runs at Morzhovoi and Belkovski villages (Veniaminov 1984). On Unimak Island, red salmon are found in Peterson Lagoon, Urilia Bay, and at Cape Lapin (ADF&G 1977). Unalaska has 20 red salmon streams, with runs at Kashega, Makushin, Iliuliuk, Nateekin, and Wislow being particularly bountiful (Veniaminov 1984). On Umnak, red salmon runs center on Nikolski Bay, including Sheep Creek. The fish enter a complex of bays on the northeast end of Amlia Island. Small runs enter Andrew Lake and Finger Bay on Adak, Galax Point on Kagalaska, and Salmon Lagoon on Kiska. Attu Island has large runs in Temnac River, Chichagof Harbor, and Sarana Bay (ADF&G 1977). Beginning in late July and lasting for about a month, nearly every stream in the islands has at least a small run of pink salmon (O. Gorbuscha; adgayuˆx ), the most

288

6 Making a Living

common species (ADF&G 2020). Chum salmon (O. keta, xˆ aykiˆx, alihmaˆx, “dog salmon” or aluˆgaˆgiˆx “having all those colors/stripes on them”; Bergsland 1994: 55, 58) have the most restricted distribution. They spawn in streams draining into Massacre Bay on Attu, Patricia Bight on Agattu, and the southeast end of Amlia. At Unalaska, they are found at the head of Captains Bay and in Kalekhta Bay. Silver salmon (O. kisutch; qakiidaˆx or qam agaluuˆgii “the last fish” or kiimadgimqaa “fall salmon”; Bergsland 1994: 20, 239, 300) spawn from July through November in nearly all freshwater. Smolts require shallow streams and favor quiet pools with good vegetation cover. Dolly Varden (Salvelinus malma; qaadaˆx, qaayaˆx, sadguniˆx ), in the Aleutian Islands, may be anadromous, or landlocked. Anadromous fish spawn July– September. Streams with notable runs are found on Attu in Chichagof Harbor, Holtz and Abraham Bays, in small streams on Kiska Island including Mutt and Jeff Coves, and north of North Head as well as on Semisopochnoi Island. Unalaska Island has sea run Dolly Varden around Cape Izigan on the southwest end, in Makushin River, and on the southeast coast. Small landlocked Dolly Varden are abundant in lakes and streams across the archipelago. Like the elaboration of fishhooks, other aspects of fishing technology were highly developed. The following techniques were used historically. They have not been documented archaeologically, but likely have a long time depth. Fish weirs and chayan, dams funneling fish into pens, are the most effective means of catching salmon in rivers. Intertidal fish traps in Southeast Alaska date to as early as 5304–4883 BP. They reached their peak of construction and use between 2500 and 1000 years ago, with some remaining in use as recently as 40 years ago (Smith 2011). Aleutian weirs were built at Unimak, Makushin, Nikolski, Atka, and Attu (Black 1984; Hudson 2005; Khlebnikov 1994; Turner 2008; Veniaminov 1984). Weirs could have single fences with a trap to hold fish, or they could have double fences (Jacka 1999; Jochelson 1933; Khlebnikov 1994; Laughlin 1955; Veniaminov 1984). Weir fishing required cooperative labor to build and use (Liapunova 1996). In May, women and older men repaired damage and prepared for fishing. Holding ponds between two dams were cleared of rocks and debris. People removed fish from the holding pond using nets, spears, gaffs, “snatchers,” or by hand (Fig. 6.23; Ransom 1946). Periodically, the dam was opened to allow fish upstream to spawn (Laughlin 1955; Veniaminov 1984). Fish traps, chiˆganam chayangin, could stand alone or be used with weirs (Galaktionoff 2005: 95; Jochelson 1933; Ransom 1946; Veltre and Veltre 1983). Conical funnels of thin wooden slats led to a holding box or pen (Veltre and Veltre 1983). Before setting the trap, the location was cleared of overhanging grass and the stream bottom leveled (Fienup-Riordan 2007). Landlocked Dolly Varden were readily caught by hand in tundra rivulets (Laughlin 1955). Fish could also be speared or caught in dipnets or small bag-like nets of whale sinew (Hrdliˇcka 1945; Jacka 1999). A white fox trapper on Atka saw men returning to the village with large sacks of fish they found in a “trout house.” They took him up a creek to where they dug into a chamber filled with sluggish but healthy fish (Carson 1943). Fish were also trapped in creeks flowing underground by blocking

Tanadgusim Akuuˆgigan “Behind the Village, Away from the Shore” …

289

Fig. 6.23 Single fence fishing weir. Modified after Jochelson (2001)

both ends and digging the fish out (Sydnam 2012). Sadgunim ulaa (trout house) or kliˆx, chiˆganam klii are hollows under stream banks where Dolly Varden hide (Bergsland 1994: 243, 433; Veltre and Veltre 1983). Klimqulix means “to reach a hand into the water and fish out qaadam ‘small trout’” (Bergsland 1994: 243). The most typical beach seine prey was red salmon (Jochelson 1933; Laughlin 1955). Nets set at lake outlets targeted rainbow trout and Dolly Varden (Ransom 1946; Veltre and Veltre 1983). Hand or drag nets, ingiˆx, consist of a mesh bag held open with a wooden hoop. Those with long handles are called dip nets. Sinew dips nets were used for salmon on Unimak, Unalaska, and Atka (Black 1984; Jacka 1999; Khlebnikov 1994; Veltre and Veltre 1982, 1983). They were used to pull fish directly from the water or from the holding pens of weirs.

Qaˆgdaˆxsix (to Catch Fish with a Spear) Unangaˆx used spears with a central point surrounded by three side prongs for fishing. Most researchers barely distinguish bird and fish spears, but they are very different.

290

6 Making a Living

Fish spear side prongs curve out away from the shaft, and all barbs are on the inner curve. Illustrated examples of side prongs are barbed unilaterally or bilaterally with serrated barbing. The single illustrated central point is straight and bilaterally barbed with two paired barbs. A handful of points identified as fish spear points are thick, blunt tipped, and unilaterally barbed with one to two barbs. Some of these have a distinctive base in a zigzag “offset” configuration designed to hold the prong away from the spear shaft (Holland 1982). There may have been more than one type of fish spear. Jochelson (2002) sketchily names both fish spears and fish lances without clarifying details. Lances may have had a single point without side prongs.

Onshore Collecting Beach Ridges and Village Sites Lushly vegetated beach ridges are a distinct island habitat. On Amchitka, this habitat covered about 1.5% of the 281 km2 island (Amundsen 1977). Lyme and reed grass (Leymus arenarius, Calamogrostis spp.) dominate. Broad-leaved putchki (Heracleum lanatum), angelica (Angelica lucida), petruski (Ligusticum scoticum), and senecio or ragwort (Senecio cannabifolius) are common. In the Near Islands, Cacalia (Cacalia auriculata) and Kamchatka thistle (Cirsium kamschaticum) are also conspicuous. In all, 35 species of plants are reported from beach ridges and dunes. Prehistoric villages on beach ridges have a distinctive vegetation community composed of species that do not occur together in nature. This co-occurrence may have been accidental as waste seeds and roots were discarded and took root (Bank 1953). However, this concentration of valuable plants is just as likely a direct result of planting and tending (Bank 1953; Funk et al. 2019; Reedy-Maschner and Maschner 2012). Most of the 73 species of plants found in villages were used for food and medicine. Putchki, petruski, and lupine (Lupinus nootkatensis) are most obvious, but sarana lily or chocolate lily (Fritillaria camschatcensis), spring beauty (Claytonia sibirica), sorrels (Rumex spp. Oxyria digyna), buttercups (Ranunculus spp.), and orchids (Dactylorhiza aristata, Platanthera dilitata) are also abundant. Whether villages can be considered gardens is not at all simple to determine. Plants within the village were almost certainly used casually by people snacking or as a kitchen garden for a handful of herbs or greens. However, daily activities of play, work, storage, waste disposal, and travel may have limited the quality of vegetation on sites. If plants growing within villages were harvested and used, their presence implies tending and protection to ensure quality and availability.

Tanadgusim Akuuˆgigan “Behind the Village, Away from the Shore” …

291

Lowland Plants Lowland tundra formed huge meadows of useful plants harvested by Aleuts. Two hundred species of lowland plant are supplemented by 69 riparian and freshwater plants and, at either end of the Chain, 14 species in shrub thickets. Of these, 60 have attested uses by Unangaˆx, and another 68 may have been used as they were among neighboring Alutiiq or Sugpiaq, Yup’ik, and Dena’ina people (Graham 1985; Kari 1987; Russell 1991; Turner 1997). The Aleuts ate great quantities of bulbs, roots, berries, and cabbages, including Rumex sp. or dock, Plantago sp. or plantains, sarana, yellow root or lupins, and others (Andreyev 1948: 25; Coxe 1970 [1787]: 76; Georgi 1780: 224). Eleven species of berry were available, but crowberry (Empetrum nigrum), cloudberry (Rubus chamaemorus), salmonberry (R. spectabilis), blueberry (Vaccinium ovalifolium and V. uliginosum), cranberry (V. oxycoccos), and lingonberry (V. vitis-idaea) were the most popular. At least 20 and possibly up to 30 kinds of leaves, shoots, and stems were harvested in spring before they toughened and grew bitter (Bank 1948; Golodoff 2003; Hudson 1992; Jochelson 1933; Suvorov 2005). The most commonly eaten greens today are putchki and petruski. Bitter cress (Cardamine umbellata), petruski, angelica, and the wild onion (Allium spp.) seasoned other foods. Flowers from fireweed, chamomile, clover, and violets were eaten, as were seeds of the yellow pond lily (Nuphar sp.). Root crops were harvested beginning in August. Many grew sweeter with colder weather and were harvested into October and even January. Of the 12 harvested roots, makarsha (Polygonum viviparum), sarana, and various orchids (Platanthera sp.) were the most important (Bank 1948; Golodoff 2003; Hudson 1992; Jochelson 1933; Turner 2008). Yellow root or lupines and sarana were collected in great quantities. The best yellow root came from Ugamak Island in the eastern Aleutian Islands (Veniaminov 1984: 104). Plants are an important source of medicines (Bank 1977; Golodof 2003; Hudson 1992; Turner 2008). Leaves and stems of 19 plants were used as hot or cold compresses or as teas to treat bleeding and wounds, intestinal upsets, sore throats, muscle aches and pain, and respiratory symptoms. Neighboring coastal people had medicinal uses for 22 other plants not reported as used in the Aleutians (Graham 1985; Russell 1991; Turner 1997).

Plants in the Uplands Nearly 120 species of plants are found in uplands above 100 m. Many (43) are familiar lowland species interspersed with hardier species adapted to drier, rockier, and more exposed locales. Of these, 64 have known uses, yielding berries (6), leaves and shoots (24), or roots (7) for food. Patches of crowberry called shikoshnik were harvested in great mounds for use as fuel (Veniaminov 1984). The plant grew “with a heavier growth” from areas of previous harvests (Turner 2008: 167). Mosses were used for caulking and lining baby cradles (Khlebnikov 1994; Veniaminov 1984). Massive

292

6 Making a Living

piles of grasses, sedges, and rushes were harvested for weaving, roof thatch, floor covers, bedding, and insulation. Medicinal uses are reported for 29 upland plants. The most important upland plants were likely crowberry for food and fuel and grasses for weaving, fuel, and construction.

Grass Veniaminov (1984) listed grass as one of the major products of the islands, where it grows thick and tall in meadows. Unalaska, Atka, and Amchitka were especially notable for their grass (Khlebnikov 1994). Before foxes were introduced, plant communities on all the islands were dominated by grasses, especially Leymus mollis, L. arenarius, and Calamagrostis sitchensis (Croll et al. 2005; Estes 1996). Fox predation on birds altered the vegetation on most islands to a shrubby tundra (Croll et al. 2005; Estes 2010; Maron et al. 2006). Grass meadows were surprisingly fragile. Veniaminov (1984: 28) observed that when grasses were intensively cut for hay, the meadows grew up in ferns, putchki, and artemisia. Aleut grass basketry is justly famous, but grass was also used to roof houses, cover floors, and pad beds. Elymus, Leymus, Calmagrostis, Poa, Bromus, Festuca, and Deschampsia spp. from beach ridges, valleys, and “luxurious patches, scattered across hilly slopes in sandy soils” were used for bulk purposes (Turner 2008). Carex, Juncus, and Luzula spp. sedges and rushes may have also served these purposes. Harvesting was time consuming and backbreaking. Whenever women left the village, they were harvesting grass (Shapsnikov and Hudson 1974). Women spent late July through August bent at the waist, clipping stalks individually just below ground surface with a deft twist of the hand (Chandonnet 1975; Kissell 1907; Liapunova 1996; Nevzorof and Dirks 1981; Philemonoff and Stepetin 1980; Turner 2008). Great bundles were spread out on breezy hillsides to dry before being brought to the village for storage. The quantity of grass harvested and the fragility of the meadows imply conscious and intensive management of this resource. Individually plucking grass, as Unangaˆx women did, must have maintained the meadow grasses. Archaeological evidence for use of grasses in houses is common. House floors are recognized as thin, sticky, black, organic layers. Close examination reveals tangled grass fibers. Layers are rarely continuous across a floor because as grass became trampled and dirty, it was scraped up and a fresh covering laid down. Baskets are discussed in more detail in the next chapter. Archaeological baskets and matting are made from Leymus arenarius and L. mollis. The entire plant—leaves, stalks, and roots—was used. Grass from beach ridges is too coarse and weak for fine matting and basketry (Kissell 1907; Porcher 1904; Shapsnikoff and Hudson 1974). The best basket grass is found in the hills and scattered in meadows where it competes for space with other plants and grows tough as well as tall and thin (Kissell 1907; Nevzorof and Dirks 1981; Porcher 1904; Shapsnikof and Hudson 1974). On Attu, women in the historic Chichagof Harbor village harvested grass from Kennon Island, at the mouth of the harbor. For the finest work, they looked for grass with tiny white spots near the tip (Lujan 1984; Nevzorof and Dirks 1981).

Bones and Shells in Sites

293

After harvest, grass was spread in sheltered places, inspected daily, and turned, so it would cure evenly (Kissell 1907; Oliver 1988; Porcher 1904). Most weavers sought a rich golden-yellow color, mellowing to white (Chandonnet 1975; Liapunova 1996; Porcher 1904; Shapsnikov and Hudson 1974). Grass dried in deep shade cured to a light green color (Liapunova 1996; Porcher 1904). Attuans covered their grass with a thin layer of sand to slow the drying (Turner 2008: 77). After about two weeks of curing, grass was moved indoors. It was graded, collected in bundles, and hung out on cool, cloudy days to continue drying (Kissell 1907; Liapunova 1996; Lujan 1984; Nevzorof and Dirks 1981; Philemonof and Stepetin 1980; Porcher 1904). After a month, the bundles were brought into the house for final drying and then stored in a cool, dark place until needed (Kissell 1907; Liapunova 1996; Lujan 1984; Nevzorof and Dirks 1981; Philemonof and Stepetin 1980; Porcher 1904). Bundles of coarse and medium blades were split and the central rib discarded. Bundle ends were braided together to keep them from tangling. Weavers could pull a single strand free of the mass. The longest and toughest strands formed the ihmaˆx, “weavers” or weft of the fabric (Bergsland 1994: 196). Tanamlaˆx, “weaves” or warp threads, were shorter (Bergsland 1994: 390).

Bones and Shells in Sites Terrestrial mammal bones are reported from 30 sites (Holland 1992; Morrison 2016; Smith 2003; Tews 2005). Of these, only 13 contained more than eight land mammal bones. Hair from otters, bears, foxes, and caribou are reported on clothing found in caves on Kagamil Island (Dove and Peurach 2002). The otter fur could represent either sea or land otter. The most common remains are rodent/ground squirrel, with 2423 individual bones from eight sites on the Alaska Peninsula. At Adamagan, ground squirrel bones made up 14% of the number of bones found (1148) and mink another 3% (Smith 2003; Tews 2005). Most ground squirrels probably represent animals that died in burrows. Bones of canids are found in eight sites on the Alaska Peninsula, plus Akun, where they are next in abundance with 498 bones. Davis (2000, 2001) reports unidentified canids from UNL-00048 on Amaknak Island. They are also found on Unimak, the Alaska Peninsula, and Sanak Island. Most are probably wolves and/or fox bones. Canis sp. are reported at Chaluka and Aishishik Point on Umnak Island (Vasyukov et al. 2019). Domesticated dogs are extremely rare in archaeological sites. Four adult dogs are reported from prehistoric and early historic contexts on Akun (Holland 1988, 1992). Two subadult teeth and a humerus are reported from Carlisle Island in the Islands of the Four Mountains (Vasyukov et al. 2019). Four dog bones were identified in 500year-old levels at UNL-00055 on Amaknak Island (Knecht and Davis 2003: 28, 47). One definite dog bone is reported for Adamagan, XCB-00105 (Smith 2003; Tews 2005: 87, 197–198). Three sites on Sanak Island yielded 42 dog bones (Tews 2005: 197–198). Fox bones are also rare, being found in only seven sites from Unalaska

294

6 Making a Living

to Cold Bay, with nearly half (64) from XCB-00090 at Cold Bay. Prehistoric fox remains have recently been reported from the Islands of Four Mountains (Krylovich et al. 2019; Vasyukov et al. 2019). Caribou bones are found from 3500 to 3200 years ago at Russell Creek near Cold Bay and in very low numbers, one to seven bones, in seven Alaska Peninsula and Sanak Island sites (Tews 2005). Bear bones are rare. On the lower Alaska Peninsula, 31 bear bones were recovered at Adamagan, and six to 11 from each of five other sites (Tews 2005). These samples are far too small to be able to infer any kind of economic or social trends or to understand how and when Unangaˆx used terrestrial animals.

Terrestrial Birds Remains from birds found or exploited in terrestrial habitats yielded 5235 bones from 37 species in 14 families. Sixteen species including two species of alcids, two of ducks, a species of ptarmigan, and several species of songbirds, eagles and hawks are year-round residents. Four species, including bufflehead, common goldeneye and canvasback ducks, and horned grebes, are winter residents. Five species are summer breeders, of which the most important are cackling Canada geese and rhinoceros auklets. Geographic distributions, almost certainly reflecting sample sizes, vary wildly, with five species recovered in the Near Islands, 21 in the Rat Islands, six from Unimak, and two from Chernabura (Causey et al. 2005; Corbett et al. 2010; Crockford 2012; Funk 2008, 2011; Lech and Hutchings 2010; Lech et al. 2012; Lefèvre et al. 1997; Morrison 2016; Pirie-Hay 2011; Siegel-Causey et al. 1993; Wilmerding 2005; Yesner 1981). The overwhelming majority, represented by 4183 bones, come from at least eight species of ducks, geese, and swans. About half have not been identified to species because ducks are notoriously difficult to differentiate osteologically. The most common species is cackling goose, with 440 bones from 16 sites, mainly west of Unalaska. Geese are followed by 28 bones each from bufflehead and red-breasted mergansers. Shorebirds are represented by 229 bones from five species. Black-bellied plovers (Pluvialis squatarola) are only known from the Near Islands. Unimak yielded 180 bones of shorebirds. Five species of small songbirds are poorly represented with 59 bones. Possibly harvested for feathers, these birds are frequently mentioned in Unangaˆx folklore as powerful spirit beings and magic helpers. Ptarmigan have been found in 12 sites from the Rat Islands to the Alaska Peninsula. Ptarmigan may have been eaten away from the village when people caught them while foraging in the uplands. Birds of prey include bald eagles, rough legged hawks, peregrine and gyrfalcons, and two species of jaeger. Bald eagle bones have been recovered from Shemya to Unalaska Island. Rough-legged hawk bones came from Sanak Island. All other predatory bird bones come from the Rat Islands. Additionally, 93% of raven bones

References

295

came from Amchitka and Rat Islands. In ethnohistoric accounts, raptors and ravens are imbued with power and symbolic importance (Funk 2018).

Freshwater Fish Only 7394 bones of freshwater species of fish have been recovered from 15 sites (Corbett et al. 2010; Crockford 2012; Funk 2008, 2011; Morrison 2016; Smith 2003; Wilmerding 2005). Virtually all are from various species of salmon or salmonids. Three bones from sticklebacks and eight from Dolly Varden hint at use of these species. Archaeologist use faunal remains for reconstructing ancient economic systems, people’s diets, and tracking seasonal movements among other goals. At first glance, the abundance of bones reported from Aleutian archaeological sites suggests a wealth of information available for these purposes. In reality, when spread over 6000 years of use, and 1600 km (nearly 1000 miles), they are but a brief glimpse into the past. Archaeologists have confirmed McCartney’s belief that the Aleuts used most resources available to them. Archaeologists have recovered remains from 192 species of wildlife, 34 sea mammals, 69 birds, 47 fish, and 42 shellfish. These animals were collected by men hunting from kayaks, children poking about in tide pools or hunting with slings, and women spreading nets and flinging bolas. The elderly and very young could make real contributions to the well-being of their families and this in turn led to long lives, stable communities, and thousands of years of cultural continuity. The activities described in this chapter support the household, and much of the work that takes place after the animals are brought home is divided by age, gender, and status. The domestic sphere begins with the construction of the house, making the tools to do the work, and the well-being of the members of the household. Chapter 7 addresses life at home.

References ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 1977. A Fish and Wildlife Resources Inventory of the Alaska Peninsula, Aleutian Islands, and Bristol Bay Areas. Alaska Coastal Zone Management Program, Juneau. ADF&G (Alaska Department of Fish and Game). 2020. Pink Salmon (Onchorhynchus gorbuscha) Species Profile. Juneau: Alaska Department of Fish and Game. www.adfg.alaska.gov/index. cfm?adfg=pinksalmon.main Aigner, Jean. 1966. Bone tools and Decorative Motifs from Chaluka, Unmak Island. Arctic Anthropology 3 (2): 57–83. Aigner, Jean. 1983a. Idaliuk Bay Camp, Umnak Island Alaska, ca 4200 BP. North American Archaeology 4 (2): 89–125. Aigner, Jean. 1983b. Sandy Beach Bay, Umnak Island: A Mid-Holocene Village Site on the Bering Sea. Report to the Alaska State Historical Commission, Anchorage, Alaska.

296

6 Making a Living

Alix, Claire and David Koester. 2002. Driftwood in the North Pacific: Report of a Driftwood Sampling Project Undertaken on the Harriman Expedition Retraced, August 2001. University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. http://facultysite.sinanewt.on-rev.com/assets/HarrimanDriftwo odFull.pdf. Accessed 6 July 2020. Amundsen, C.C. 1977. Terrestrial plant ecology. In The Environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska: USERDA Report TID-26712, pp. 203–226. M.L. Merritt and R.G. Fuller (eds.). Springfield, VA: NTIS. Andreev, A.I. 1948. Report of the Tot’ma Merchant Stepan Cherepanov about his sojourn on the Aleutian Islands, 1759–1762. In Russkie Otkrytiia V Tikhom Okeane i v Severnoi Amerike v XVIII–XIX Vekakh (Russian Discoveries in the North Pacific and in North America in the 18th and 19th Centuries), ed. A.I. Andreev, 113–120. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk. Anichtchenko, Evguenia. 2017. Levashov, Mikhail Dmitirevich. Envisioning Alaska: Artistic Legacy of Russian America. Anchorage, Alaska: Smithsonian Institution, Arctic Studies Center. https:// envisioning-alaska.org/authors/levashov-mikhail-dmitirevich Bachrach, Max. 1953. Fur: A Practical Treatise. New York: Prentice-Hall. Bailey, Edgar P. 1993. Introduction of Foxes to Alaskan Islands—History, Effects on Avifauna, and Eradication. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication series, 193. US Department of Interior. Washington, DC. Bank, Janet Fowler. 1948. Notes Supplementing the History of the Aleut People. In Ted Bank Papers. Archives and Special Collections, Consortium Library, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage. Bank, Theodore P. 1953. Ecology of Prehistoric Aleutian Village Sites. Ecology 34 (2): 246–264. Bank, Theodore P. 1956. Birthplace of the Winds. New York: T.Y. Crowell. Bank, Theodore P. 1971. People of the Bering Sea: Readings in Anthropology. New York: MSS Educational. Bank, Theodore P. 1977. Ethnobotany as an Adjunct to archaeology: Studies in the Aleutian Islands. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology, 61. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Bellwood, Peter. 2017. First Islanders: Prehistory and Human Migration in Island Southeast Asia. New York: Wiley. Bergsland, Knut. 1959. Aleut Dialects of Atka and Attu. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society 49, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Bergsland, Knut. 1991. Aleut Kayak Terminology. In Contributions to Kayak Studies, ed. E.Y. Arima, John D. Heath, Guy Mary-Rousseliere, Kenneth I. Taylor, William S. Laughlin, Knut Bergsland, John Brand, Joseph Lubischer, George Dyson, and Gert Nooter, 131–162. Canadian Ethnology Service Mercury Series Paper 122. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Museum of Civilization. Bergsland, Knut, ed. 1994. Aleut Dictionary/Unangam Tunudgusii. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center. Bergsland, Knut, and Moses L. Dirks. 1990. Unangan Ungiikangin Kayuk Tunusangin: Unangam Uniikangis Ama Tunuzangis: Aleut Tales and Narratives: Collected 1909–1910 by Waldemar Jochelson. Alaska Native Language Center: University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Black, Lydia T. 1981. The Nature of Evil: Of Whales and Sea Otters. In Indians, Animals, and the Fur Trade, ed. S. Krech, 109–154. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Black, Lydia T. 1984. Atka: An Ethnohistory of the Western Aleutians. Kingston, Ontario, Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Black, Lydia T. 1987. Whaling in the Aleutians. Études/Inuit Studies 11 (2): 7–50. Black, Lydia T. 1991. Glory Remembered: Wooden Headgear of Alaska Sea Hunters. Juneau: Alaska State Museums. Black, Lydia T. 1998. Animal World of the Aleuts. Arctic Anthropology 35 (2): 126–135. Black, Lydia T. 2003. Aleut Art, 2nd edn. Anchorage, Alaska: Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association. Black, Lydia T. 2004. Russians in Alaska: 1732–1867. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Bland, Richard L. 1996. The Chaluka Site and Its Implications for Subsistence Regimes in the Aleutian Islands. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon, Eugene.

References

297

Boettke, Peter J., and Robert L. Heilbronner. 2019. Economic System. In Encyclopedia Britannica Online. https://www.britannica.com/topic/economic-system. Accessed 23 July 2020. Brand, John. 1991. The Features of Aleutian Baidarkas. In Contributions to Kayak Studies, ed. E.Y. Arima, John D. Heath, Guy Mary-Rousseliere, Kenneth I. Taylor, William S. Laughlin, Knut Bergsland, John Brand, Joseph Lubischer, George Dyson, and Gert Nooter, 211–220. Canadian Ethnology Service Mercury Series Paper 122. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Museum of Civilization. Brinck, Wolfgang. 1995. The Aleutian Kayak: Origins, Construction, and Use of the Traditional Seagoing Baidarka. Camden, Maine: Ragged Mountain Press. Bulmer, Alan. 2015. Hook Penetration. Active Angling New Zealand. October 8. https://activeang lingnz.com/2015/10/08/hook-penetration/. Accessed 4 June 2020. Cai, Jinnan. 2011. The Inuit Paradox. Clinical Nature, January 30. https://www.sott.net/article/222 697-The-Inuit-Paradox. Accessed 4 June 2020. Campbell, Joseph. 1959. The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology, vol. I. New York: Penguin. Carter, Beth. 2012. No Leisurely Paddle: Olympic Canoes and Kayaks Can “Pull a Water Skier”. Wired, July 31. https://www.wired.com/2012/07/olympic-tech-canoe-kayak/. Accessed 4 June 2020. Carson, Laurence. 1943. Maybe Tomorrow. The Alaska Sportsman 9 (10): 16–18. Causey, Douglas, Debra G. Corbett, Christine Lefèvre, Dixie L. West, Arkady B. Savinetsky, Nina K. Kiseleva, and Bulat F. Khassanov. 2005. The Paleoenvironment of Humans and Marine Birds of the Aleutian Islands: Three Millennia of Change. Fisheries Oceanography 14 (Supplement 1): 259–276. Chandonnet, Ann. 1975. Sophie Pletnikoff’s Cloth Made of Grass. Alaska Journal 5 (1): 55–58. Claassen, Cheryl. 1998. Shells. New York: Cambridge University Press. Clark, Donald W. 1984. Pacific Eskimo: Historical Ethnography. In Arctic, ed. D. Damas, 185–197. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 5, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Clark, Donald W. 1997. The Early Kachemak Phase on Kodiak Island at Old Kiavak. Mercury Series Paper 155. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull, Quebec. Coltrain, Joan B., M. Geoffrey Hayes, and Dennis O’Rourke. 2006. A Radiometric Evaluation of Hrdliˇcka Aleutian Population Replacement Hypothesis. Current Anthropology 47: 537–548. Cook, John, James Dixon, and Charles Holmes. 1972. Archaeological Report Site 49 RAT 32, Amchitka Island, Alaska. Holmes and Narver, Inc., On-Continent Test Division, Hn-20-1045. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Museum of the North. Cooper, D. Randall, Robert Drozda, Brian Hoffman, and Kenneth Pratt. 1996. Agattu Island Overview, AA-11908-AA-11917. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, ANCSA Office, Anchorage, Alaska. Corbett, Debra. 1994. Wood Chips and Kayak Parts: Aleut Woodworking Techniques. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Juneau, Alaska. Corbett, Debra, Christine Lefèvre, Thomas J. Corbett, Dixie West, and Douglas Siegel-Causey. 1997. Excavations at KIS-008, Buldir Island: Evaluation and Potential. Arctic Anthropology 34 (2): 100–117. Corbett, Debra, Douglas Causey, Mark Clements, Paul Koch, Angela Doroff, Christine Lefèvre, and Dixie West. 2007. Aleut Hunters, Sea Otters, and Sea Cows: Three Thousand Years of Interactions in the Western Aleutians, Alaska. In Human Impacts on Ancient Marine Environments: A Global Perspective, ed. Torben C. Rick and Jon M. Erlandson, 43–75. Berkeley: University of California Press. Corbett, Debra, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre. 2010. The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island. Aurora VIII. Anchorage: Alaska Anthropological Association. Cordell, Craig. 2009. Sandy Dunes: The Analysis of a 2200–1800 BC Multi-component Aleut Site on Sanak Island, Alaska. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Idaho State University, Pocatello.

298

6 Making a Living

Coxe, William. 1970 [1787]. Account of the Russian Discoveries Between Asia and America, 3rd edn. T. Cadell. 1970 facsimile ed. New York, London: Augustus M. Kelley. Crockford, Susan. 2002. Cape Flattery Fur Seal: An Extinct Species of Callorhinus in the Eastern North Pacific? Canadian Journal of Archaeology 26: 152–174. Crockford, Susan. 2012. Archaeozoology of Adak Island: 6000 Years of Subsistence History in the Central Aleutians. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gualtieri, 107–144. BAR International Series, vol. 2322. Oxford: British Archaeological Reports. Crockford, Susan, Gay Frederick, Rebecca Wigen, and Ian McKechnie. 2005. Final Report on the Analysis of the Vertebrate Fauna from Amaknak Bridge, Unalaska, Alaska. In Unalaska South Channel Bridge Project Number MGS-STP-BR-0310(S)/52930 Amaknak Bridge Site Data Recovery Final Report, by Richard Knecht and Richard Davis, supplement. Report on file with Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage. Croes, Dale R. 1995. The Hoko River Archaeological Site Complex, the Wet/Dry Site (45CA213), 3000–1700 BP. Pullman: Washington State University Press. Croll, P.A., J.L. Maron, J.A. Estes, E.M. Danner, and G.V. Byrd. 2005. Introduced Predators Transform Subarctic Islands from Grassland to Tundra. Science 307 (5717): 1959–1961. Crowell, Aron. 1994. Koniag Eskimo Poisoned-Dart Whaling. In Anthropology of the North Pacific Rim, ed. William W. Fitzhugh and Valérie Chaussonnet, 217–242. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Crowell, Aron, and Jeff Leer. 2001. Ukgwepet “Our Beliefs”: Alutiiq Spiritual Life and Traditions. In Looking Both Ways: Heritage and Identity of the Alutiiq People, ed. Aron Crowell, Amy Steffian, and Gordon Pullar, 189–222. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Damas, David. 1984. Introduction. In Arctic, ed. D. Damas, 1–8. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 5, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Davis, Brian. 2000. Prehistoric Sea Mammal Hunting in the Eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska: An Archaeofaunal Study of Subsistence System Resilience. MA thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Davis, Brian. 2001. Sea Mammal Hunting and the Neoglacial: Environmental Change and Subsistence Technology at Margaret Bay. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 71–85. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Davydof, Gavriil I. 1977. Two Voyages to Russian America, 1802–1807, trans. C. Bearne. Materials for the Study of Alaska History Series No. 10. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Denniston, Glenda. 1974. The Diet of the Ancient Inhabitants of Ashishik Point, an Aleut Community. Arctic Anthropology 11 (Supplement): 143–152. Desautels, Roger, Albert J. McCurdy, James D. Flynn, and Robert R. Ellis. 1971. Archaeological Report Amchitka Island, Alaska 1969–1970. Archaeological Research, Inc. Submitted to United States Atomic Energy Commission Report TID-25481, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas. Desson, Dominique. 1995. Masked Rituals of the Kodiak Archipelago. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Dmytryshyn, Basil, E.A.P. Crownhart-Vaughan, and Thomas Vaughan. 1988. Russian Penetration of the North Pacific Ocean: A Documentary Record, 1700–1797. In To Siberia and Russian America: Three Centuries of Russian Eastward Expansion, 1558–1867, 3 vols., trans. Basil Dmytryshyn. Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press. Dohrenwend, Robert E. 2002. The Sling: Forgotten Firepower of Antiquity. Journal of Asian Martial Arts 11 (2): 28–49. Domning, Daryl P., James Thomason, and Debra Corbett. 2007. Steller’s Sea Cow in the Aleutian Islands. Journal of Marine Mammal Science 23 (4): 976–983. Dove, Carla J., and Suzanne C. Peurach. 2002. Microscopic Analysis of Feather and Hair Fragments Associated with Human Mummified Remains from Kagamil Island, Alaska. In To the Aleutians and Beyond: The Anthropology of William S. Laughlin, ed. Bruno Frohlich, Albert B. Harper,

References

299

and Rolf Gilberg, 51–61. Publications of the National Museum, Ethnographical Series Vol. 20. Copenhagen: National Museum of Denmark. Dumond, Don E. 1995. Whale Traps on the North Pacific? In Hunting the Largest Animals: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic and Subarctic, ed. Allen P. McCartney, 51–62. Studies in Whaling. No. 3, Occasional Publication No. 36. Edmonton: The Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta. Dyson, George. 1986. Baidarka. Edmonds, Washington: Alaska Northwest Publishing Company. Dyson, George. 1991. Form and Function of the Baidarka; the Framework of Design. In Contributions to Kayak Studies, ed. E.Y. Arima, John D. Heath, Guy Mary-Rousseliere, Kenneth I. Taylor, William S. Laughlin, Knut Bergsland, John Brand, Joseph Lubischer, George Dyson, and Gert Nooter, 259–318. Canadian Ethnology Service Mercury Series Paper 122. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Museum of Civilization. Eliade, Mircea. 1964. Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy, Revised edn. trans. Willard R. Trask. Ballinger Series 76. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Elliott, Henry Wood. 1976. The Seal Islands of Alaska. Reprinted Materials for the Study of Alaska History Series No. 9. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press. Originally published 1881, Elliott, Henry Wood, G. Brown Goode, and Spencer Fullerton Baird. The History and Present Condition of the Fishery Industries: The Seal-Islands of Alaska. Tenth Census of the United States, Department of Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Elliott, Henry Wood. 1886. An Arctic Province: Alaska and the Seal Islands. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle and Rivington. Emmons, George Thornton. 1991. The Tlingit Indians, ed. Frederica de Laguna. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 70. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Estes, James A. 1990. Growth and Equilibrium in Sea Otter Populations. Journal of Animal Ecology 59: 385–400. Estes, James A. 1996. The Influence of Large Mobile Predators in Aquatic Food Webs: Examples from Sea Otters and Kelp Forests. In Aquatic Predators and Their Prey, ed. Simon P. R. Greenstreet and Mark L. Tasker, 65–72. Oxford: Fishing News Books. Estes, James A. 2010. The Aleutian Archipelago: Addressing the Functional Implications of Carnivory Through Variations in Time and Space. In The Ecology of Place: Contributions of Place-Based Research to Ecological Understanding, ed. Ian Billick and Mary V. Price, 155–176. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Estes, James A., and D.O. Duggins. 1995. Sea Otters and Kelp Forests in Alaska: Generality and Variation in a Community Ecological Paradigm. Ecological Monographs 65: 75–100. Ewalt, David M. 2006. The Twenty Most Important Tools Ever. Forbes, March 15. https://www. forbes.com/2006/03/15/technology-tools-history_cx_de_0315intro.html#2943788e158d. Accessed 3 July 2020. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2001. Fishing Gear Types, Beach Seines. Technology Fact Sheets, vol. 2015. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Department, Rome. http://www.fao.org/ fishery/geartype/202/en. Accessed 3 July 2020. Fassett, H. C. 1890. Sea Otter Hunting: How the Aleuts Conduct the Chase. San Francisco Chronicle, December 28. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 1990a. The Bird and the Bladder. Études/Inuit Studies 14 (1–2): 23–38. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 1990b. Eskimo Essays Yup’ik Lives and How We See Them. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 1990c. Eskimo Iconography and Symbolism: An Introduction. Études/Inuit Studies 14 (1–2): 7–22. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 1994. Boundaries and Passages: Rule and Ritual in Yup’ik Eskimo Oral Tradition. Civilization of the American Indian 212. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 2007. Yuungnaqpiallerput, The Way We Genuinely Live: Masterworks of Yup’ik Science and Survival. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Fifield, Terrence, and Debra Corbett. 1988. Report of Investigation for BLM AA-11894, Attu Village. U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, ANCSA Office, Anchorage, Alaska.

300

6 Making a Living

Foster, Nora. 2005. Analysis of Shelled Fauna from Amaknak Bridge, UNL-050. In Unalaska South Channel Bridge Project Number MGS-STP-BR-0310(S)/52930 Amaknak Bridge Site Data Recovery Final Report, by Richard Knecht and Richard Davis, supplement. Report on file with Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage. Freedman, Corey. 2008. Traditional Aleut Paddles, vol. 2012. Skinboats.org. Funk, Caroline. 2006. Birds and Mammals from the 2003 Test of Features 2 and 6 at Rat-00081 on Rat Island, Alaska. Report submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Funk, Caroline. 2008. Birds and Mammals from the 2003 Test of Features 2 and 6 at RAT-00081 on Rat Island, Alaska: Part 2 Species Level Analysis. Report Submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Funk, Caroline. 2011. Rat Islands Archaeological Research 2003 and 2009: Working Towards an Understanding of Regional Cultural and Environmental Histories. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 25–51. Funk, Caroline. 2018. Ethno-ornithology in the Rat Islands: Prehistoric Aleut relationships with birds in the western Aleutians, Alaska. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 51: 144–158. Funk, Caroline, Nancy Bigelow, Debra Corbett, and Nicole Misarti. 2019. Gardens in the Aleutian Islands: Landscape Management by Unangan/Unangas Ancestors. Paper presented at the 84th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology, Albuquerque, New Mexico. Galaktionoff, Nick. 2005. Nick Galaktionoff on Makushin. In Cuttlefish: Stories of Aleutian Culture and History, vols. 1, 2, and 3, ed. Raymond Hudson. Unalaska, Alaska: Museum of the Aleutians. Originally published separately in 1978, 1979, 1980 by Unalaska School District. Unalaska, Alaska. Georgi, Johann Gottlieb. 1780. Russia: Or, a Compleat Historical Account of All the Nations which Compose that Empire: Samoyed Nations, vol. 3, trans. William Tooke. Printed for J. Nichols, T. Cadell, H. Payne, and N. Conant, London. Gibson, Daniel D., and G. Vernon Byrd. 2007. Birds of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Series in Ornithology 1. Fayetteville, Arkansas: The Nuttall Ornithological Club and the American Ornithologists’ Union. Golder, F.A. 1905. Aleutian Stories. Journal of American Folklore 18 (70): 215–222. Golder, F.A. 1907. Songs and Stories of the Aleuts, with Translations from Veniaminov. Journal of American Folklore 20 (77): 132–142. Golodoff, Suzi. 2003. Wildflowers of Unalaska Island: A Guide to the Flowering Plants of an Aleutian Island. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska Press. Graburn, Nelson H. H., Molly Lee, and Jean-Loup. Rousselot. 1996. Catalogue Raisonné of the Alaska Commercial Company Collection. Phoebe Apperson Hearst Museum of Anthropology: University of California Press, Berkeley. Graham, Frances Kelso. 1985. Plant Lore of an Alaskan Island. Anchorage: Alaska Northwest Publishing Company. Graves, Robert. 1955. The Greek Myths, 2 vols. Baltimore, Maryland: Penguin Books. Hanson, Diane K. 1983. Analysis of Stone Tools from Western Chaluka, Umnak Island. Report submitted to the University of Alaska Museum of the North, Fairbanks. Hanson, Diane K. 2011. 2010 Archaeological Survey of Caribou Peninsula, Adak Island, Alaska. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Harden, Fred. 1985. Report of Investigation for Biorka Village AA-12239. U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, ANCSA Office, Anchorage, Alaska. Harrington, John Peabody. 1941. Papers of John Peabody Harrington. Linguistic notes and records Box 172, Alaska/Northwest Coast. Accession #1976-95 NMNH-Harrington_mf1 vols. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Harrington, Tom R. 1987. Avifaunal Comparisons of Middens on Amchitka Island, Alaska. Master’s thesis, Department of Biology, California State University, Long Beach, Long Beach. Heizer, Robert F. 1938. Aconite Arrow Poison in the Old and New World. Journal of the Washington Academy of Sciences 28 (8): 358–359.

References

301

Heizer, Robert F. 1943. Aconite Poison Whaling in Asia and America: An Aleutian Transfer to the New World. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 133: 419–468. Harrison, Chris. 2006. The Sling in Medieval Europe. Bulletin of Primitive Technology 31: 74–79. Hoffman, Brian. 2002. The Organization of Complexity: A Study of Late Prehistoric Village Organization in the Eastern Aleutian Region. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Holland, Katherine Marie. 1982. Chulka Bone Artifacts, Akun Island, Alaska: Analysis and Description. Master’s thesis, Arizona State University, Tempe. Holland, Katherine Marie. 1988. A 1000 Year Long Akun-Kodiak Interaction Sphere. In The Late Prehistoric Development of Alaska’s Native People, ed. Robert D. Shaw, Roger K. Harritt, and Don E. Dumond, 307–317. Aurora Monograph Series Vol 4. Anchorage: Alaska Anthropological Association. Holland, Katherine Marie. 1992. Rethinking Aleutian Prehistory as Viewed from a Lithic Database. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Hrdliˇcka, Aleš. 1945. The Aleutian and Commander Islands and Their Inhabitants. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology. Hudson, Raymond L., ed. 1992. Unugulux Tunusangin, Oldtime Stories: Aleut Crafts and Traditions as Taught to Students at the Unalaska City School by Augusta Dushkin (and others). Unalaska, Alaska: Unalaska City School District. Hudson, Raymond L., ed. 2005. Cuttlefish Volumes 1, 2, 3. Originally Published 1977. Unalaska, Alaska: Museum of the Aleutians. Huffman, Eugenia Anne. 2007. 5000 Years of Fishing Technologies: Temporal and Spatial Variations in Prehistoric Aleut Stone Fishing Weights. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Idaho State University, Pocatello. Isto, Sarah Crawford. 2012. The Fur Farms of Alaska: Two Centuries of History and a Forgotten Stampede. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Jacka, Jerry. 1999. Fishing. In The History and Ethnohistory of the Aleutians East Borough, trans. Lydia T. Black, Sarah McGowan, Jerry Jacka, Natalia Taksami, and Miranda Wright, ed. Richard A. Pierce, Katherine L. Arndt, and Sarah McGowan, 213–242. Alaska History Series No. 49. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press. Jochelson, Waldemar. 1933. History, Ethnology and Anthropology of the Aleut. Publication 432. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution of Washington. Jochelson, Waldemar I. 2001. Aleuts: How they were seen by I. Iokhelson. In Treasures of the Kunstkamera. St. Petersburg, Russia: Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnology. Jochelson, Waldemar. 2002. Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands. Reprinted. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press. Publication 367. Originally published 1925. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution. Jochim, Michael. 1976. Hunter-Gatherer Subsistence and Settlement: A Predictive Model. New York: Academic Press. Johnson, L. Lewis. 2005. Aleut Sea Mammal Hunting: Ethnohistorical and Archaeological Evidence. In The Exploitation and Cultural Importance of Marine Mammals, ed. Gregory G. Monks, 39–61. Proceedings of the 9th International Council of Archaeozoology Conference. Durham, 2002. Oakville, Connecticut: Oxbow Books. Johnson, L. Lewis. 2016. Wooden artifacts from Asˆxaanaˆx Cave, Islands of the Four Mountains, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 53 (2): 114–140. Johnson, L. Lewis., and Clive Bonsall. 1999. Mesolithic Adaptations on Offshore Islands: The Aleutians and Western Scotland. In Der Bogen Spannen: Festschrift für Bernhard Gramsch, zum 65, ed. Erwin Cziesla, Thomas Kersting, and Stefan Pratsch, 107–115. Langenweißbach, Germany: Verlag Beier and Beran. Jolles, Carol Zane. 2002. Faith, Food, and Family in a Yupik Whaling Community. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Jones, Norman S., and Joanna M. Kain. 1967. Subtidal Algal Colonization Following the Removal of Echinus. Helgoländer Wissenschaftliche Meeresuntersuchungen 15 (1–4): 460–466.

302

6 Making a Living

Jordan, David Starr, and Barton Warren Evermann. 1923. American Food and Game Fishes: A Popular Account of all the Species Found in America North of the Equator, with Keys for Ready Identification, Life Histories and Methods of Capture. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, Page and Company. Kaminsky, Peter, and Greg Schwipps. 2011. Fishing for Dummies, 2nd ed. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. Kang, Xiaofei. 2006. The Cult of the Fox: Power, Gender, and Popular Religion in Late Imperial and Modern China. New York: Columbia University Press. Kari, Priscilla R. 1987. Tanaina Plantlore, Dena’ina K’et’una, 2nd edn. Anchorage, Alaska: National Park Service, Alaska Region. Khlebnikov, Kiril T. 1994. Notes on Russian America, Parts II–V: Kad’iak, Unalashka, Atkha, the Pribylovs, trans. Marina Ramsay, ed. Richard Pierce. Alaska History Series No. 42. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Kissell, Mary Lois. 1907. An Aleutian Basket. The American Museum Journal 7 (8): 133–136. Knecht, Richard and Richard Davis. 2001. A Prehistoric Sequence for the Eastern Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 269–288. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Knecht, Richard and Richard Davis. 2003. Archaeological Evaluation of Tanaxtaxak, The Amaknak Spit Site (UNL-00055) Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District by the Museum of the Aleutians. Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Knecht, Richard and Richard Davis. 2005. Unalaska South Channel Bridge Project Number MGSSTP-BR-0310(S)/52930 Amaknak Bridge Site Data Recovery Final Report. Report on file with Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage. Knecht, Richard, Richard Davis, and Gary Carver. 2001. The Margaret Bay Site and Eastern Aleutian Prehistory. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 35–69. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Koeppen, R. C. 1969. Wood from Amchitka, letter to A. Barnett. Wood Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin. On file with the Western Aleutians Archaeological and Paleobiological Project, Anchorage, Alaska. Krylovich, Olga A., Dmitry D. Vasyukov, Bulat F. Khasanov, Virginia Hatfield, Dixie West, and Arkady A. Savinetsky. 2019. Hunter-Gatherers Subsistence and Impacts on Fauna in the Islands of Four Mountains, Eastern Aleutians, Alaska Over 3000 yr. Quaternary Research 91 (3): 983–1002. Kudrin, Ruth. 1980. Akutan Food. P. 8 in Taniisiˆx: To Shed Light, vol. 1. Unalaska, Alaska: Aleutian Region School District. Kudrin, Ruth and Korraine Prokopioff. 1980. Aleut Medicene. P. 12 in Taniisiˆx: To Shed Light, vol. 1. Unalaska, Alaska: Aleutian Region School District. Langsdorff, Georg Heinrich von. 1993. Remarks and Observations on a Voyage Around the World 1803–1807, trans. Victoria Joan Moessner, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History Series No. 41. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Lantis, Margaret. 1938. The Alaskan Whale Cult and its Affinities. American Anthropologist 40 (3): 438–464. Laughlin, William S. 1955. Chaluka Archaeology. Final Report for the Office of Naval Research ONR-82 GN 784. Manuscript on file at the Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association Archives, Anchorage. Laughlin, William S. 1974/1975. Holocene History of Nikolski Bay, Alaska and Aleut Evolution. Folk 16/17: 95–115. Laughlin, William S. 1980. Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

References

303

Laughlin, William S., and Jean S. Aigner. 1975. Aleut Adaptation and Evolution. In Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone, ed. William Fitzhugh, 181–201. The Hague, Paris: Mouton Publishers. Laughlin, William S., John D. Heath, and Eugene Arima. 1991. Two Nikolski Aleut Kayaks: Iqyak and Uluˆxtaˆx from Umnak Island. In Contributions to Kayak Studies, ed. E.Y. Arima, John D. Heath, Guy Mary-Rousseliere, Kenneth I. Taylor, William S. Laughlin, Knut Bergsland, John Brand, Joseph Lubischer, George Dyson, and Gert Nooter, 163–210. Canadian Ethnology Service Mercury Series Paper 122. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Museum of Civilization. Lech, Veronica, and Corey Hutchings. 2010. Preliminary Report: Archaeological Investigations of the Witchcraft Point Midden Site, Kiska Island, Alaska. Memorial University, Department of Biology, Newfoundland. Report to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage Lech, Veronica, Chandra Boyle-Young, Ian Jones, and Donald Pirie-Hay. 2012. Preliminary Report: Archaeological Investigation of the Gertrude Cove Site, Qisxa (Kiska Island), Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Memorial University, Department of Biology, Newfoundland. Report to US Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage. Lee, Richard B., and Irven DeVore. eds. 1968. Man the Hunter. Chicago: Aldine. Lefèvre, Christine, Debra Corbett, Dixie West, and Douglas Siegel-Causey. 1997. A Zooarchaeological Study at Buldir Island, Western Aleutians, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 34 (2): 118–131. Liapunova, Rosa G. 1996. Essays on the Ethnography of the Aleuts: At the End of the Eighteenth and First Half of the Nineteenth Century, trans. J. Shelest. Rasmuson Library Historical Translation Series 9. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Litke, Fedor Petrovich. 1987. A Voyage Around the World 1826–1829, trans. Renée Marshall, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History Series No. 29. Fairbanks: Limestone Press. Lubischer, Joseph. 1991. The Baidarka as a Living Vessel: The “Bones” in the Joints. In Contributions to Kayak Studies, ed. E.Y. Arima, John D. Heath, Guy Mary-Rousseliere, Kenneth I. Taylor, William S. Laughlin, Knut Bergsland, John Brand, Joseph Lubischer, George Dyson, and Gert Nooter, 221–258. Canadian Ethnology Service Mercury Series Paper 122. Hull, Quebec: Canadian Museum of Civilization. Lubischer, Joseph. 1997. News from Buldir, email report to Debra Corbett. Electronic document. On file with the Western Aleutians Archaeological and Paleobiological Project, Anchorage, Alaska. Lujan, Jenny. 1984. Picking Grass for Baskets. Taniisiˆx 4: 35. McCartney, Allen P. 1967. An Analysis of the Bone Industry from Amaknak Island, Alaska. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Madison. McCartney, Allen P. 1971. A Proposed Western Aleutian Phase in the Near Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 8 (2): 92–142. McCartney, Allen P. 1974. Prehistoric Cultural Integration Along the Alaska Peninsula. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16 (1): 59–84. McCartney, Allen P. 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, ed. William Fitzhugh, 281–358. The Hague, Paris: Mouton Publishers. McCartney, Allen P. 1977. Prehistoric Human Occupation of the Rat Islands. In The Environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska, ed. Melvin L. Merritt, and R. Glen Fuller, 59–113. Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Service, Energy Research and Development Administration. McCartney, Allen P. 1980. The Nature of Thule Eskimo Whale Use. Arctic 33 (2): 517–541. McLain, Allison Young. 1998. Aleut Technological Organization, Amchitka Island, Alaska. Manuscript in possession of author. McNaughton, Troy. 2020. What Is the Average Kayak Speed You Can Paddle At? Kayaking Near Me blog at https://www.kayakingnear.me/average-kayak-speed/. Accessed 23 July 2020. MacWelch, Tim. 2014. Survival Skill: Make Your Own Primitive Fish Hooks. Outdoor Life. https://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/survivalist/2014/06/survival-skills-make-your-own-primit ive-fish-hooks/. Accessed 12 May 2020.

304

6 Making a Living

Maron, J.L., J.A. Estes, P.A. Croll, E.M. Danner, S.C. Elmandorf, and S.L. Buckalew. 2006. An Introduced Predator Alters Aleutian Island Plant Communities by Interrupting Nutrient Subsidies. Ecological Monographs 76: 3–24. Marsh, Gordon H. 1952. Akutan Field Notes. In Gordon Marsh Collection, Alaska Native Language Center, AL950B(B201)M 1952 vols. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Fairbanks. Marsh, Gordon H. 1954. A Comparative Survey of Eskimo-Aleut Religion. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 3 (1): 21–36. Maschner, Herbert D.G. 1999. Sedentism, Settlement and Village Organization on the Lower Alaska Peninsula: A Preliminary Assessment. In Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years Since Viru, ed. Brian R. Billman and Gary M. Feinman, 56–76. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Maschner, Herbert D. G., James W. Jordan, Bruce Finney, Katherine Reedy-Maschner, Nancy Huntley, Amber Tews, Roly Russell, Spencer Wood, Nicole Misarti, Liza Mack, Andy Krumhardt, Diana Orduczuk, Sean Mack, Molly Odell, and Buck Benson. 2004. Report of Investigations on Sanak Island. Washington, DC: Report to the National Science Foundation. Merck, Carl Heinrich. 1980. Siberia and Northwestern America 1788–1792: The Journal of Carl Heinrich Merck, Naturalist with the Russian Scientific Expedition Led by Captains Joseph Billings and Gavriil Sarychev, trans. Fritz Jaensch, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History Series No. 17. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Merkur, Daniel. 2013. Becoming Half Hidden: Shamanism and Initiation Among the Inuit. Routledge, New York. Originally published 1992, Garland Reference Library of the Humanities Series, vol. 1559. New York: Garland Publishing. Merkur, Daniel. 1991. Powers Which We Do Not Know: The Gods and Spirits of the Inuit. Moscow: University of Idaho Press. Mooney, James Phillip. 1993. An Eighteenth Century Aleutian Longhouse at Reese Bay, Unalaska Island, Alaska. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville. Morrison, Aubrey. 2016. Unangan (Aleut) Subsistence Throughout the Medieval Climatic Anomaly: Zooarchaeological Analysis of the Surf Bay Landing Site (1500 BP to 700 BP) on Akun Island, Alaska. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage. Murie, Olaus. 1959. Fauna of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska Peninsula. North American Fauna, No. 61. Department of the Interior, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Nelson, Edward W. 1983. The Eskimo About Bering Strait. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Originally published 1899, in the Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1896–97, part 1, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Nelson, John K. 1996. A Year in the Life of a Shinto Shrine. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Netsvetov, Iakov. 1980. The Journals of Iakov Netsvetov: The Atkha Years, 1828–1844, trans. L.T. Black. Alaska History Series No. 26. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press. Nevzorof, Vera, and Betsy Dirks. 1981. The Story of Basket Weaving. Taniisiˆx 2: 12–13. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2012. Atka Mackerel. December 2, 2012. www.afsc.noaa.gov/species/Atka_mackerel.php. Accessed 5 July 2020. Okada, Hiroaki, and Atsuko Okada. 1974. The Hot Springs Village Site: Preliminary report of the 1972 Excavations at Port Moller, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 11 (Supplement): 112–124. Okada, Hiroaki, Atsuko Okada, Yoshinobu Kotani, and Keishi Hattori. 1976. The Hot Springs Village Site (2): Preliminary Report of the 1974 excavations at Port Moller, Alaska. Hachioji, Tokyo. Oshima, Minoru. 1986. Vocabulary of Beach Combing by Umnak Aleuts. In The Qaluyaarmiut (3): An Anthropological Survey of the Southwestern Alaska Eskimos, ed. Hiroaki Okada, Atsuko Okada, Kunio Yajima, Mitsuaki Sugita, Chikuma Oka, and Minoru Oshima, 43–48. Hokkaido, Japan: Department of Behavioral Sciences, Faculty of Letters, Hokkaido University. Oliver, Ethel Ross. 1988. Journal of an Aleutian Year. Seattle: University of Washington Press.

References

305

Osgood, Wilfred Hudson, Edward Alexander A. Preble, and George Howard Parker. 1915. The Fur Seal and other life of the Pribilof Islands, Alaska in 1914. Bureau of Fisheries Document No. 820, Bulletin of the Bureau of Fisheries, vol. 34. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Paine, Robert, and Robert Vadas. 1969. The Effects of Grazing by Sea Urchins, Strongylocentrotus spp. on Benthic Algal Populations. Limnology and Oceanography 14: 710–719. Palmisano, John F., and James A. Estes. 1977. Ecological Interactions Involving the Sea Otter. In The Environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska, ed. Melvin L. Merritt, and R. Glen Fuller, 527–567. Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Service, Energy Research and Development Administration. Philemonoff, Polly Ann, and Sheryl Stepetin. 1980. Aleut Baskets. Taniisiˆx 1: 9. Pirie-Hay, Donald. 2011. Birds Identified in Prehistoric Surface Remains Collected at the Unangas Village Site at Imuqudaagis (Witchcraft Point) Kiska Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska, Bachelor’s thesis, Department of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s. Porcher, C. Gadsden. 1904. Aleutian Basketry. The Craftsman 5 (6): 575–583. Quimby, George I. 1946. Toggle Harpoon Heads from the Aleutian Islands. Fieldiana Anthropology 36 (2): 15–23. Ransom, J. Ellis. 1946. Aleut Natural Food Economy. American Anthropologist 48 (4): 607–623. Reedy-Maschner, Katherine, and Herbert D. G. Maschner, eds. 2012. Sanak Island, Alaska: A Natural and Cultural History. Pocatello, Idaho: Idaho Museum of Natural and Cultural History. Robert-Lamblin, Joëlle. 1980. Le Kayak Aléoute vu par son constructeur et utilisateur et la chasse á la loutre de mer. Objets et Mondes: La Revue du Musée de L’homme 29 (1): 5–19. Rousselet, Jean-Loup, William W. Fitzhugh, and Aron Crowell. 1988. Maritime Economies of the North Pacific Rim. In Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska, ed. William W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, 151–172. National Museum of Natural History. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Russell, Priscilla N. 1991. English Bay and Port Graham Alutiiq Plantlore. Homer, Alaska: Pratt Museum. Sackett, James R. 1977. The Meaning of Style in Archaeology: A General Model. American Antiquity 42 (3): 369–380. Sarychev, Gavriil Andreevich. 2016 [1807]. Account of a Voyage of Discovery to the North-East of Siberia the Frozen Ocean and the North-East Sea. Printed for Richard Phillips, London. 2016 facsimile ed. Delhi, India: Facsimile Publisher. Sauer, Martin. 1802. An Account of a Geographical and Astronomical Expedition to the Northern Parts of Russia. London: T. Cadell. Shade, Charles I. 1949. Ethnological Notes on the Aleuts. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University, Boston. Shapsnikoff, Anfesia, and Raymond L. Hudson. 1974. Aleut Basketry. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16 (2): 41–69. Siegel-Causey, Douglas, Debra Corbett, and Christine Lefèvre. 1993. Report of the Buldir Island Expedition: Second Season in the Aleut Midden Site, June 1993. Report submitted to the National Geographic Society, Washington, DC. Simenstad, Charles A., John S. Isakson, and Roy E. Nakatani. 1977. Marine Fish Communities. In The Environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska, ed. Melvin L. Merritt, and R. Glen Fuller, 451–492. Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Service, Energy Research and Development Administration. Smith, Jane L. 2011. An Update of Intertidal Fishing Structures in Southeast Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 9 (1): 1–26. Smith, Laura L. 2003. Living on the Edge: Subsistence Economy of Adamagan, A Late Holocene Aleut Village on the Lower Alaska Peninsula. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Idaho State University, Pocatello. Solomon, Robert C., and Kathleen M. Higgins. 1996. A Short History of Philosophy. London: Oxford University Press.

306

6 Making a Living

Souders, Paul. 1995. Archaeology of Whaling on the Olympic Penninsula. Electronic document. http://axoplasm.com/archaeology/archaeology-whaling-olympic-penninsula. Accessed 6 Aug 2020. Spaulding, Albert C. 1962. Archaeological Investigations on Agattu, Aleutian Islands. Anthropological Papers No. 18, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Spaulding, Phillip T., and Jack Pierce. 1953. An Archaeological Survey of the Krenitsyn Islands, Alaska. Report to the Arctic Institute of North America. Unpublished manuscript on file at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, Alaska Collection, Fairbanks and the Alaska Resources Library and Information Services (ARLIS), University of Alaska Anchorage Consortium Library, Anchorage. Squire, Charles. 1975. Celtic Myth and Legend. Hollywood, California: Newcastle. Steffian, Amy F., Marnei Leist, Sven Haakanson, and Patrick Saltonstall. 2015. Kal’unek: From Karluk. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Steinbright, Jan, ed. 2001. Qayaqs and Canoes: Native Ways of Knowing. Anchorage, Alaska: Alaska Native Heritage Center. Steller, Georg. 1988. Journal of a Voyage with Bering, 1741–1742, trans. Margritt A. Engel and O.W. Frost, ed. O.W. Frost. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Stewart, Hillary. 1977. Indian Fishing: Early Methods on the Northwest Coast. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Suvoroff, Sergei. 2005. Plants of the Aleutians. In Cuttlefish: Stories of Aleutian Culture and History, vols. 1, 2, and 3, ed. Raymond Hudson. Museum of the Aleutians, Unalaska. Originally published separately in 1978, 1979, 1980 by Unalaska School District, Unalaska, Alaska. Sydnam, Nancy Elliott. 2012. Sideways Rain. Walnut Creek, California: Hardscratch Press. Tews, Amber. 2005. Prehistoric Eastern Aleut Subsistence, 5000 Years of Faunal Variation. Master’s thesis, Department of Anthropology, Idaho State University, Pocatello. The Economist. 2008. Early Warfare: Girls on Top. The Economist, April 10. https://www.econom ist.com/science-and-technology/2008/04/10/girls-on-top Turner, Christy G. 1972. Preliminary Report of Archaeological Survey and Test Excavations in the Eastern Aleutian Islands, Alska. Arctic Anthropology 9 (2): 32–35. Turner, Christy G. 1973. Report on the 1973 Anthropological Fieldwork on Akun Island. Report to the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Anchorage, Alaska. Turner, Christy G., and Jacqueline A. Turner. 1974. Progress Report on Evolutionary Anthropological Study of Akun Strait District, Eastern Aleutians, Alaska, 1970–71. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16 (1): 27–57. Turner, Edith. 1990. The Whale Decides: Eskimo’s and Ethnographers Shared Consciousness on the Ice. Études/Inuit Studies 14 (1–2): 39–52. Turner, Lucien M. 1886. Contributions to the Natural History of Alaska: Results of Investigations Made Chiefly in the Yukon District and the Aleutian Islands; Conducted Under the Auspices of the Signal Service, United States Army, Extending from May, 1874, to August 1881. Arctic Series of Publications Issued in Collection with the Signal Service, U.S. Army, No. 11. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Turner, Lucien M. 2008. An Aleutian Ethnography, ed. Raymond L. Hudson. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska Press. Turner, Nancy J. 1997. Food Plants of Interior First Peoples. Victoria: Royal British Columbia Museum. Unger, Suanne. 2014. Qaqamiiˆguˆx: Traditional Foods and Recipes from the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands. Anchorage, Alaska: Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association. Varjola, Pirjo. 1990. The Etholén Collection: The Ethnographic Alaskan collection of Adolf Etholén and His Contemporaries in the National Museum of Finland. Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities of Finland. Vasyukov, Dmitri D., Olga A. Krylovish, Dixie L. West, Virginia Hatfield, and Arkady B. Savinetsky. 2019. Ancient Canids of the Aleutian Islands (New Archaeological Discoveries from the Islands of Four Mountains). Quaternary Research 91: 1028–1044.

References

307

Veltre, Douglas. 1979. Korovinski: The Ethnohistoric Archaeology of an Aleut and Russian Settlement on Atka. Island, Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Veltre, Douglas W., and Alan P. McCartney. 2001. Ethnohistorical Archaeology at the Reese Bay Site, Unalaska Island. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 87–104. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Veltre, Douglas W., and Mary J. Veltre. 1981. Preliminary Baseline Study of Subsistence Resource Utilization in the Pribilof Islands. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper # 57, Anchorage. Veltre, Douglas W., and Mary J. Veltre. 1982. Resource Utilization in Unalaska, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper #58, Anchorage. Veltre, Douglas W., and Mary J. Veltre. 1983. Resource Utilization in Atka, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper #88, Anchorage. Veniaminov, Ivan. 1984. Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District, trans. Lydia T. Black and R. H. Geoghegan, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History Series No. 27. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press. West, Dixie, Debra Corbett, and Christine Lefèvre. 2003. 2003 NSF Grant Progress Report: The Western Aleutians Archaeological and Paleobiological Project: Attu Island. Report to the National Science Foundation, Washington, DC. Weyer, Edward M. 1929. An Aleutian Burial. American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers 31, Pt 3. New York: American Museum of Natural History. Weyer, Edward M. 1930. Archaeological Material from the Village Site at Hot Springs, Port Möller, Alaska. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History Vol. 31, Pt. 4. New York: American Museum of Natural History. Weyer, Edward M. 1969. The Eskimos: Their Environment and Folkways. Hamden, CT: Archon Press. Wheeler, Robert, and Claire Alix. 2004. Economic and Cultural Significance of Driftwood in Coastal Communities of Southwest Alaska. Report to Cooperative Extension Services, University of Alaska Fairbanks, Fairbanks. Wilmerding, Mary Elizabeth. 2005. The Culture Sequence at the Nunik Site, Chernabura Island, Alaska. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Washington State University, Pullman. Wrangham, Richard. 2009. Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. New York: Basic Books. Yarborough, Linda Finn. 1995. Prehistoric Use of Cetacean Species in the Northern Gulf of Alaska. In Hunting the Largest Animals: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic and Subarctic, ed. Allen McCartney, 63–108. Occasional Publication Series, Number 36. Calgary, Alberta: Canadian Circumpolar Institute. Yesner, David. 1976. Aleutian Island Albatrosses: A Population History. The Auk 93: 263–280. Yesner, David. 1977. Prehistoric Subsistence and Settlement in the Aleutian Islands. Ph.D. dissertation. Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor. Yesner, David. 1981. Faunal Analysis: 1980 Chaluka Excavations. Report to Indian Health Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Yesner, David. 1995. Whales, Mammoths, and Other Big Beasts: Assessing their Roles in Prehistoric Economies. In Hunting the Largest Animals: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic and Subarctic, ed. Allen McCartney, 149–164. Occasional Publication Series, Number 36. Calgary, Alberta: Canadian Circumpolar Institute. Zimmerly, David W. 1986. Kayaks of Siberia and Alaska. Juneau: Alaska State Museum.

Chapter 7

Life at Home

I always wondered why the makers leave housekeeping and cooking out of their tales. Isn’t it what all the great wars and battles are fought for – so that at day’s end a family may eat together in a peaceful house? (Ursula K. LeGuin, 2006. Voices) The home is the center and circumference, the start and the finish, of most of our lives. (Charlotte Perkins Gilman, 1898. Women and Economics) A true home is one of the most sacred of places. (James R. Miller, 1882. Home-maker)

An Unangaˆx individual’s identity centered on his or her village. Villages were permanent, year-round residential settlements, occupied over hundreds, and even thousands of years. The surfaces of village sites are pockmarked with round, oval, square, or rectangular depressions ranging from a half meter across to trenches over 50 m long. These depressions represent the remains of houses, storage features, burial houses, and other structures. Most remains tightly cluster on the mound, but they can and do extend over the surrounding tundra. Villages were also microcosms of the social universe. Villages in the upper world, Hakadan Kuyuudax housed the souls of the dead who were awaiting rebirth (Merkur 2013; Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 358). The lower world Sitxuuˆgiˆx Kuyuudax contained villages of human souls, animal souls, and various non-human beings Marsh 1954; Veniaminov 1984 [1840]; Weyer 1969). In all ways these villages mirrored those of humans living on Earth’s surface.

Houses Over a span of 9000 years Aleut houses shared three basic features. They were sodcovered, semi-subterranean timber or whalebone structures; grass growing on the rooftops made villages look like grassy hills. Uniquely in Alaska, Aleut houses were entered through hatches (galgiˆx ) in the roof, using driftwood or whalebone ladders. Also unique to Alaska, hearths were located not in the center of the house but off to one side, sometimes butting up to a wall. © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Corbett and D. Hanson, Culture and Archaeology of the Ancestral Unangaˆx/Aleut of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44294-0_7

309

310

7 Life at Home

Houses were living, sentient beings with souls that nurtured life. Terms for house parts also refer to animal and human anatomy (Bergsland 1994). Galg—is the root for roof hatch (galgiˆx) and mouth (agilˆgiˆx ). Alum angaa, (side of the house) also refers to ribs, and the side of a body, boat, or cave. Ridgepoles, chuniˆx, have obvious parallels to spinal columns. One word for post, taayaguudaˆx, also means little man or penis. Ceilings (ulam iluuˆgii) are a uterus (iluuˆgin) or palate (akangaˆx; Bergsland 1994: 42, 192). Axsagnaˆx, smoke hole, also applies to perforations in the nose for ornaments and to cave entrances. Anˆgiˆx or anˆgilix—to breathe, to sigh, “whale’s blowhole,” and smokehole, also has connotations of life, spirit, and the supernatural. Aˆgalix means “to be born” and “to enter a house” (Bergsland 1994: 34). The most common house depressions belong to ulaˆx. Russians called them barabara (Veniaminov 1984: 263). Ulaˆx, have ancient roots extending back 9000 years (Aigner and Del Bene 1982; Del Bene 1982). They were typically occupied by several people: a man or two brothers, a wife or wives, unmarried children, and perhaps an unmarried sibling or elderly parent. We define ulaˆx as round or roughly rectangular depressions between 4 and 9.5 m long, and from a few centimeters to over a meter deep. The average length varies across the island chain, from 5.3 m in the Near Islands to 6.8 m in the Krenitzin Islands. Thousands of ulas from Attu to Port Moller have been mapped and described. One has been completely excavated and 33 others have been partially excavated. The fully excavated house, at RAT-00032 on Amchitka, was dug through midden into crumbling bedrock. The roof was supported by six posts set in holes and topped by large beams running the length of the house. Rafters of split driftwood logs crossed over the beams (Cook et al. 1972). Bone or wood wedges and shims leveled and stabilized the structure. A layer of matted grass found over wooden roof fragments is evidence of thick grass mats underlying a final layer of thatch (Veniaminov 1984; Wilmerding 2005). A relatively clear area of floor indicated the location of the galˆgiˆx. A shallow concave trough, 1 m wide, circled the interior of the house directly beyond the wall edge. A hearth outlined with cobbles was found off center, on the left side of the floor (Fig. 7.1). Other partial excavations amplify and confirm the findings from this house. Interior features include whalebone structural supports, ochre on floors, small pits covered with bone or stone lids, and stone-lined boxes (Knudsen 2004; McCartney 1974; Dixie West personal communication 2009). Three eastern houses had shallow, clay-lined basins in the floors (Knudsen 2004; Okada et al. 1979, 1984). Raised benches were found in western Aleutian ulaˆx and at Port Moller (Okada et al. 1984; Dixie West personal communication 2009). The most important feature in Aleut houses was the hearth, an amorphous oval, 30 cm to 1.7 cm long, of burned soil, charcoal, ash, fire-cracked rocks, and burned and unburned bone. One-third of reported hearths are outlined with beach cobbles (Cook et al. 1972; Desautels et al. 1971; Knudsen 2004; Okada and Okada 1974, Okada et al. 1976, 1979, 1984).

Houses

311

Fig. 7.1 Generalized ulaˆx floor plan

The Stone-Walled Houses of the Neoglacial Stone-walled houses in Unalaska Bay are a revolutionary find from the 1990s. They had been reported earlier, but excavations at Margaret Bay and Amaknak Bridge raised them from curiosities to the defining characteristic of the Margaret Bay phase (Aigner 1978b; Dall 1872; Jochelson 2002; Knecht et al. 2001; Okada et al. 1984). These houses were built during the Neoglacial cold snap between 4230 and 2590 BP. Over 40 stone-lined houses have been excavated, 14 of them completely (Rogers 2011). In 2011, a very similar house was discovered and excavated at ADK-00237 on Adak Island (Gordaoff 2016). The houses are rectangular and average 6 by 4 m (Fig. 7.2). Excavated into the ground, a wall of exposed earth was faced with large bedrock slabs, often tapering at the bottom and set on end. Above this foundation, one to six additional layers of beach cobbles, embedded in sod, reached up to 1.5 m high. Cavities in some walls show where driftwood or whalebone supports stood. Rows of postholes in the center of the house indicate internal roof supports made of bone or wood. Hard-packed floors, often covered with red ochre, were cluttered with elaborate stone-lined hearths, subfloor

312

7 Life at Home

trenches or channels, stone pavements, rock-filled pits, shallow basins, and small storage pits (Knecht and Davis 2005; Rogers 2011). Formally constructed, stone-lined, box hearths are a prominent feature of this house type. Box hearths are constrained geographically and temporally. Appearing in Ocean Bay houses on Kodiak Island at 5600–4500 BP, these hearths are also reported

Fig. 7.2 Stone house interior features. A-A’: chimney cross-section; B-B: floor channel crosssection; C: interior wall with boulder facing; D-D’: wall cross-section; hearth with external vent

Houses

313

on Sanak around 3400 BP (Steffian 2001: 108; Reedy-Maschner and Maschner 2012). By 2000 BP, they are found from Kodiak to Port Moller, on Sanak, and west to Umnak Island. They fell out of use after 2600 BP. Stone-lined, box hearths reach their greatest elaboration at Margaret Bay (Rogers 2011). The earliest and simplest, 3700 years old, consist of a 35 × 40 cm firebox excavated into the floor, delineated by slabs, and built against the southeastern wall of a house. Sometimes a pavement of flat stones made a hard floor nearby. Later hearths became very elaborate. Channels dug under the house wall to the outside are interpreted as vents, differing from shafts considered to be chimneys, which are lined with rock and slope upwards from the hearth to the outside. In some of hearths, stone grillwork covered the firebox. Mysterious subfloor trenches, often lined with stone slabs, extend into the house from the firebox. Typically, a single channel exited the hearth, then split into a Yor V-shape. Some were divided into compartments and covered with stone slabs. Some compartments contained fish and sea mammal bone. One held a stone bowl. Their function is unknown. Some archaeologists believe these channels warmed the interior of the house, but that would vent combustion gasses and smoke into the living space (Bean et al. 2010a, b; Park 1991). More likely, they formed a cold trap that allowed for heat from the hearth, rising out of the external vent or up the chimney, to draw cold air out of the house.

Ulaagamax-Longhouses Simple longhouses, from 9 to 22 m long, form a continuum in size with ulaˆx. Longhouses average 11 to 12 m long in the western islands, increasing to 14 m on Umnak Island and 17 m on Unalaska. Large communal longhouses, or ulaagamax, appear 1500 years ago in the Near Islands and at Port Moller, and 800 years ago on the lower Alaska Peninsula (Fig. 7.3; Corbett et al. 2001; Maschner 1999a; Maschner et al. 2004; Okada and Okada 1974, Okada et al. 1976, 1979, 1984). Although examples have been excavated on Attu, Agattu, Amchitka, Atka, Umnak, Unalaska, and Port Moller, these are a poorly known house form (Corbett et al. 2001, Grayson 1969; Hrdliˇcka 1945; Jochelson 2002; Okada and Okada 1974; Okada et al. 1976, 1979, 1984; Spaulding 1962). They were probably occupied by two to four related families. Postholes for house supports are usually simple holes, but a few are ringed with cobbles. At Port Moller, the supports are more elaborate, with square holes lined with rock slabs. Subfloor pits are found in all types of houses but increase in elaboration in longhouses. Other interior subfloor pits are likely storage features. Small, 20 cm, round holes are very common. Some are lined with stone slabs and covered with a flat stone. Larger pits may be divided into compartments with whalebone or stone slabs. At Port Moller, clay-lined basins dot house floors (Okada and Okada 1974; Okada et al. 1976, 1979, 1984). Hrdliˇcka (1945: 305) reported a stone-paved bench in one longhouse on Agattu Island.

314

7 Life at Home

Near Island Chief’s Houses Another exciting discovery from the 1990s involves two chief’s longhouses from the Near Islands and Buldir (Corbett 2011). Russian explorers described the Near Island chief’s houses as being larger than those of ordinary people (Black 1984: 64). Chiefs entertained guests, housed widows and orphans, and hosted religious ceremonies in their houses. The houses were not only larger than average but were built using whale bone structural elements and incorporated rare and valuable items such as killer whale teeth and green stone points in the construction. On the Near and Rat Islands, longhouse depressions over 9 m long containing whalebone are now tentatively identified as chief’s houses (Corbett 2011; Fig. 7.3). The Buldir Island house measured 8 by 5 m and dated to between 540 and 250 BP. The Attu Island house measured 10 by 5 m and dated to 1800 and 1300 BP. Both

Fig. 7.3 Generalized simple longhouse floor plan

Houses

315

had central pits with a whale skull buried snout down in the center. Large hearths extended to the north of the whale skulls. With an entrance in the middle of the roof, the buried skulls formed the threshold of the house. The house posts consisted of whale ribs and mandibles in shallow depressions. Four intact house posts in the Buldir house were each accompanied by lavish deposits of griddle stones, sea lion scapulae, hammers and choppers, ground stone artifacts, caches of long, narrow knife/point blades on green stone, a decorated stone lamp, and a killer whale tooth. Excavators found tightly bundled human burials with each post. The one excavated and analyzed burial was a tightly flexed bundle of two individuals so closely intermingled they could only have been buried together. One was a young adult of undetermined sex, and the second was an infant. It is tempting to interpret this double burial as a young mother and her baby (Corbett 2011; West et al. 1997). In the Attu house, at Murder Point, ATU-00014, the weight of a wooden post left a circular impression on two flat whalebone planks. Eighty whole and broken parallel-sided projectile points of green stone surrounded the planks. Underneath, an eagle and sea otter had been buried together. Surrounding the post were griddle stones, a sea lion scapula, whale vertebrae, and a killer whale tooth. After the Attu house post was dismantled, a heap of burned whalebone had been piled over the foundation (Corbett 2011).

Peninsula-Style Longhouses Sometimes called “Nucleus Satellite complexes,” these are found from the Delarof Islands to Chignik Bay (CHK-00042; Corbett 1993: USBIA 1991). Peninsula-style longhouses comprise half the visible houses in sites on the lower Alaska Peninsula and Unimak Island. The main house ranges from 5.2 to 31.2 m long, averaging 11.2 m. This type of house appeared around 500 years ago during the Morshovoi Phase (450–100 BP; Maschner 1999a). Peninsula-style houses have a rectangular main room with two to 13 smaller attached side rooms, or agayaˆx, measuring 2 to 4 square meters. Although not the most common or typical house, these large longhouses described and illustrated by Captain Cook’s expedition artist John Webber define the popular image of Aleutian houses (Webber 1778). Webber’s drawing shows a house with a large room with three galˆgiˆx and a single notched log ladder for entry. The room is ringed with a shallow trench and bounded by qixyan, scaffolding at head height that provided storage for rolled mats, bundles of grass, and stores of dried foods. Women would sit in the trench in their individual compartments, working. Five Peninsula-style longhouses have been excavated on Unalaska, Unimak, and Chernabura Islands (Fig. 7.4). Regardless of size, they share a similar internal organization. Immediately inside the exterior walls is a trench 1 m wide and 20 cm deep (Hoffman 2002: 225; Mooney 1993: 107; Veltre and McCartney 2001: 99; Wilmerding 2005: 250). This trenched area with associated qixyan was partitioned off into family-owned compartments by walls of matting. Toward the house center,

316

7 Life at Home

Fig. 7.4 Generalized Peninsula longhouse floor plan

posts of whale bone or logs supported the roof. Large post-holes reach 60 cm deep. At Reese Bay, UNL-00063, house posts were supported on boulders with pecked basins in the top (Mooney 1993: 81–84; Veltre and McCartney 2001: 96). Two to four families shared each common hearth near the midline of the house. Hearths included a complex of related features, including rock-lined basins, smaller basins, piles of fire-altered rock, and ancillary hearths (Hoffman 2002: 225–226; Wilmerding 2005: 254). Rock-lined basins approximately 1 m across, with sides and bottom lined with beach cobbles, were filled with burned grass and charcoal. In one, remains of a sea lion flipper and ribs support the interpretation that these were roasting pits for meat (Hoffman 2002: 227–230; Wilmerding 2005: 252). Basins from 50 cm across and 20 cm deep to 1.3 m across and 60 cm deep may have had multiple functions. They were found filled with charcoal-rich soil, layers of sand and charcoal, fish bones, and charred crowberry leaves. Lined with a waterproof skin, they could have been used for stone-boiling food. Near one example at Agayadan, UNI-00067, a hearth covered with round, grapefruit-sized beach cobbles could have

Houses

317

provided red-hot rocks for stone-boiling, for adding to roasting pits, or for leaving on coals in order to release heat through a night (Hoffman 2002: 227). Around the hearths, clusters of griddle stones, cutting boards, food refuse, needles, flaking debris, flake and slab tools, abraders, and hammerstones reflect activity areas used by individual families (Hoffman 2002: 244–249; Mooney 1993: 134, 142; Veltre and McCartney 2001: 99). Between the hearths and the trench, each family built and used between two and eight storage pits. At Agayadan, bottle-shaped storage pits with bulbous chambers and narrow necks excavated into the firm, sandy floor were clearly defined (Hoffman 2002: 293–296). These were lined with fine gray sand and covered with a stone or bone lid. At Nunik, conical holes up to 30 cm deep were filled with trash (Wilmerding 2005: 253). Pocket middens, of bone and shell, filled holes 15 to 20 cm across and 20 cm deep covered with stone or bone lids (Wilmerding 2005: 253). Agayaˆx, side rooms, joined to family compartments by a tunnel through the house wall, define Peninsula-style houses. Agayaˆx were used as storage space, sleeping areas, burial chambers, and for the seclusion of women in ritually impure states due to menstruation, childbirth, or mourning. Five side rooms were excavated or tested at Reese Bay (Mooney 1993: 132–139). The superstructures appeared to be largely whalebone with skulls and mandibles forming roofs. Floors were paved with flagstones or flat pieces of wood or bone. In general, artifacts were scarce. One side room held clusters of beads, flakes, and bone chips. Another held a scatter of griddle stones and a floor pit. Two contained three complete lamps. These rooms may have been used by women in seclusion. The fifth room contained a burial of two seated, flexed individuals who had fallen on their sides (Mooney 1993: 132, 135, 143–145). Also in this room, but with uncertain relationship to the burials, were lamps, bead and flake clusters, amber, and a lead musket ball. Two side rooms off the medium house at Agayadan were tested, both having been exposed by erosion of the bluff face. One contained the extended burial of two men (Hoffman 2002: 81). The second held at least eight adult burials, jumbled and mixed, likely the victims of a Russian massacre (Hoffman 2002: 80–81, 188–195).

Unalaska Style Longhouses Unalaska style longhouses are known only from Umnak and the western Unalaska Islands. They are the largest and most elaborately shaped features in western Alaska. The smallest was 10 m long, and the largest reached 60 m. The most prominent characteristic is their shape. By connecting two or more simple longhouses, Unalaska style houses formed H, T, L, and I-shaped structures (USBIA 1985; Fig. 7.5). A single longhouse sheltered an entire village, 30–45 families, possibly 180–270 people (Georgi 1780: 214; Veniaminov 1984: 258). These are known only from surface investigations, none have ever been excavated. Nothing is known about their interior

318

7 Life at Home

Fig. 7.5 Outlines of Unalaska style longhouses

layout, and design, or their historical development. It is likely they date to within the last 500 years. Distribution of the different house forms, like the stylistic variation in harpoon points and fishhooks, can provide information on past social and ideological structures. For most of Unangaˆx history people lived in small, single-family ulaˆx. The development of large multi-family houses signaled a fundamental shift in all aspects of life from household management, subsistence, politics, social organization, and even religious ideology. With very few exceptions, none of these ramifications have been explored (Maschner 1999b; Maschner and Hoffman 2003).

Izembek Whalebone House McCartney (1974) excavated a unique whalebone house at XCB-00003 at Izembek Lagoon. It was roughly oval, 2 by 6 m across, with a lower wall composed of about 1000 boulders carried up from the beach. The walls and roof were framed with 16 pairs of large baleen whale mandibles. It presumably had a roof entry. The house dates to between 1000 and 390 BP (Maschner et al. 2004). This structure is unique in the whole of western Alaska. In may have been built by a blended family of locals and immigrants from Bristol Bay (Maschner et al. 2004: 106).

A Map of Domestic Life

319

Barabaras, Yurts, and Kasamax Arrival of the Russians caused changes in house forms and function across the Aleutian Chain. The Russians called the large communal ulaagamax “yurtas” and smaller houses, ulaˆx, were called “barabara” (Veniaminov 1984: 262–263). In the eastern Aleutians, barabaras were summer houses. House forms in the Unalaska District changed in 1805 when Company Manager Rezanov ordered the communal houses abandoned and that new dwellings not be excavated so deeply into the earth (Black 1991: 490; Veniaminov 1984: 264). All traditional earth-covered dwellings then became barabaras. Instead of digging down, people stacked sod up around the outside walls, creating earthen berms. Windows of mica, glass, or sea mammal intestine were set into one end of the house. In the opposite wall was the low and narrow door. Barabaras were divided into a front antechamber, used as storehouse and kitchen. The larger back room was the family’s private space. Platforms about 30 cm high lined the walls and served as sofas, chairs, and beds. Roof and wall supports were planed smooth, and interior walls and ceilings were faced with boards (Veniaminov 1984: 264). Russian company settlements usually included kazarmy, or barracks. These were similar to the large ulaagamax, and were built for several families or hunting parties. The kazarmy had a window in one end wall, a door at the other end, and hatches in the roof to let in light. Historic period settlements can be identified by the presence of depressions with raised berms, side entries, and interior divisions. The distribution of these historic house styles is often the only information available on Russian period hunting camps and settlements.

A Map of Domestic Life Houses reflect fundamental social concepts about how an orderly, rational universe functions. They embody the relationships among the people living in them. Reports from five excavations can be used to speculate on activities and relationships within three types of houses: the Amchitka ulaˆx, the Umnak and Unalaska stone-walled houses, and the Peninsula-style ulaagamax on Unalaska and Unimak (Aigner 1978b; Cook et al. 1972; Gordaoff 2016; Hoffman 2002). The Amchitka ulaˆx was a single-family house (Fig. 7.1). To the south of the hearth, which was on the west side of the house, were found a knife, four awls, six stone and bone projectile points, several bone wedges, a toy toggling harpoon, and a deciduous tooth. This appears to be the main work space within the house. North of the hearth were thinly scattered stone flakes, wood chips, bone and wood harpoon points, whetstones, an awl, knife, hammerstone, scraper, and labret. The southeast corner had the fewest artifacts and features; it may have been a sleeping area. To the excavators, these findings indicated a “cohesive family unit and little male–female

320

7 Life at Home

separation within the dwelling” (Cook et al. 1972: 96). The house probably belonged to a husband and wife with at least one young boy. The number of stone-walled houses excavated allows a relatively detailed look at family structure. At Chaluka, the hearth, two roasting pits, compartmented storage box, stone pavement, and array of small pits clearly define the cooking area in the northwestern corner (Aigner 1978b). Along the eastern edge of the house, crowded with features and tools, three work areas could be defined. A small stone-lined box in the northeastern corner was associated with six awls and a possible lamp. In the southeast corner were more small depressions, 22 awls, and several needles and abraders plus an upturned stone lamp next to the wall. These are usually considered women’s tools. The floor was stained with patches of red ochre, one over 1 cm thick. Between these two corners was a concentration of projectile points and knives, usually considered male tools. This may represent a home with at least one adult male and two adult women in residence. One of the women, with a smaller number and variety of tools, may have been a junior wife, or perhaps an older daughter (Fig. 7.2). In House 7 at Amaknak Bridge, hearth channels separate the northeast and southeast corners from the rest of the house (Knecht and Davis 2005). A major concentration of awls, needles, scrapers, and knives in the southeast corner, and a smaller concentration of similar artifacts to the northeast, suggest women’s work areas. In the northwest corner, farthest from the hearth, clusters of points, scrapers, retouched blades, knives, and bone tools indicate a male work area. Perhaps the senior woman occupied the southeast corner with a junior wife or daughter(s) in the northeast. At least one male worked in the northwestern part of the house, maybe with some sons. The house at ADK-00237 had been cleaned before it was abandoned, so evidence was sparse, but around the hearth complex in the northwest were women’s objects such as lamps, griddles, unifacial tools, an abrader, and hematite. A second possible female activity area centered on subfloor Pit C, in the middle of the floor, with griddles, a biface, and engravers. The southwest corner had the densest cluster of artifacts, including multiple flakes, ochre, an abrader, and an anvil; this was possibly a male activity area (Gordaoff 2016). As in the Amchitka ulaˆx, there is no sharp division between men and women in these three single-family dwellings. Interior arrangements of the three Peninsula-style longhouses at Agayadan and the one on Unalaska were similar (Hoffman 2002; Mooney 1993). The central floor was relatively free of subfloor features and is interpreted as common area. Wide, shallow trenches along the walls were more private, family space (Fig. 7.4). At Reese Bay, family spaces were defined by the large house posts and the distribution of 12 complete lamps along the trench. Thirty-eight sewing and stone-working activity areas were identified: 17 in the main room, nine at the northeast end, and nine in the side rooms. If the 12 complete lamps and the 17 overlapping activity areas represent families, there were 12–17 adult women present. In the northeastern corner, a copper kettle, three of seven metal finger rings, a labret, and a concentration of hearths, storage pits, and a rock-lined pit may indicate an elite family compartment with more than one adult woman, either older daughters, other related dependents of the family head, or slaves.

Four Genders

321

At Agayadan, two to seven activity areas, indicating two to seven families, were identified in each house. Two or three families shared a hearth, but most domestic activities were undertaken by the individual families. Artifacts found in the work areas include evidence of stone toolmaking and use, sewing, and food storage. Within a family’s private compartments, gendered divisions of labor were not rigidly segregated. Within the large communal dwelling, families remained economically independent and had equivalent access to basic resources and raw materials.

Four Genders Gender is a basic organizing principle of traditional societies, and Aleuts clearly defined men and women’s roles and tasks. A gendered division of labor assigns training for specialized skills and knowledge to defined individuals and designates the authority for decision-making to those individuals (Frink 2009). The genders are complementary, and each is vital to proper societal function. Aleuts recognized four: anˆgaˆginaˆx (woman, somebody, person), tayaˆguˆx (man, human being), tayaˆgiiˆguˆx (woman transformed into man), and aayagiiˆguˆx (man transformed into woman; Bergsland 1994: 74, 116, 395). Aside from the recorded term, there are no descriptions of a tayaˆgiiˆguˆx or his role. Lacking an English equivalent, aayagiiˆguˆx is usually translated as transvestite, homosexual, or hermaphrodite. None of these are accurate. Aayagiiˆguˆx are morphological males who do not fill male social roles. Known from around the world, such transformed individuals typically serve as mediators between men and women, and between physical and spiritual worlds. They are often shamans who possess esoteric knowledge (Crowell and Leer 2001: 208; Crowell and Lührmann 2001: 45; Nanda 2014). Hostility from missionaries squelched the institution of the aayagiiˆguˆx. The practice was described as a sexual perversion: “They formerly used to keep objects of unnatural affection and dress these boys like women” (Sauer 1802: 160). Being an aayagiiˆguˆx is not a choice; it is the individual’s true nature, revealed during puberty. The transformation cannot be compelled. In “Iqitaqangulux,” a man attempts to raise a boy as a “weakling” (kayutulagaaˆxtaˆx ). The effort fails when the boy grows into a strong man (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 387–389). The social and economic roles of the four genders were necessary and complementary. Learning their proper roles and performing them competently required a lifetime of learning and practice under the watchful eye of older relatives and mentors. Although we know almost nothing of the roles played by tayaˆgiiˆguˆx and aayagiiˆguˆx, all four contributed to a completely functioning human society. Each gender was also crucial to maintaining relationships between humanity and the natural/spiritual world on which they depended. In folklore, aayagiiˆguˆx are sometimes depicted as incompetent weaklings and cowards. In “Achxayachaning,” a boy despised by his uncles for being manˆxilaken, “sensitive to cold” is cared for surreptitiously by their wives. This story suggests the lot of an aayagiiˆguˆx was not always pleasant. It may also imply access to

322

7 Life at Home

hidden knowledge (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 432–433). Manˆxilix is “to be smart, to know how to do things,” (though manˆxilaken means the opposite; Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 273). This impression is strengthened in the Charm Seeker, a man, “that weakling” (manˆgitalgaqaayulux) who steals hunting charms by outwitting a cannibal family. Returning with charms allows him to successfully bring game home (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 89–91). A double burial on Unimak Island held remains from two adult men. Individual One was a robust male, probably killed in a raid by Kodiak Islanders (Hoffman 2002: 105–108). A less robust male, Individual Two, was disturbed by erosion, and little could be recovered. Completely speculatively, this may represent a burial of an aayagiiˆguˆx.

A Woman’s Work Is Never Done Women’s work was as vital as men’s work to the well-being of society. Women hunted and fished, gathered plants and shellfish, prepared and preserved food, and processed raw materials for use as clothing, tools, and household goods. Women made tools of bone, stone, and wood. They made cordage, ranging from silken threads of sinew to cables for towing whales. Baskets and clothing were warm, dry, comfortable, and spectacularly beautiful, with intricate skin working and woven and embroidered decoration. Women acted as midwives and shamans. Their behavior attracted and pleased animal spirits, directly contributing to their husbands’ successes as hunters. Women created luxury goods used by their fathers and husbands for political gain (Frink et al. 1996). Training began young. Girls’ toys and games are almost completely undocumented. Small lamps and ulus may be girls’ tools. Dolls were important in all Alaskan cultures, but we know almost nothing about Aleut dolls. On Kodiak, they were a link between ancestors and the living, representing unborn souls wanting to be born (Crowell and Leer 2001: 195; Steffian et al. 2015: 264). Girls could not play with dolls between mid-winter and spring, nor could they take them outside until birds were heard singing, or else winter would not end. At puberty the girls gave their dolls away (Crowell and Leer 2001: 206; Crowell and Lührmann 2001: 45). Women also played Iimaqluudaˆx (Attuan chiˆganamasikaˆx ), or cat’s cradle, the making of string patterns. Seven string patterns are recorded for the Near Islanders (Jochelson 1933). Essentially entering a lifelong apprenticeship to older women, girls were taught by mothers, aunts, and grandmothers (Veniaminov 1984: 191). In addition to moral instruction, girls were taught sewing, weaving, embroidery, plant lore, and fish and game processing. By the time a girl was five, she could make thread and sew clothing for her dolls. Girls practiced cutting and drying fish they caught themselves on reefs (Alice Petrivelli personal communication). They married only after they were capable of managing a household, around the age of 13 or 14. Routine housekeeping chores, such as collecting water and wood, and cleaning, were for slaves.

A Woman’s Work Is Never Done

323

Lamps A woman’s most important possession was her lamp which, like a house, was a sentient being with a soul. Lamps “are one of the most ancient and enduring pieces of technology” in the Arctic (Steffian 2001: 108) an iconic manifestation of InuitUnangaˆx culture. Domestic life focused on the lamp and its light and warmth. As with so much of traditional Aleut life, specific information on lamps is scattered and sparse, with references indicating attitudes and use were analogous to the Koniag and Yup’ik (Crowell and Lührmann 2001; Jochelson 2002; Laughlin 1980; Steffian 2001; Turner 2008). Tending the lamp is a sacred rite. In Yup’ik culture, women’s care of fire was crucial to the human/animal relationship. When not in use, lamps were stored upside down so the spirit would not depart (Haakanson and Steffian 2004). When unbroken lamps are found upside down in Aleut houses, archaeologists assume similar care, for similar reasons, was extended to the Aleut lamp. Through her lamp, a woman was “the fire that was to welcome her husband to his home” (Turner 2008: 186). Lamps were made by men (Jochelson 2002; Laughlin 1980). A basic, serviceable lamp could be made in half an hour (de Beaune and White 1993). During courtship, a young man would set a small lit lamp in front of a young woman. If she kept the flame alive, she accepted him. When a young woman married, other women gave her a stone lamp to show community approval of the marriage (Turner 2008). Large lamps, hixtaˆx, were used for light and warmth (Hrdliˇcka 1945; Jochelson 2002). To get the best light and to minimize smoke, dried grass wicks, hiniˆx, needed constant tending (Lewis 1904). Well-trimmed flames could reach 2.5 to 5 cm (1–2 inches) high, producing light equivalent to three or four kerosene lamps (Hough 1898). Maintaining a clear, clean flame was a skill perfected only by older women. Men rarely tended lamps, and if one did, he used a stick to adjust the wick and did not touch the oil (Laughlin 1980). During festivals, ixtax with several wicks were lit. Presumably most lamps sat on the floor, but lampstands of whalebone or wood are known. Sometimes lamps were set on a grass ring keep them level and absorb oil (Hudson 1992). Individuals stood over small lamps, anguˆx, in their long parkas “to warm oneself over a lamp,” hiniˆx (Bergsland 1994: 90). Anguˆx were set before guests seated in a house (Bergsland 1994; Bergsland and Dirks 1990; Hrdliˇcka 1945; Turner 2008). Sick people were sweated the same way, by placing a lit lamp under clothing. Hunters carried small lamps and hixtusis, a “means for making fire,” made of pounded seal blubber wrapped with grass, in their boats to warm themselves (Bergsland 1994: 175). A hunter’s anguˆx often had a handle or ear for a lanyard to fasten to a belt. To make lamp oil, blubber was pounded with hand sized cobble hammers or rendered using heat (Veltre and Veltre 1982). The less connective tissue, the cleaner the oil burned. Midalilix means “to remove the fat layer” from skins, and fat used for lamp oil is midaˆx (Bergsland 1994: 276). The simplest lamps were flat stone slabs on which oil-soaked grass or a piece of fat with a wick were burned (Hough 1898; Hrdliˇcka 1945; Odgaard 2003). Rock

324

7 Life at Home

slabs showing signs of burning or encrusted with burned fat, usually identified as griddle stones, are common in every Aleutian site. As lamps, these work, but they are inefficient and wasteful (Pressley 1996). The earliest items that may have served as lamps, from Anangula, have been consistently described as bowls. Two fragments are illustrated (Aigner 1972: 69, Fig. 18, 1977). Both are oval or round with shallow reservoirs. These are similar to a fragment from Margaret Bay level 5 (5250 ± 70 BP), a 9 cm-long oval, carved stone lamp with walls 1.5 cm wide and about 1 cm deep. The shallow reservoir is flat-bottomed (Knecht et al. 2001). Boulder lamps, oval with a convex bottom and a shallow reservoir with low walls and flat rims, appeared nearly 4000 years ago on Kodiak Island (Dumond 1987). Aleutian boulder lamps have a simple, even crude, appearance. Their shape was determined by the original beach cobble selected for manufacture. They range from 5 cm to over a meter (2 inches to over 3 feet) across. Most were made on oval cobbles, with a shallow reservoir pecked into one surface (Denniston 1966; Hrdliˇcka 1945; Jochelson 2002; Tuner 2008). If a serviceable natural depression existed, the cobble could be completely unmodified. Pecked reservoirs usually have clear, sloping sides, and measurable depth (McLain 1998). About half the lamps were shaped to sit flat. A few have angular or “pointed” bottoms and must have set in cavities or on a lampstand or aaluuyaˆx (McLain 1998). Sadiron lamps, named for their resemblance to antique clothes irons, are a late and rare style. Only seven are known. They are low and narrow with a flat bottom, triangular outline, and trapezoidal cross-section. All interior and exterior surfaces are finely worked and smoothly ground. The reservoir is triangular and shallow, with a sloping wick holder at the apex. Hrdliˇcka (1945) called them Kashega style lamps. He found a single example at the historic village at Kashega, UNL-00003, and one each on Amaknak Island, Shiprock (UNL-00001), and Agattu Island. Desautels and his colleagues (1971) described three on Amchitka, all from the surface of RAT-00036. This lamp style is also found on Kamchatka in Itel’men sites around Kuril Lake and Osernaya, along with eleventh century Japanese coins. Sadiron lamps may indicate a period of circum-north Pacific cultural connections beginning around 1000 years ago (deLaguna 1940; Hough 1898; Quimby 1946).

Food Preparing, sharing, and eating food are the foundation of family and social life. In every recorded traditional culture, women prepare and cook family meals. Traditional foods are an important part of modern Unangax identity and cultural maintenance. Veniaminov (1984) wrote it was impossible to define a staple of the traditional Aleut diet. He then identifies two: chaduˆx “oil” and qaˆx a word meaning both fish and “to eat.”

A Woman’s Work Is Never Done

325

With seal oil “anything can be eaten, roots, kelp, mollusks, yukola and straps” (Veniaminov 1984 [1840]: 277). Without oil, people sickened and died. In meatdependent diets, humans acquire up to 70% of their calories from fat (Damas 1984; Wrangham 2009). Sea mammal oil, was an integral part of every meal. Uchˆxulix and uchuqulil mean to dip meat into seal oil (Bergsland 1994: 413). Oil was rendered from seals, sea lions, whales, and possibly sharks and fish (Jochelson 1933; Veltre and Veltre 1983). Producing sea mammal oil is simple. Blubber is cut into pieces and packed into pokes, whole sea mammal skins prepared as containers. Sea lion oil was stored in sea lion pokes, and seal oil went into seal pokes. The unsaturated oil oozes out of the blubber over a period of several weeks (Fienup-Riordan 1994; Veltre and Veltre 1983). Some people liked aged oil, chadum chaknaa, which was also valuable as medicine among the Yup’ik (Fienup-Riordan 1994). If chadum chaknaa was desired, rendering took place in a warm and dark spot (Veltre and Veltre 1982). Sea lion oil kept longer than seal oil, but seal oil was thinner and clearer (Veltre and Veltre 1983). What is Blubber? Blubber is a complex tissue of layered fat, connective tissue, and blood vessels found between the skin and muscles of most sea mammals (Iverson and Koopman 2018). The blubber layer ranges from 5 to 60 cm (2 inches to 2 feet) thick in large whales, and can comprise up to 50% of the animal’s weight. Collagen, a fibrous protein make the blubber layer stiff and tough, but flexible. This reinforces the skeleton and muscles and helps support large marine mammals. The fat cells store different kinds of fats and oils, many unsaturated and high in Omega-3 fatty acids. These vary at different places the body, and in different layers of the blubber. Unsaturated fats in the blubber means the oil will ooze out of blubber with no heat or pressure needed to extract it. A rich network of blood vessels regulates animals’ body temperature in cold waters. When marine mammals dive, blood vessels constrict and blood flow slows, retaining body heat. Blubber also adds buoyancy to an animal. Finally, blubber stores food energy in animals that may go months without feeding during migrations. Blubber is a critical element of traditional Arctic diets. A high meat diet requires carbohydrates or fat to provide energy for metabolism (Damas 1984). Fat provides up to 70% of the calories in a traditional diet. Blubber also provides vitamins A, D and E, and minerals such as selenium (Nutritiondata 2011). Stone pots, round to sub-rectangular and up to 45 cm in diameter and 10 to 12 cm deep, are a defining characteristic of the Margaret Bay Phase. All dated examples are from 3000 to 4000 BP or older. They have been found at Anangula, Chaluka, Amaknak Bridge, Tanaxtaxax, and on Amchitka (Aigner 1977, 1983b; Desautels et al. 1971; Knecht and Davis 2003, 2005; Knecht et al. 2001; Laughlin 1955: 39– 40; Laughlin and Aigner 1975; McLain 1998). Admiraal and Knecht (2019: 107)

326

7 Life at Home

consider the 8000 BP stone bowl fragment from Anangula the “earliest evidence of container technologies in North America.” Analysis of residues left on the bowls suggests they were used to render sea mammal oil, possibly by simmering in water (Admiraal et al. 2019; Admiraal and Knecht 2019). Veniaminov (1984) listed the six best Aleut foods: crowberries with fat, fermented seasonal fish heads, fermented fish roe, halibut heads and fatty parts, a small seaweed or sea lettuce, called nura by Russian speakers or iiquˆx in Unangam tunuu (Geoghegan 1944: 111; Bergsland 1994: 210), cooked with fat, and dried fish with whale blubber. Halibut cheeks are still a delicacy in Alaska. Firm and sweet, they resemble scallops. The first dish, “crowberries with fat beaten until white” (Veniaminov 1984: 277), is the classic Alaska Native “ice cream.” The Unangaˆx version is taaˆguˆx. Mainland Alaska versions include caribou tallow pounded until smooth and creamy and then whipped with seal oil and fresh berries until glossy white and fluffy. Boiled and shredded whitefish or cooked greens may also be added. In lieu of caribou tallow, Aleuts used boned, mashed, or boiled fish as the base of taaˆguˆx, whipping in berries and seal oil. Boiled and mashed milt, qutuˆgnaˆx, could be added to the fish, or mashed cod livers used as a substitute (Hudson 2005). In a version from Atka, pulverized sarana or chocolate lily roots are mixed with sea mammal oil (Black 1984). The second dish, fermented fish heads, is another classic Alaska recipe, commonly called “stinkheads.” Salmon heads are cleaned, wrapped in long grass, and buried in cool, moist, but well drained pits for four to six weeks. Salmon livers and roe sacks may be included. Aerobic fermentation takes place slowly and at low temperatures. In the process, the bones soften so they are edible, and the calcium becomes accessible to people. Fermented roe skeins dry and become firm while the insides soften. Veniaminov (1984: 277) considered fermented fish heads and roe excellent eating “which even one accustomed to Russian cooking will not refuse.” A single evening meal was the norm (Veniaminov 1984). To dine, people sat on luux, grass mats, on the floor. Food was served from a cooking pot or from wooden serving platters called kalukaˆx (Suvorov and Yatchmeneff 1976). A mid-1800s ivory carving shows two men with spoons sharing a meal from a square dish (Varjola 1990). Personal utensils included two or three plates, chahmaˆx, or bowls, chaˆxsaaluˆx, a spoon, chaˆxsaasiˆx, and a knife (Veniaminov 1984: 280). Bentwood bowls, baskets, or whale vertebra epiphyses served as plates and bowls (Bank 1959; McLain 1998). Shells could be used as spoons or dippers, chalaˆgiˆx (Bergsland 1994). Utensils may have had different shapes or construction based on gender. For example, on Kodiak Island, men’s bowls were round and animal-shaped, while women’s bowls were oval (Crowell and Lührmann. 2001: 43). Yup’ik men’s bowls were carved from a single piece of wood, while women’s bowls had detachable bottoms (Fienup-Riordan 2007). Serving and eating vessels were cleaned with grass and stored upside down (Fienup-Riordan 2007). Household domestic utensils included “one or two flasks [agdaaˆx ] with bone tubes [chuˆxchugasiˆx ] for water” (Veniaminov 1984: 280). Water was carried and stored in bladders, taangadgusiˆx, but Attuans made wooden kegs (Black 1984). Shell dippers, amluusiˆx, were used to scoop water out of streams into containers.

A Woman’s Work Is Never Done

327

A wide variety of techniques were used to preserve foods and enhance their nutritive value. Traditional food preparation takes great skill and knowledge. Preparation depended on the age, condition, and sex of each animal or plant as well as on seasonal and weather conditions. Women spent a lifetime honing food-handling skills. Traditional food preparation began immediately after harvest. Plants and animals were cleaned and cut, then underwent extensive processing. Explorers emphasized Aleut reliance on raw foods. This was a common trope to portray newly discovered people as uncivilized. There is no human society which does not cook food (Wrangham 2009). Cooked food is biologically necessary for humans. Our teeth, jaws, stomachs, and intestinal tracts are ill-equipped for digesting raw meat and coarse vegetation. Even with abundant high-quality food, the raw food diets in vogue at the time of this writing are incapable of supporting a healthy human. It would have been impossible for Aleuts to maintain their highly active lifestyle in a cold, wet environment without cooked and prepared foods. Drying, smoking, and fermenting, allowed the food to be eaten with no further preparation. These may have been mistaken for raw food. Still, Aleuts did eat many foods raw. Like Japanese sashimi, fish was savored fresh and raw. Seal liver, soaked overnight in freshwater, and heart, soaked in salt water, is still a delicacy (Hudson 1992; Veltre and Veltre 1983). Hard blubber, altiˆx, from beneath seal and sea lion flippers (isuˆgim altii, qawam altii) as well as whale skin could also be eaten raw. Plant fruits, stems, and leaves, as well as invertebrates, were often eaten as they were collected. The main meal of the day was most likely a soup, ugutanaˆx, “what makes one feel good” (Bergsland 1994: 421). Half-dried fish, salmon and halibut heads, and sea lion and seal meat were stewed with roots and greens. Blubber and/or blood from sea mammals enriched and thickened soups. The meat was cooked until barely warm by European standards (Veniaminov 1984: 278). More elaborate dishes included sea lion or fur seal flippers jelled by slow cooking for hours with vegetables, and seal lungs soaked in freshwater and stuffed with blubber (Litke 1987; Veltre and Veltre 1983). Silver salmon stuffed with fish eggs, and cod and halibut stuffed with fish livers were types of fresh sausage (Ransom 1946; Veltre and Veltre 1983). An’giˆx, amaˆx, a fresh sausage of small intestines of young seals interlaced with strips of blubber and “braided using two fingers,” was boiled and sliced for serving (Bergsland 1994: 72; Dan Prokopeoff personal communication.) Cooking was synonymous with boiling: unalix, to cook, to boil; qangalix, to be cooked, boiled; qangatuˆx, to cook, boil (Bergsland 1994: 309, 443). Most common was stone-boiling, qangudgun, where suitable stones were placed in a fire to heat, taken from the fire using tongs, sulaatiˆx, cleaned by a quick dip in water, and placed in a container filled with liquid and food. As the rocks cooled, cooks replaced them with fresh hot ones. Food was stirred with a misaasiˆx, or an uunmakliisiˆx. Cooking generally took place in bentwood boxes on Kodiak Island (Crowell and Lührmann 2001: 39; Lee and Reinhardt 2003). Shallow depressions inside Unangaˆx houses could have been lined with a hide or stomach to hold food and liquid. Near Islanders used grass bags for cooking meat (Black 1984).

328

7 Life at Home

Four cobbles, each 20 cm across, will bring one gallon of liquid to a boil (Shantry 2020). When repeated heating and rapid cooling eventually caused cooking stones to break, they were discarded. Such fire-cracked rock is a persistent background presence in midden excavations. On Unimak Island at UNI-00067, one hearth was covered with grapefruit-sized cobbles, many showing heat alteration. This is the clearest evidence to date for the practice of stone-boiling foods. Far less commonly, food was dipped into hot springs, qalun (Cherepanov 1759 in Andreev 1948: 25). Depending on the heat of the spring, foods could be cooked very quickly. Utuˆxsix, cooking (seal meat) “in a pit (in sand) on hot rocks covered with wet moss or grass” (Bergsland 1994: 455) is useful for slow cooking foods in large quantities, consistent with communal cooking of large pieces of fat-rich meat. This type of cooking was only recently recognized by archaeologists. At Agayadan, two shallow pits near hearths are described as roasting pits (Hoffman 2002). The pits covered 2 to 3 m square and were lined with burned rock and filled with charcoal and additional rock. One of them held sea lion flipper and rib bones. The hearth in HH-02, from Port Moller, is described as having three layers of burnt stones overlying it, along with more stones on the northern edge. The excavators speculated that this represented a steam bath; however, it is more likely a roasting pit similar to those at Agayadan (Okada et al. 1976). A possible roasting pit is reported at Nunik, in the Shumagin Islands (Wilmerding 2005: 253). This type of feature and cooking method has not been reported for other parts of the Aleutian Islands. Roasting and frying were also known. Near Island Aleuts reportedly spit-roasted meats (Black 1984). Elsewhere, fish were impaled on sticks, adagasiˆx, and roasted. Frying food or “sizzling” on heated stone slabs is adaxsix, or chuuxsix (Bergsland 1994: 11, 150). Early explorers described cooking on stone slabs, chungluˆx or griddle stones, smeared with clay (Black 1984; Jochelson 2002). Dried red salmon, salmon milt, codfish bladders, and the soft parts of cod heads were fried, as were young sea lion heart, tongue, and liver. Strips of seal meat, soaked in salt water and then dried, were also fried (Ransom 1946). Analysis of residues on griddle stones shows they were used to cook a variety of foods, including sea mammal meat, fish, and even plants (Admiraal et al. 2019). Griddle stones, chungluˆx, chuugidaˆx, and chugiqaatraˆx, “flat piece of stone resting on two rocks over a fire for cooking meat, fish…” (Berglsand 1994: 151) are ubiquitous in sites but have rarely been systematically recorded. They are flat slabs of coarse dacite porphyry or hornblende andesite, moderately hard rocks, with a flaggy cleavage, that break flat (Corbett et al. 2010). The average chungluˆx is 13 by 9 cm while the largest recorded is 49 cm long and 29 cm wide. The rock naturally breaks into roughly geometrical shapes. More than half the chungluˆx show signs of burning on one or both sides. Excavations at Zeto Point, Adak Island, yielded two concentrations of chungluˆx that demonstrate their use. In Pit 1, 124 chungluˆx were stacked together in small piles within a large pile of cockles (Clinocardium spp.) The excavators speculated that people had used the chungluˆx to steam the cockles as in a New England clambake. In Pit 2, 337 chungluˆx were arranged in rows, standing on end and leaning against each other, like trays on a shelf. Three hearths were surrounded and almost buried

A Woman’s Work Is Never Done

329

in chungluˆx. Bones of at least two harbor seals, two sea otters, and several alcids, albatrosses, storm-petrels, shearwaters, cormorants, and the cockles, and chitons were mixed into the piles (Corbett pers obs). This was clearly the scene of a large communal feast. Over 105 chungluˆx were found in the postholes of the Buldir Island whalebone house (Corbett 2011). They are among the largest specimens recorded. Two specimens near post 3 are over 40 cm long. Clearly, the chungluˆx were carefully selected and had an obvious function supporting the posts. Their association with whalebone posts and a host of other offerings in the house hints at a deeper meaning. Burying chungluun in a house foundation harnessed the spiritual power of these stones to protect the house and its inhabitants. Several stories illustrate the power inherent in chungluˆx. In “The Village Named Iilngan,” a hero uses chungluˆx to destroy demons (qugan) who have taken over his village (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 378–380). When hit with the stones, the demons die instantly. In another story, Koniag Lad uses chungluu to kill a murderous giant woman (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 316– 323). In yet another, a chungluˆx magic protector helps a man overcome Summer Face Woman (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 232–234). Baking in an oven, qangayaluˆx, was introduced by the Russians. At the Zapadni Site, XPI-00007, on St. Paul Island in the Pribilof Islands, excavators identified ovens built of beach cobbles in two structures (Pendleton 2008). Both were within single room features not likely to be dwellings. In one of these structures, artifacts included ceramics, metal utensils, trade beads and buttons, worked wood, bone, ivory and stone. Some techniques were used to both “cook” foods for eating and to preserve them for storage. “The only possible method of fish preservation is by [air] drying” (Veniaminov 1984: 276). Hudaˆxsil “to make dry fish or meat” (Bergsland 1994: 415) in the wet, cool climate is a challenge. Fish and meat must be cleaned quickly and cut to expose as much meat as possible to the air (Pearson 2007). Fish was the most commonly dried food (Hrdliˇcka 1945; Schlung 2003; Veniaminov 1984). It was prepared for drying by removing the backbone while keeping the two filets connected at the tail so it could be draped over poles (Black 1984; Suvorov and Yatchmeneff 1976; Turner 2008; Veltre and Veltre 1982). Filets are sliced across their width at a slight angle to allow the meat to hang free. Cool, windy days are best (Veltre and Veltre 1982). Cod heads are left on, salmon heads removed (Bergsland 1994; Veltre and Veltre 1983). Halibut backbones are dried, and thin slices of meat, aamxiidaˆx, are shaved off to eat (Bergsland 1994: 65). Partially dried fish, chataˆx, and meat are delicacies. This process concentrates the flavor and firms the flesh, allowing fish to be simmered without falling apart. Early twentieth century fish drying racks on Attu were built of 20–25 cm (8–10inch) diameter posts and log beams draped with lines on which the fish were strung (Jochelson 1909). After the fish were hung, the rack was covered with sealskins to keep rain off (Turner 2008). Drying foods had to be watched to keep eagles, ravens, and gulls from stealing easy meals. Sea lion, whale meat and blubber (alam udangin), whale brisket (alam qulanigan udaˆganangin), and fur seal were cut in strips and hung to dry (Hudson 1992;

330

7 Life at Home

Jochelson 1933; Veltre and Veltre 1981, 1982, 1983). Dried meat and fish were stored in seal or sea lion skin pokes (Snigaroff 1986). Little is reported about plant foods. Sarana or chocolate lily (Fritillaria camschatcensis) roots were air dried and stored in huge grass sacks (Turner 2008). Petruski stalks were peeled and dried (Veltre and Veltre 1982, 1983). Jochelson (2002: 35) found the decayed roots of alpine bistort (Bistorta vivipara) and chocolate lily in pits on Umnak. Thorssin (2020) found crowberry, wood, and unidentified seeds from a pit on Adak Island (ADK-00237), rare evidence for the use and storage of plants. Fermentation is the controlled use of yeast to convert carbohydrates to alcohol, carbon dioxide, and lactic acid. Fermentation increases protein, vitamin, amino acid, and fatty acid content in foods. The process also eliminates compounds such as phytic acids that inhibit the uptake of minerals such as iron, calcium, and zinc (Katz 2012). Fermentation allows perishable foods to become storable. Fermented foods with modern-day, worldwide distribution include chocolate, vanilla, wine, beer, vinegar, bread, cheese, pickled vegetables, yogurt, soy sauce, and salami. While the process is less common than with vegetable foods, meat and fish can also be fermented. Meat lacks the carbohydrates needed for true fermentation and instead undergoes controlled decomposition. Fermenting fish is common in northern latitudes. Norwegian rakfisk, and Swedish surströmming are lightly brined freshwater char or herring with a little sugar to induce bacterial fermentation. The Alaska version is “stinkheads,” described above. Fur seal and sea lion flippers were also buried and fermented. After the arrival of the Russians, flippers were layered in barrels with salt for fermenting, lastaˆx. When finished, they were boiled with onions and carrots and then cooled to create jelled aspic (Dan Prokopeoff, personal communication). Salting to preserve food was introduced by the Russians. Red and pink salmon were fileted and then layered with salt in barrels (Snigaroff 1986; Veltre and Veltre 1983). Different types of fish were stored separately. Pink salmon bellies were salted separately from the rest of the fish and used in fish pie, piruugaˆx, (Russian pirogi; Turner 2008). Salted fish was soaked before using and could be eaten as-is or cooked. Sea lion and fur seal meat chunks, with bones left in, were packed in barrels with layers of salt. Blubber was salted down for eating with dried fish (Hudson 1992; Ransom 1946). Eggs were collected in quantity and packed with salt (Hudson 2005; Veltre and Veltre 1981). Russians brought vodka, wine for religious services, and tea. Vodka was called taangam daquulga, fool’s or crazy water (Bergsland 1994: 392; Veniaminov 1984: 279). Tea, chaayuˆx, was a major import to Russia from China. In 1818, Sitka received 5454 pounds of pekoe and sushon teas. In 1825, 2406 pounds of tea were sent from Sitka to Kodiak, Unalaska, and other settlements. An accounting of government property in 1832 reported 100 teapots, 75 dozen teacups, 20 copper samovars, and about 200 copper teakettles in various settlements across southern Alaska (Khlebnikov 1994). By the 1840s, tea was available even in remote outposts (Zagoskin 1967). Between 1842 and 1849, 6700 cases were imported yearly (Tikhmenev 1978). Making and drinking tea is a profoundly social ceremony (Jackson 1991; Volokh 1983). Tea

A Woman’s Work Is Never Done

331

greased the wheels of commerce between Russian and Alaska Native trading partners and increasingly became incorporated into Alaska Native celebrations (Jackson 1991). Some “prosperous” households in Unalaska acquired the full suite of utensils for making tea, chaayuusin, including a teapot for brewing, a kettle, and china cups (Veniaminov 1984: 282). Tea service became a mark of social status, indicating full participation in modern, civil society (Jackson 1991). Almost no ceramics or tea-related service objects were recovered from Korovinskii on Atka (Veltre and McCartney 2001). At Reese Bay, a copper teakettle was recovered from the east end of the longhouse (Mooney 1993). Zapadni yielded a variety of English and Chinese ceramics, including cups and saucers dating to around the mid-1800s (Pendleton 2008).

Storage Early observers (Berkh 1974; Coxe 1970 [1787]; Veniaminov 1984) reported Aleuts lacked the technology and the desire to store food. To these observers, the improvidence demonstrated by failure to store up food against hard times affirmed the “primitiveness” of the Aleuts (Trigger 2006). Most archaeologists have also neglected evidence for food storage, choosing to focus instead on the richness of the environment, its ability to sustain large settled populations, and the ease of acquiring resources (Laughlin 1980). In fact, processing food for storage has been a priority for Aleut householders for millennia. Permanently occupied villages are not possible without a stable food supply. Sea mammal oil is the very definition of stored food, requiring time and a container to produce and hold. Whether fermented, dried, or smoked, processed foods were stored in sea mammal containers, aˆgdaˆx, nuˆxsˆxiˆx, or umˆxiˆx, usually translated as stomachs or bladders, but more probably hide pokes which were waterproof but breathable, thin, strong, flexible, and, when empty, could be folded flat for storage. Each container was used for one kind of food, be it salt or freshwater fish, meat, or fat. Stored food, qasiqan, was kept in a storehouse, qaqadgusiˆx. Terminology distinguishes between storage for food and equipment, long- and short-term storage, storage above ground or buried, and whether a cache was connected to a house or stood alone. Agayaˆx, used for food and possessions, was attached to longhouses. Ulyaˆx were stand-alone structures used for hunting equipment (Veniminov 1984: 26). An above ground storage place, used for short-term storage or for foods that would be used immediately, is iqludgasiˆx. Long-term storage focused on underground caches, qalixsaˆx, to “cover in a hole in the ground”, or aasulix. Chagaadaˆx is a pit dug to cache fish but also refers to cairns built to cover cached fish. Most archaeological evidence for storage is from the eastern Aleutians. Stoneslab lined troughs in Margaret Bay phase houses may have served as cold storage units. Jochelson (2002) excavated small pits, which he called ulakax, from five sites on Umnak and Unalaska. He speculated these were used to store food.

332

7 Life at Home

Subfloor storage pits in houses at Agayadan (Hoffman 2002) were narrow-necked, round chambers lined with fine gray sand and holding an average of 43 L. These pits were covered with flat stones, sea lion scapulae, or whale vertebra epiphyses. They were associated with individual family units within the communal houses. The largest and most numerous pits were found in the higher status portions of the houses. At Nunik, conical holes up to 30 cm deep in the house floor were filled with debris (Wilmerding 2005: 253). Pocket middens of bone and shell-filled holes, 15 to 20 cm across and 20 cm deep covered with stone or bone lids (Wilmerding 2005: 253). More than half, 57%, of 839 measured features in the Near and Rat Islands are less than 4 m (13 feet) across and represent a variety of functions from burial to storage. Feature clusters show an association of small pits, probably for storage, with individual houses (Corbett et al. 2001; Lefèvre et al. 2001). A few large houses also had small pits inside that may also represent storage features. If larger houses belonged to elite families, storage features inside may indicate control of key resources by these families. Four sites recorded on the north coast of Attu in 1998 consist entirely of small pits and are considered to be storage pit sites (Lefèvre et al. 2001). Three pits were tested (Corbett et al. 2001). Two in ATU-019 consist of a pit within a pit, separated by a layer of fine gray sand. At the bottom was a dark, organic rich lens with sinkers, hammerstones, and flakes. Soil chemistry from one of the pits showed elevated levels of calcium, potassium, nitrogen, and carbon as well as a lower pH compared to soil outside the pit (Table 7.1). The pit at ATU-194 was similar to those at ATU-193, but without the gray sand lining. The 8 cm thick layer of greasy black organic fill held a few flakes and a hammerstone.

Table 7.1 Soil chemistry of pits from ATU-019 Sample

pH

Buffer pH

Calcium ppm

%P

%N

%C

Outside pit

5.7

7.3

236

0.048

0.031

0.493

Inside pit

5.5

6.8

618

0.117

0.178

2.044

A Woman’s Work Is Never Done

333

Food Preparation Utensils A woman’s toolkit illustrated in a 1768 drawing by Levashov (1769) shows a woman carrying a carved digging stick and a basket with a handle. To her side are grass mats, four different sizes and shapes of knives, two carved ladles or scoops, two bentwood containers, and a wooden tray.

Knives Among the most common tools archaeologists find are knives, defined as flaked stone tools with at least one acutely angled cutting edge. Knives are distinguished from harpoon or spear points by being asymmetrical. The distinction is artificial; symmetrical points could be knives, and asymmetrical knives could be points. Aleutian technology relied on informal tools, balancing ease of production, costs of use and maintenance, and availability of materials. As with bone harpoon and spear points, every researcher has a typology of knives with elaborate descriptions. Little of this typology would have been meaningful to the people who actually made and used the knives (Fig. 7.6). Knives will here be divided into two types, unifacial or flake, and bifacial. Most unifacial flake knives, either produced specifically as knives or as a byproducts of other tool manufacture, are “unformed”; that is, made without a definite template (McLain 1998). The simplest is a flake of suitable size, shape, and sharpness that allows for use without any additional work. These “utilized flakes” are easy to make, used until dull, and discarded. Next in complexity are flakes with some sharpening or shaping of the edge, called “retouched flakes” (McLain 1998: 14). More elaborate unformed flake knives show five generic shapes: triangular, teardrop, bi-pointed, ovoid, and angular (Desautels et al. 1971: 80–89; McLain 1998). Boulder spalls are a type of flake knife (Desautels et al. 1971: 80). These are the round outer crust or cortex flake from a boulder that is sharp around all or most of the edge. Some can be quite large. The edge may either be used as-is or retouched. Formed knives come in a bewildering variety of shapes. Basic defining attributes seem to be whether or not the blade is symmetrical and whether there is a stem, or handle. Most symmetrical knives lack stems (Cook et al. 1972; Desautels et al. 1971; Holland 1992; Knecht and Davis 2003, 2005; McLain 1998). They are bi-pointed, triangular, lanceolate, or freeform. The vast majority are made of fine-grained basalt, with a small percentage made of chert, siliceous tuff, obsidian, or glassy basalt. Asymmetrical knives have stems (Cook et al. 1972; Desautels et al. 1971; Holland 1992; Knecht and Davis 2003, 2005; McLain 1998). Many also have serrated edges (Knecht and Davis 2003). Tailoring knives have triangular blades and are sharp on both sides, meeting at an angle of less than 90° (Knecht and Davis 2003; Laughlin 1955). Knives with one straight edge and one convex curving edge are called Ushaped (Cook et al. 1972; Knecht and Davis 2003), crooked knives (Laughlin 1955),

334

7 Life at Home

Fig. 7.6 Knives: top left, flake knife; top right, bifacial knives; middle left, stemmed knife; right, boulder spall; bottom left, ground ulu, right chipped ulu

and utuˆxnuˆx (Bergsland 1994: 455; Jochelson 2002: 64). These likely had wooden handles. Women’s knives are igaadaˆx (Bergsland 1994: 175). Known elsewhere in Alaska as ulus, they are an iconic manifestation of northern culture, a “broad piece of slate, crescentic in shape, with the curved side ground to a thin edge” (Nelson 1983: 131).

A Woman’s Work Is Never Done

335

Unangaˆx igaadaˆx are oval or rectangular knives with a thin cross-section, chipped to shape, with a ground or flaked cutting edge. There is no difference between chipped and ground ulus in terminology or use (Jochelson 2002). They are multi-purpose cutting and scraping tools. Ulus are found in every excavation, in all parts of the Aleutian archipelago. At Idaliuk Bay, dating to 4000 BP, semi-lunar marginally flaked knives were identified as ulus and considered technologically similar to flake knives from Anangula (Aigner 1983a). Archaeologists derive the temporally later ground ulus from these early chipped precursors (Aigner 1983a; Knecht and Davis 2003). Three shapes of ground ulu blade—triangular, rectangular, and oval—were found in the late prehistoric house at RAT-00032. The cutting edges are either straight or convex. None are notched or grooved for hafting. They are made of andesite, shale, tuff, and rhyodacite. Chipped ulus, or “marginally chipped slabs,” were made on thin slabs of fine-grained basalt, with three worked sides (Desautels et al. 1971). Most were found in a single site, RAT-00031. At Chulka, ulus were also made on tabular rock slabs or with large flakes with marginal chipping. A notched tang for hafting was common (Holland 1992). All ulus with notches for hafting, or drilled for handles, are found in the eastern islands. Slate grinding is considered a late and introduced technology in the Aleutian Islands. Ground slate ulus first appear on Kodiak around 2000 BP (Knecht and Davis 2005). The ground ulus found at Chulka (980 BP) and at Tanaxtaxax (350–650 BP) are stylistically similar to those from Kodiak and the Alaska Peninsula and may have been imported (Holland 1992; Knecht and Davis 2003, 2005). A complete ground stone ulu was found in a 2200-year-old house at Austin Cove, ATU-00019, Attu is the oldest dated example in the Aleutians (Corbett, personal observation). Shumagin Islanders had iron knives in 1741 (Hrdliˇcka 1945; Jochelson 1933). A local tradition reported that before the Russians arrived, a ship off Avatanak Island gave iron to the Aleuts (Veniaminov 1984: 61). Trade across Bering Straits between Inupiat and Yup’ik and the Chukchi, supplied small quantities of iron to mainland Alaskans before direct contact with Russians. Iron from Japanese and Chinese shipwrecks used for knives has been found in prehistoric contexts on Amchitka Island (McCartney 1977). Twelve bone handles with slits filled with rust were recovered from four sites dating “near the end of the first millennium A.D.” (Desautels et al. 1971: 243–234). At RAT-00032, two bone handles with slots for metal blades were recovered (Cook et al. 1972: 81). One still held a badly corroded metal blade.

Containers Wood and bark containers have not been recovered from middens but have been found in caves (Dall 1878; Hrdliˇcka 1945; Johnson 2016). Hrdliˇcka (1945: 60) illustrated three shapes—square, oval, and rounded rectangular—made with a “high level of craftsmanship” and “very serviceable.” Black (2003: 43) illustrates two additional bentwood containers from Kagamil, one round and one square. Johnson (2016)

336

7 Life at Home

describes three bentwood vessels from AMK-00009 on Carlisle Island. A large rectangular container is 26 cm tall, 30 cm long, and 27 cm wide. A square container is 39 cm tall by 25.5 cm square. A low oval dish is 5.9 cm tall, 36 cm long, and 20.6 cm wide. Although Yup’ik, Tlingit, and Koniag or Alutiiq examples are often carved and painted, the illustrated Unangaˆx examples are unadorned. Bentwood vessels are made of thin planks split from straight-grained, knot-free driftwood. The plank is smoothed and shallow grooves cut to allow bending (Emmons 1991). The ends are beveled and the plank was then softened for bending by being wrapped in seaweed and laid in a fire to steam (Turner 2008). The piece was bent into shape and allowed to cool and dry before being pegged together with wooden, ivory, or baleen pegs. The pegs were countersunk into the wood in order to maintain a smooth surface. In Tlingit and Yup’ik bowls, the bent upper rim was pegged to a carved wood base (Emmons 1991; Fienup-Riordan 2007). Both the base and the rim were notched to form a tight seal. Shaping and fitting the two pieces was laborious and time consuming, requiring constant measuring and fitting until the pieces snapped together tightly (Fienup-Riordan 2007). With the arrival of the Russians, metal kettles and cauldrons, asuˆx, along with cast iron pots, chuguunaˆx, were introduced and became common. Few have been recovered archaeologically. A copper or brass kettle was found at Reese Bay (UNL00063), and fragments of a copper kettle at Korovinsky (ATK-0000). During BIA surveys of the Aleut Corporation historic sites, a mended copper or brass cauldron was recorded on Tanaga Island (Debra Corbett pers obs.)

Other Food Preparation Utensils Use of a knife requires a cutting board, qalgadam ulam isiiluˆgii. In his house drawing, Webber (1778) illustrates a narrow, table-like construction of whalebone or stone. A flat stone in Amaknak Bridge House 3 and a large whalebone found near a hearth in the largest house at Agayadan Village are archaeological examples of cutting boards (Hoffman 2002; Knecht and Davis 2005). Pestles and hammerstones were used to mash fat, fresh livers, berries, fish, fish roe, wild celery, sarana, and other roots (Black 1984; Fienup-Riordan 2007; Veltre and Veltre 1983). Meat for infants, the sick, and the elderly was mashed. Stones used to mash foods would not show the heavy battering of hammerstones. Unless a cobble was formed into a pestle shape, direct evidence of use on soft materials would be difficult to see archaeologically. Because smooth, oval cobbles lack any signs of modification, they are invariably discarded in the field and only rarely recorded. Large numbers of unmodified, smooth, fine-grained beach cobbles of a size to fit a hand are very common in excavations.

A Woman’s Work Is Never Done

337

Sewing and Weaving Women prepared skins and hides. Women sewed sea lion hides into iqyaq covers and pokes for food storage. From sea lion guts, they sewed waterproof raingear, and from fur and bird skins, they sewed warm, dry, and windproof clothing. They ground their sewing needles out of bird bone, large as needed or as thin as a hair (Korovin 1762 in Coxe 1970 [1787]; Zaikov 1778 in Dmytryshyn et al. 1988; Merck 1980; Sarychev 2016 [1807]; Sauer 1802). Threads made of sea mammal sinew were as fine and smooth as a silk thread or as large as a bass string (Sauer 1802). Leather finger covers served as thimbles. Clothing of men and women was similar, including a long pullover shirt or parka reaching mid-calf or to the ankles (Krenitsyn and Levashev 1768 in Dmytryshyn et al. 1988; Georgi 1780; Khlebnikov 1994; Langsdorff 1993). These shirts could be worn feathers out, to shed water, or feathers inside for warmth (Georgi 1780). Both men and women’s parkas sported a high, stiff collar. Pants and footwear were rarely worn. Trousers made of young seal skins or sea lion esophagus were worn occasionally (Merck 1980; Sauer 1802). People usually went barefoot. Boots for rough ground, uliix, had soles made of non-skid sea lion flipper skin and uppers of sea lion esophagus, (Cherepanov 1762; Georgi 1780; Khlebnikov 1994; Merck 1980). Men’s shirts, qulgúdaˆx, were calf-length and made of bird skins, mainly puffins, murres, and cormorants but also guillemots, geese, and loons (Andreev 1948; Black 1984; Korovin and Pushkarev 1762 in Coxe 1970 [1787]; Cherepanov 1762, Ponomarev/Glotov 1759 and Zaikov 1778 in Dmystryshyn et al. 1988; Khlebnikov 1994). It took 40 tufted puffins, 60 horned puffins, or 50 murres to make a single parka (Merck 1980). The skin side was colored red with ochre and decorated with lengths of leather hanging from the chest. Gussets of seal fur, wide as a hand span, extended down the sides from the armpits to the hem. The collar was also colored red and decorated with long, white caribou hair and fur seal fur. Underneath, men wore a qamaˆx or saaqutiˆx breechclout (Georgi 1780: 217). In their kayaks or when rain was falling, men used light, warm kamleikas or raincoats, chigdaˆx, made of sea lion or whale intestines. Bear intestines were considered more elegant (Veniaminov 1984). The chigdaˆx had a hood and wrist cuffs that could be tightened to keep water out. They were transparent and “very pretty” (Sauer 1802: 122). Feathers or yarn sewn into the seams wicked water away from the garment. Because of hard use, men needed two or three kamleikas a year. Women wore chugaˆx or qagduˆx of sea otter or fur seal furs (Berglsand 1994: 115, 296). Huqluˆx were parkas made of the dense, downy fur of young sea otters. All clothing was embellished with flounces and furbelows, but the clothing of high-status women shimmered and dazzled with decoration (Chicherin 1766 and Billings 1789 in Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 235; Georgi 1780: 222). Fur on the high collar was trimmed short and resembled velvet. It was decorated with rows of white and blue beads with red accents, the beads being a post-contact feature (Langsdorff 1993; Merck 1980; Sauer 1802). Panels decorated with rows of beads and caribou hair embroidery hung

338

7 Life at Home

below the collar in front and back (Merck 1980; Sarychev 2016 [1807]). Flounces and edgings decorated seams and hems (Georgi 1780: 222). These were made with different colors and textures of fur as well as dyed intestines embroidered with fine stitchery, white caribou hair, and beads (Merck 1980). Small, beaded tabs of skin, long thongs with bangles at the ends, strips of fur seal fur, and colorful puffin beaks decorated seams. Cuffs and hems were decorated with bands of embroidered skin or intestine (Fig. 7.7). Festive clothing was similar to daily wear but made with richer materials and was even more lavishly decorated. Fancy parkas made from the belly or neck skin of cormorants required up to 150 birds. The best parkas were of ground squirrel furs imported from the Alaska Peninsula (Merck 1980). Collars, sleeves, and hems were decorated with strips of sea lion esophagus painted red, black, white, or blue and embellished with fur fringes, feather tufts, puffin beaks, fur applique, caribou hair embroidery, and, after Russians arrived, beads and colored yarn and silk threads. Finely crafted clothing made by elite women was a source of elite power (Hoffman 1971, 2002: 305). Fine kamleikas and parkas were a major trade item and important gifts (Black 2003; Hoffman 1999, 2002: 308). By distributing luxury items men attracted and maintained the support of their followers and built alliances. Women wove strong and beautiful baskets, bags, clothing, and mats out of grass (Khlebnikov 1994; Sauer 1802). Turner (2008: 77) states, “During their idle moments they busied themselves in preparing articles of grass,” but women rarely had “idle” time, and grass work was carefully scheduled in among countless other chores. The grass harvest began in August. Rye or lyme grasses (Leymus arenarius, and L. mollis) were the major weaving grasses, and the entire plant—leaves, stalks, and roots—was used. Grass blades were individually plucked using a fingernail as a cutting tool, and a deft twist of the wrist snipped the stalk off at or below ground level. After harvest, grass was spread to dry in a sheltered place (Kissell 1907; Oliver 1988; Porcher 1904; Turner 2008). Every day it was inspected and turned so it would cure evenly. Varying drying times and places could color the grass a rich golden yellow that mellowed to white, or a pale green (Chandonnet 1975; Liapunova 1996; Porcher 1904; Shapsnikoff and Hudson 1974). After drying outside for about two weeks, cured grass was moved indoors and graded: coarse, medium, and fine. Coarse and medium blades were split and the central rib discarded. For the most intricate work, the leaves were split to the fineness of silk thread with a sharp fingernail (Khlebnikov 1994; Sarychev 2016 [1807]). The different grades were bundled together and again hung outdoors to continue drying (Kissell 1907; Liapunova 1996; Lujan 1984; Porcher 1904). After a month, the bundles were brought into the house and tied into smaller bundles, braided together. The braid kept the strands from tangling, and weavers could pull a single strand free to work (Liapunova 1996; Lujan 1984; Kissell 1907; Porcher 1904). The braids were stored in a cool, dark place until needed. Winter nights were spent weaving (Langsdorff 1993). All basketry was twined (Chandonnet 1975; Nevzorof and Dirks 1981; Philemonoff and Stepetin 1980; Shapsnikoff and Hudson 1974). Most of the known pieces used a plain double twining where two strands, the weft, were twisted around a single warp strand (Settles 1945;

A Woman’s Work Is Never Done

339

Fig. 7.7 Appliqué and embroidered sewing designs. Top row, left to right panel with gut chevrons on hide strip, with yarn insets, chevron strip and lower strip with feather tufts, appliqué panels. Bottom row, left to right, braided ribbon with “macrame” loops, strip with gut X’s, above skin flaps with caribou hair fringe, appliqué panel

340

7 Life at Home

Wilmerding 1993). Varied twining techniques created a variety of decorative effects. The direction of the twist could be reversed, and warp strands could be doubled or crossed. Decorative motifs were added by incorporating dyed grasses, sedges, spruce roots, bark shreds, feathers, tufts of fur, or baleen. All the archaeological examples are decorated, usually using several techniques, materials, and design motifs (Fig. 7.8).

Fig. 7.8 Examples of designs from grass basketry

A Woman’s Work Is Never Done

341

Basketry is a living tradition for modern Unangaˆx. This extraordinary art is almost invisible archaeologically, however. The only examples known are from caves in the Islands of Four Mountains (Settles 1945; Wilmerding 1993). Woven objects found in these caves include mats, baskets, wallets or pouches, burial shrouds, clothing, and men’s charm belts. These items are remarkable for their regularity and order, being “nearly perfect” (Settles 1945). Large mats, up to 1 by 2 m (4 by 6.5 feet), were used as wall covers and as floor pads for sleeping. Medium matting was used to divide sections of large houses and for work surfaces. Exhibiting the most intricate and interesting designs, fine matting was used to make pouches, burial shrouds, dance aprons, and other clothing. Baskets reached a circumference of 1 m (3 feet) and up to a little over a half meter (2 feet) deep. The largest carried fish, shellfish, and other heavy bulky material. Medium baskets were used to store foods and other goods. Fine treasure baskets held small objects of high value (Settles 1945).

Archaeology of Sewing and Weaving Sewing implements are abundantly represented in sites. Needles come in two forms, eyed, and grooved. Found at Margaret Bay and Amaknak Bridge, eyed needles are the oldest form (Knecht et al. 2001; Knecht and Davis 2005). Grooved needles are a unique Aleutian innovation where a groove facilitated more rapid threading with finer threads, allowing for much finer stitching (Hoffman 1999). They appeared on Amchitka about 1000 years ago (Desautels et al. 1971). On Akun, they are present after 1200 BP (Holland 1982; Fig. 7.9). Awls were used to make holes in thick hides. Most objects defined as awls are bone splinters sharpened at one or both ends (Desautels et al. 1971; Holland 1982; McCartney 1967). These simple tools performed many functions as awls, needles, fishhooks, and shellfish picks. Some splinter awls were set into bird bone handles, forming compound awls. About half the recovered non-splinter awls were made on the midshaft of wing bones, mainly radii. Albatross, cormorant, and gull radius bones made long, slender, delicate awls. Some are pointed at both ends and/or have a hole in the shaft. Most others were made on alcid humeri, with exceptionally large ones made on albatross humeri. These sturdy awls could punch stiff leather and had a convenient handle. Ulna bones, from cormorants, were also robust and made longer awls than those fashioned from humeri (Fig. 7.10). Sewing was done with sinew threads made from sea mammal tendons. These tendons range in length from a few centimeters to over a meter and a half (5 feet) in beluga whales (Fienup-Riordan 2007). After the sinew was removed from the animal, it was washed and dried. To make thread, the tendon was pounded with a smooth, round beach cobble until it frayed, then a strand of the desired thickness was pulled free. The seamstress smoothed the thread by pulling it through her mouth. Smooth beach cobbles are common in sites but rarely recorded or collected. Women must have spent a lot of time preparing skins for sewing. Turner (2008) provides a detailed description of bird skin preparation. Birds were skinned by cutting

342

7 Life at Home

Fig. 7.9 Sewing kit: knobbed and eyed needle in skin, a hank of sinew thread, rolled dried intestines, small cutting board

A Woman’s Work Is Never Done

343

Alcid ulna

Alcid radius

Fox ulna

Cormorant radius

Composite

Cormorant ulna

Cormorant humerus

Bird humerus

Alcid humerus

cm 0

5

10

15

Fig. 7.10 Bird bone awls

around the beak and pulling the bones and meat through the hole. The wings were “carefully drawn” until the humerus could be removed (Turner 2008: 74). The insideout skin was cleaned with a bone scraper to remove fat and tissue and then dried. In fall, women soaked the dried skins in stale urine for several days to degrease them. The skins were then washed in running water and dried again. Women chewed the hides to break the feather quills, softening the skins for wear. Each prepared hide was split down the back and flattened. Cut marks on bird mandibles, nasal, and frontal bones from Buldir and Shemya match descriptions of how skins were removed (Corbett et al. 2010; Lefèvre et al.

344

7 Life at Home

1997). Cormorant, fulmar, shearwater, rhinoceros auklet, puffin, murre, and glaucuswinged gull remains have all been found with these cut marks. Ethnographic examples of Aleut clothing and basketry have been collected and displayed in museums, but precontact clothing is rarely preserved. Only one brief description has been published. Citing an example from the Warm Cave, SAM00019, on Kagamil Island, Settles (1945) describes a parka constructed of strips of alternating dark and light, murre-skin panels. The sleeves and hems were trimmed with strips of fur and gut with hair and feather tassels. Small pouches were made of thin strips of gut sewn together with decorative stitching. An analysis of 54 feather and 46 hair samples from the Warm Cave collection identified eight mammals and 15 birds used in decorating clothing (Dove and Peurach 2002). Specific identifications included parakeet and least auklets, ancient murrelets, tufted puffins, Aleutian cackling geese, and eider ducks. Gulls, including kittiwakes, were common, as were cormorants, including at least one pelagic cormorant. Raven feathers and a single plover or sandpiper round out the list. Mammal hair and hides came from sea otter, seals, eared seal (sea lion or walrus), fox, bear, and caribou. A more detailed analysis of textiles from a burial at UNL-00097, Split Rock, Unalaska, is unpublished. Loeb (1930) described four gut and four bird skin items as well as three fur parka fragments. The gut objects were bag-like, waterproof coverings over the heads and around the bodies of an adult male and an infant. Bird skins covered the head and legs of the adult male. The bird skins had been cut into rectangles, sewn into horizontal strips, and the strips sewn together. The width of the strips was varied to present a textured effect. A rolled-up birdskin placed under the man’s head disintegrated upon unrolling. The final piece was a mask over the man’s eyes. The fur parkas were made of sea otter fur embellished with caribou and seal skins. They were hoodless and exhibited the upright collar found in ethnographic clothing. Split Rock kamleikas were made of gut strips sewn together horizontally. Most of the sewing was done with a fine running stitch along with some use of overhand stitching. All pieces were decorated. Hide and gut were used in natural colors or dyed black or red. White hair and feathers were worked into seams. Hair on the hides was cut or scored to give the impression of fine fringe. Attachments described as flat and tubular tabs, seam inserts, borders, shoulder bands, and side seam fringes were added to most of the pieces. All of these attachments were embellished with decorative stitching, appliqued strips of colored hide, patterned strips of fur or gut, and decorative cutouts.

Man the Hunter Men were hunters first and fishermen second. Childhood training for boys centered on building endurance “in everything” and especially in iqyaˆx handling (Veniaminov 1984: 191). Men made and maintained their iqyaˆx and hunting weapons, and they also made other tools and objects from bone, stone, and wood. Some men were

Man the Hunter

345

recognized as expert craftsmen, building high-quality iqyaˆx and hunting weapons. Others were known for their skills in carving wood or ivory. Some served as shamans. All of these activities were subordinate to their primary role as hunters. Hunting marine mammals from an iqyaˆx conditioned every aspect of a man’s existence (Laughlin 1980; Liapunova 1996). This was the quintessential male occupation. The risks were high, and mistakes could be fatal. Success brought wealth, status, and social and political benefits. To turn boys into Olympic caliber athletes required intensive and extensive childhood training (Laughlin 1980; Liapunova 1996). Guided by maternal uncles, training began in early childhood, and men spent their entire lives honing these skills. A specialized and formal training regimen lengthened ligaments and tendons in boys’ shoulders and arms to allow for long hours of paddling and to enable them to throw a harpoon with great force from a sitting position. Exercises lengthened tendons in the legs and back to allow men to sit in an iqyaˆx with their legs straight out and back upright. To build strength and endurance, boys bathed in cold water, ran, wrestled, climbed, and carried heavy loads. Mental training was also necessary. Young paddlers were advised to face fears and dangers head-on to avoid death. Dangerous beings and physical obstacles could suddenly appear at sea, and a paddler was advised to approach boldly to avoid harm (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 204). Boys and men employed a variety of throwing and catching games to develop hand-eye coordination (Hrdliˇcka 1945; Jochelson 1933; Laughlin 1980). Most of these games would not leave any obvious remains in most archaeological sites, as they were made with wood. Wooden pieces include a five-sided die with one to five counting dots for a game called makaˆx (Ransom 1946); slender wooden spindles for at least two games, one catching wooden or bone rings or a wooden piece with multiple holes on a stick; and small darts to throw at a whale effigy (Hrdliˇcka 1945; Jochelson 1933). Wooden remains found at Buldir may include spindles suitable for use in these various games (Corbett 1993). Some game pieces, however, were carved from bone and may be present but unrecognized in existing collections. On Amchitka, three oval rings of bone may be game pieces (Desautels et al. 1971; McLain 1998). Hoffman (2002) reports three ring-like objects, one of calcite and two of ivory, from Agayadan on Unimak. McCartney (1967) illustrates a number of exquisitely carved “spools” of unknown function from Amaknak. Some of these could possibly be game pieces. Finally, an animal effigy 6 cm long with a hole in it might have been a target used in the dart game. Boys’ harpoons, knives, and other tools were scaled to their size. All of the items archeologists clearly define as toys are small harpoon points. A 4 cm-long toggling harpoon point from the house at RAT-00032 sits on a 7–8 cm-long wooden foreshaft and still holds a small triangular stone endblade (Cook et al. 1972). Three other toggling harpoon heads, between 4.8 and 5.5 cm long, and two tiny, symmetrically barbed points on bird bone, also found on Amchitka, are considered toys as well (McLain 1998). From Amaknak Bridge, ten bilaterally barbed harpoon heads 5 to 10 cm long, are considered toys (Knecht and Davis 2005). A number of small, socketed harpoon or spear foreshafts with bifurcate tangs or plug tangs and a pair of tiny bone toggles could also be toys (Knecht and Davis 2005).

346

7 Life at Home

Boys as young as six years old paddled kayaks and hunted birds (Langsdorff 1993: 19). When a boy reached the age of ten, his father built him an iqyaˆx. Boys practiced paddling, hunting small game, and fishing in the relatively safe waters near their villages. As they gained confidence, they pushed the limits of their bodies as well as parental boundaries, sometimes fatally (Bergland and Dirks 1990). Those who survived gained confidence, proficiency, and status, eventually being allowed to marry. Lifelong commitment to kayaking transformed men’s bodies (Weiss 2003). Prehistoric Aleut male upper arm bones are broader and flatter than those of laboring class white men (Hrdliˇcka 1945). The humerus or upper arm bone of Aleut males is massive, and the distal condyle (elbow) is correspondingly wide (Laughlin et al. 1991; Weiss 2003). Muscle activity stimulates development of muscle attachments on bone. The teres major muscle extends from the upper arm to the shoulder blade. The pectoralis major muscles, “pecs” join the upper arm to the chest. All these attachment points on Unangaˆx skeletons are exceptionally well developed (Laughlin 1991; Steen 1996). The scapulae or shoulder blade of young males show evidence of considerable stress (Knecht and Davis 2005; Steen et al. 1996). These skeletal developments are consistent with the use of a double-bladed paddle which requires alternating rotary movements in the shoulders (Steen et al. 1996). Arthritis of the capitellar surface in the elbow joint is frequently found in adult Aleut males (Knecht and Davis 2005; Laughlin 1963). In the skeleton of an Aleut male estimated to have been 70–80 years old, the right arm, probably the throwing arm, is larger than the left in all measurements (Laughlin and Aigner 1974). One striking example of the power developed in men was found on Buldir Island in 1993. A large sea lion vertebra was recovered with a stone point embedded in the body of the vertebra. Following this discovery, close inspection of other sea lion bones revealed that several that had been split by the force of the harpoon head (Fig. 7.11).

Wood and Bone Working Men were the primary wood and bone workers. Little has been written on Aleut bone and woodworking techniques and tools. An outdoor woodworking area was excavated on Buldir Island in 1991 (Corbett 1993). Because Buldir did not have a full-time, permanent occupation, it may have held relatively more driftwood than continuously occupied islands. The sheer quantity of wood waste found testifies to the availability of raw material. Woodworking involved several stages which are illustrated in the workshop. Spruce, willow, and cottonwood logs were collected from the beaches. Three logs had been drawn up to the work area and stacked. Large wood chips and an adze haft on a killer whale tooth document the use of adzes to cut logs into shorter lengths. Log segments were split with wedges and hammerstones. Basic shapes were roughed out: shafts, slats, and rods (Corbett 1993). These pieces were not individually

Man the Hunter

347

Fig. 7.11 Sea lion vertebra with embedded stone point

carved from the logs. Rods and slats were shaped from blanks. Shafts were split from slats. Shafts are round to oval in cross-section and less than 1.1 cm in diameter. They were used as stringers, and possibly as ribs, in kayak construction. Rods are larger than 1.1 cm in diameter and may be round, rectangular, triangular, or halfmoon in cross-section. These techniques produced large numbers of uniformly sized and shaped pieces which could be modified into finished products with knives and scrapers. Rods were used for foreshafts, projectile points, drill shafts, handles, and kayak parts, including keelson, gunwales, deckbeams and stringers, and cockpit coamings (Corbett 1993). Slats have a lenticular cross-section and are about 1 cm thick and up to 3 cm wide. They are the most obviously useful pieces, being made into drill bows, knife handles, and projectile points as well as kayak ribs, stringers, and gunwales. If something other than these basic shapes was needed, a blank was individually modified (Corbett 1993). Finished wooden tools included harpoon points, pegs, a knife handle with a flake embedded in a groove, wedges, fire drill bases, and fire drill

348

7 Life at Home

spindles. Other tools recovered from the work area included bone awls, wedges, and harpoon pints. Stone tools included bifacial points, knives, scrapers, abraders, and numerous flakes. Bone-working techniques parallel those used to work wood. The same types of grooving and cutting were used to mass produce blanks for tool manufacture. A chunk of whalebone from Buldir, found standing upright, had long rectangular or triangular rods cut from the edges for further shaping. Bone scraps exhibit the same kinds of bevels, notches, and grooves seen in the Buldir woodworking scrap. The main bone and woodworking tools were wedges. They are among the most frequent finds in every site (Desautels et al. 1971; Grayson 1969; Holland 1992; Hrdliˇcka 1945; Jochelson 2002; McCartney 1967; Veltre 1979). Wedges were hammered into cracks in large logs. As the crack widened and advanced down the log, more wedges were driven in until the log split in half. The process was repeated until planks or splints of the desired size were produced. Wedges are made of ivory, bone, tooth, and even stone. Most wedges were made on split or whole sea mammal bone, most likely sections of whale ribs or mandibles. On the Alaska Peninsula, some were made of land animal long bones. Occasionally, whale teeth and walrus ivory were used. Wedges were cut from large whale bones by grooving the bone, then splitting it with wedges. Many wedges seem to be made from reworked digging sticks or broken harpoon points. Shorter wedges appear to have been reworked from longer ones. Archaeologists have described multiple forms of bone wedges, recording length, width, thickness, material type, edge angles, cross-section, and presence or absence of surface modifications as well as use, wear, or decoration. Generally, wedges are indistinguishable across time and space (Desautels et al. 1971; McCartney 1967; Veltre 1979). There are, however, two styles. The most common are rectangular with a large, sharpened blade and a crushed and battered butt. Cross-sections are rectangular or square, or, more rarely, round. Wedges usually have a polished blade that may display battering and crushing from use. Sizes range from 2.5 cm to 36.6 cm in length and 1.5 to 8.5 cm wide. Wedges of the second style are small, 1 to 8.1 cm long and 1.2 to 3 cm wide, with square to round cross-sections. Near and Rat Island examples are from late prehistoric contexts and are considered a distinctive style (Desautels et al. 1971; McCartney 1967, 1971, 1977; Spaulding 1962). The smallest, 1–5 cm long and 2–3 wide, come from the Amaknak Bridge site. Dating to 3000 BP, these are older than the western Aleutian examples (Knecht and Davis 2005). Small wedges from Amaknak and Tigalda Islands were found in late prehistoric middens and are considerably younger than the Amaknak Bridge wedges (Grayson 1969; Knecht and Davis 2003). Some wedges exhibit scratches or cut marks on the faces. In some cases, this is an intense, heavy slashing or gouging as if with an axe. Such roughening of the blade kept the wedge from slipping from the log (Jochelson 2002). Some wedges are pitted and appear to have been anvils (Desautels et al. 1971). An unspecified number have notching or roughening on the sides that suggests hafting (McCartney 1967). Few are decorated, usually with engraved lines. Wedges made on reworked objects sometimes retain decoration from their original use (Knecht and Davis 2005).

Man the Hunter

349

About a third of the described wedges have one to five smooth, round depressions on the flat faces (McCartney 1967; Veltre 1979). If there are multiple depressions, these line up along the central line. Some exhibit carbon staining (Desautels et al. 1971). Most researchers interpret these wedges as “bases” for bow drills (Hrdliˇcka 1945; Jochelson 2002: McCartney 1967; McLain 1998; Okada and Okada 1974; Veltre 1979). They would actually be drill handholds (Moc 2000). Charring in the drill pit merely indicates that a rotating spindle generates heat in both the base and handhold. An alternative view of the function of the pit is derived from Yup’ik and Alutiiq woodworkers who place a daub of fat in the pits to keep the wedge from becoming jammed in a log (Knecht and Davis 2005: 106).

Lithic Technology Most formal tools are associated with hunting and have received the most attention, so making stone tools has been considered by archaeologists to be an exclusively male activity. However, the gendered division of labor is patterned by material, social, economic, political, and symbolic factors. Aleut women certainly could and did make many of the tools they used, including those of stone. Few sources address the typology of Aleut stone tools, and those that do are focused tightly on small regions or the oldest time periods (Aigner 1978a; Del Bene 1982, 1992; Desautels et al. 1971; Hanson 1983; Hatfield 2005, 2011; Holland 1992; McLain 1998; Veltre 1979). The only ethnographic description of Aleut stoneworking was collected from male elders, mainly on Umnak Island, in the early twentieth century (Jochelson 2002: 67). At that time, stone blades for hunting lances were still being used. Flakes were knocked off cobbles or boulders and roughly shaped into the desired form. These steps were made with a hammerstone, tugaasiˆx, a rounded cobble collected from the beach. The hardness of tugaasiˆx varied according to the hardness of the core. Smaller hammerstones, itmaˆgusiˆx (to peck), were also used in rough shaping. The edges of the tool were then finished by pressure flaking with a bone flaker, chatuˆx. Historically, flakers were made from sea otter penis bones (bacula). Sea otter ribs, cut whale ribs, and the enamel edges of walrus and whale teeth were also used (Holland 1992; Jochelson 2002). Aleut chipped-stone industry employed four major technologies: irregular flake and core, blade, microblade, and bifacial. In all sites and during all time periods, irregular flakes make up the majority of the stone tool debris, between 54 and 94%. This is largely because flakes are a byproduct of tool manufacture. Flake tools are easy to make, and the cost in materials and time is minimal. Tools made on flakes are abundant in sites because when they dulled or broke, they were discarded and another tool made. This expedient technology is said to characterize sedentary societies (Andrefsky 1994; Bousman 1993; Holdaway and Douglas 2012). However, the availability and quality of raw material is a critical factor (Andrefsky 1994). Abundant, locally available raw material will be used for tools regardless of quality (Andrefsky 1994). The ubiquitous Aleutian basalts and andesites are fine-grained

350

7 Life at Home

with weak to moderate conchoidal fracture. None are high-quality flaking material. Better qualities were used for formal bifacial tools. Lesser qualities were used for readily made, quickly used, disposable knives, scrapers, awls, gravers, and other tools. Blades are flakes at least twice as long as wide (Hatfield 2011). They were punched from prepared cores with specially constructed platforms (Aigner 1977; Hatfield 2011). Anangula blades are further defined as having a striking platform, a bulb of percussion on the ventral surface, and two dorsal ridges, although 60% of these blades have only a single dorsal ridge (Aigner 1978a). They are made on obsidian and glassy basalt. Once produced, blades were snapped to a desired length and the margins chipped into spear points, knives, perforators, scrapers, and burins (Aigner 1977; Del Bene 1982, 1992). The technology has ancient roots, up to 40,000 years old in Asia. It arrived in Alaska by 11,800 BP, where it is associated with the American Paleoarctic tradition (Hatfield 2011). Blades fell out of use by about 3600–3200 BP (Hatfield 2010, 2011). Blade technology defines the Anangula tradition and until the mid-1990s was known only from that site. Additional sites have now been found in Unalaska Bay (Dumond and Knecht 2001). In the Aleutian Islands, blades under 11 mm wide are considered microblades (Dumond and Knecht 2001; Hatfield 2010, 2011). The technology originated in Siberia around 18,000 years ago, spread to Alaska by 10,600 years ago, and to the eastern Aleutian Islands by 8000 BP (Hatfield 2011, 2018). Miniscule numbers of intentionally produced microblades have been found in ADK-00171 in the central Aleutians and ATU-00061 on Shemya (Hatfield 2005, 2011), indicating a spread of this technology to the west by 6000 BP. Microblade technology persisted longer than blades, lasting until about 3000 BP (Hatfield 2011). Most Anangula researchers have denied the presence of a separate microblade tradition, instead considering the technology to represent a continuum from large to small blades (Aigner 1970, 1977; Del Bene 1982; Dumond and Bland 1995; Laughlin and Marsh 1954; McCartney and Veltre 1996). Microblades have recently been recognized as a legitimate Aleutian stone-working technology (Coutouly 2015; Dumond and Knecht 2001; Hatfield 2010, 2011; Knecht et al. 2001). Aleutian microblades were produced using three different techniques (Coutouly 2015). In the simplest technique, the knapper held the prepared core in his or her hand and pressed with a handheld flaker. This method produced blades up to 8 mm wide and 4 cm long (Pelegrin 2012: 468–475). Slightly wider microblades, up to 10 mm wide, could be made using a 30–40 cm-long “short-crutch” flaker held against the knapper’s shoulder. The core had to be held in a vice or clamp to keep it steady against the increased pressure (Pelegrin 2012). These techniques produced narrow and irregularly shaped microblades. Parallel-sided microblades, up to 12 mm wide and 8 cm long, were made using a short crutch held against the knapper’s abdomen for more pressure (Pelegrin 2012). Bifaces, tools flaked on both faces, have been found in the Amaknak Quarry site (7069 BP) and at ADK-00171 (7000–6500 BP), but they emerge as a significant technology after 3000 BP (Hatfield 2010, 2011; Rogers et al. 2009; Wilmerding and Hatfield 2012). Along with bifacial technology came an increase in the use of

Man the Hunter

351

bone, ivory, and wood for tools. Bifaces consistently made up 2–10% of the tool kit until early historic times. Spikes in frequency at Umnak and Amchitka can readily be attributed to sampling during excavation. Bifaces were used for tools requiring specific shapes, most commonly points for spears and harpoons, awls, scrapers, and some knives. They tend to be made on hard, fine-grained materials. Creating bifaces required the use of soft hammers of wood, bone, and in the eastern islands and the Alaska Peninsula, antler. The appearance of bifacial technology may be linked to new people moving into the eastern Aleutians.

Paints The earliest European explorers all made brief notes on the many and brilliant colors used by Aleut craftsmen. Polychrome decorations on clothing and tools is a characteristic of Aleut art (Black 2003). The objects and colors are described but techniques for making and applying paints were not recorded. Except for the use of alder bark on the Alaska Peninsula, and octopus ink, all known pigments are from mineral sources (Black 2003; Turner 2008: 155; Veniaminov 1984). Yellow, red, green, black, blue, white, and shiny black, formed the basic palette (Veniaminov 1984). Red, from hematite and ochre, ranged from a red-brown to blood red, crimson and a reddish blue (Bergsland 1994; Jochelson 2002; Sauer 1802). Ochre and volcanic clay colors range from red to yellow through orange, yellow– brown, and reddish brown. Blue and green came from copper oxides or volcanic clays (Khlebnikov 1994; Merck 1980; Veniaminov 1984). Blue may have been made by mixing green and black pigments (Merck 1980). Blues ranged from reddish blue to dark blue to a light blue or gray color (Bergsland 1994). White came from volcanic clay. Glitter, a shiny black paint called sidaana, seems to have been highly prized. Small crumbles of shiny glittery rock have been recovered from excavations but have never been analyzed. Like tool stone most paints were probably found near villages. Red, black, white, and the yellows are widely available. Makushin volcano and hot springs on Atka Island were noted as good sources of red, blue, white, and green clays (Dall 1878; Khlebnikov 1994; Merck 1980). High-quality red chalk was found in Avatanak Pass (Hrdliˇcka 1945). Green was rare with sources noted on Dogoi and Ugamak Islands, and in copper oxides at Chernovsky on Unalaska Island (Veniaminov 1984). Women kept and probably prepared paints by grinding them with fine-grained abrading stones (Black 2003). The resulting powder was mixed with water, plasma from human blood, fish or sea mammal oil, urine, and raven blood (Hrdliˇcka 1945; Langsdorff 1993; Merck 1980; Sarychev 2016 [1807]). Traces of paint have been found on wooden objects from burial caves, and in incisions on bone artifacts.

352

7 Life at Home

Conclusion Acquiring resources for subsistence is only a first step. Within the village and the homes raw materials were transformed into useable goods-food, clothing, utensils. Processing animals and plants were elaborate, complex operations requiring a lifetime of learning and practice. A gendered division of labor split the burden. Men’s role in processing was secondary to their role in acquisition. Women did acquire resources, some in great quantities, but their primary role was to transform wild, raw materials into domestic life. In addition to supplying the domestic needs of their families, women manufactured material signs of social and economic status. Then incredible material complexity of Unangaˆx life was largely a product of women’s ingenuity and knowledge.

References Admiraal. Marjolein, and Rick Knecht. 2019. Understanding the Function of Container Technologies in Prehistoric Southwest Alaska. In Ceramics in Circumpolar Prehistory: Technology, Lifeways and Cuisine, ed. Peter Jordan and Kevin Gibbs, pp. 104–127. New York: Cambridge University Press. Admiraal, Marjolein, Alexander Luquin, Matthew von Tersch, Peter Jordan, and Oliver Craig. 2019. Investigating the Function of Prehistoric Stone Bowls and Griddle Stones in the Aleutian Islands by Lipid Residue Analysis. Quaternary Research 2018: 1–20. Aigner, Jean S. 1970. The Unifacial, Core and Blade Site on Anangula Island, Aleutians. Arctic Anthropology 7 (2): 59–88. Aigner, Jean S. 1972. Carved and Incised Stones from Chaluka and Anangula. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 15 (2): 39–41. Aigner, Jean S. 1977. Anangula an 8500 BP Coastal Occupation in the Aleutian Islands. Quartär 27 (28): 65–104. Aigner, Jean S. 1978a. Lithic Remains from Anangula, an 8,500 Year Old Aleut Coastal Village. Urgeschichtilche Materialhefte, Number 3, Archaeologica Venatoria, Institut für Urgeschichte der Universität Tübingen, Tubingen, Germany. Aigner, Jean S. 1978b. Activity Zonation in a 4000 year old Aleut House at Chaluka. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 19 (1): 11–25. Aigner, Jean S. 1983a. Idaliuk Bay Camp, Umnak Island Alaska, Circa 4200 BP. North American Archaeology 4 (2): 89–125. Aigner, Jean S. 1983b. Sandy Beach Bay, Umnak Island: A Mid-Holocene Village Site on the Bering Sea. Report to the Alaska State Historical Commission, Anchorage, Alaska. Aigner, Jean, and Terry Alan Del Bene. 1982. Early Maritime Adaptation in the Aleutian Islands. In Peopling of the New World, ed. Jonathon E. Ericson, Royal E. Taylor, and Rainer Berger, pp. 35–68. Anthropological Papers No. 23. Los Altos, Caliornia: Ballena Press. Andreev, A. I. 1948. Report of the Tot’ma Merchant Stepan Cherepanov About His Sojourn on the Aleutian Islands, 1759–1762. In Russkie Otkrytiia V Tikhom Okeane i v Severnoi Amerike v XVIII-XIX Vekakh (Russian Discoveries in the North Pacific and in North America in the 18th and 19th centuries), ed. A.I. Andreev, 113–120. Moscow: Akademiia Nauk. Andrefsky, William. 1994. Raw Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59 (1): 21–34. Bank, Theodore P. 1959. The Aleuts. The Explorers Journal 37 (3):2–10

References

353

Bean, Robert, Bjarne W. Olesen, and Kwang Woo Kim. 2010a. History of Radiant Heating and Cooling Systems, Part 1. ASHRAE Journal 52 (1): 40–47. Bean, Robert, Bjarne W. Olesen, and Kwang Woo Kim. 2010b. History of Radiant Heating and Cooling Systems, Part 2. ASHRAE Journal 52 (2): 50–55. Bergsland, Knut, ed. 1994. Aleut Dictionary/Unangam Tunudgusii. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Bergsland, Knut, and Moses L. Dirks. 1990. Unangan Ungiikangin Kayuk Tunusangin: Unangam Uniikangis Ama Tunuzangis: Aleut Tales and Narratives: Collected 1909–1910 by Waldemar Jochelson. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Berkh, Vasilii. 1974. A Chronological history of the Discovery of the Aleutian Islands or the Exploits of Russian Merchants with a Supplement of Historical Data on the Fur Trade. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Black, Lydia T. 1984. Atka: An Ethnohistory of the Western Aleutians. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press. Black, Lydia T. 1991. Unalaska Archaeology and History Project. In National Geographic Research and Exploration. National Geographic Society. Black, Lydia T. 2003. Aleut Art. 2nd ed. Anchorage, Alaska: Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association. Bousman, Britt C. 1993. Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations, Economic Risk and Tool Design. Lithic Technology 18 (1–2): 59–86. Chandonnet, Ann. 1975. Sophie Pletnikoff’s Cloth Made of Grass. Alaska Journal 5 (1): 55–58. Cherepanov, Stepan. 1762. The Account of the Totma Merchant, Stepan Cherepanov, concerning his stay in the Aleutian Islands, 1759–1762. In Russian Penetration of the North Pacific Ocean 1700–1797: A Documentary Record, vol. 2, ed. B. Dymytryshyn, E.A.P. Crownhart Vaughan, and Thomas Vaughan, 206–213. North Pacific Studies Series number 10, T. Vaughan, general editor. Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press. Cook, John, James Dixon, and Charles Holmes. 1972. Archaeological Report Site 49 RAT 32, Amchitka Island, Alaska. Holmes and Narver, Inc., On-Continent Test Division HN-20–1043, University of Alaska Museum of the North, Fairbanks. Corbett, Debra. 1993. Wood Chips and Kayak Parts: Aleut Woodworking Techniques. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association. Juneau, Alaska. Corbett, Debra. 2011. Two Chief’s Houses from the Western Aleutian Islands. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 3–16. Corbett, Debra, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre. 2001. Prehistoric Village Organization in the Western Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, ed. Don E. Dumond, 251–266. Eugene: University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Corbett, Debra, Dixie West, and Christine Lefèvre. 2010. The People at the End of the World: The Western Aleutians Project and the Archaeology of Shemya Island. Aurora VIII. Anchorage: Alaska Anthropological Association. Coutouly, Yan Axel Gomez. 2015. Anangula: A Major Pressure-Microblade Site in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska: Reevaluating Its Lithic Component. Arctic Anthropology 52 (1): 23–59. Coxe, William 1970 [1787]. Account of the Russian Discoveries Between Asia and America, 3rd ed. T. Cadell, London. 1970 facsimile ed. Augustus M. Kelley, New York. Crowell, Aron L., and Jeff Leer. 2001. Ukgwepet—“Our Beliefs: Alutiiq Spiritual Life and Traditions. In Looking Both Ways: Heritage and Identity of the Alutiiq People, ed. Aron L. Crowell, Amy F. Steffian, and Gordon L. Pullar, 189–221. Anchorage: Arctic Studies Center, Smithsonian Institution, Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository, and University of Alaska Press. Crowell, Aron L., and Sonja Lührmann. 2001. Alutiiq Culture: Views from Archaeology, Anthropology, and History. In Looking Both Ways: Heritage and Identity of the Alutiiq People, ed. Aron L. Crowell, Amy F. Steffian, and Gordon L. Pullar, 21–71. Anchorage: Arctic Studies Center, Smithsonian Institution, Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository, and University of Alaska Press. Dall, William H. 1872. Notes on Prehistoric Remains in the Aleutian Islands. California Academy of Sciences, November 4. San Francisco.

354

7 Life at Home

Dall, William H. 1878. On the Remains of Later Prehistoric Man Obtained from the Caves in the Catherina Archipelago, Alaska Territory, and Especially from Caves of the Aleutian Islands. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 318. Smithsonian Institution. Damas, David. 1984. Introduction. In Arctic, vol. 5, ed. D. Damas, 1–8. Handbook of North American Indians. William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. de Beaune, Sophie A., and Randall White. 1993. Ice Age Lamps. Scientific American Monthly 266 (3): 108–113. Del Bene, Terry Alan. 1982. The Anangula Lithic Technological System: An Appraisal of Aleutian Technology, circa 8250–8750 BP. PhD dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, Storrs. Del Bene, Terry Alan. 1992. Chipped Stone Technology of the Anangula Core and Blade Site, Eastern Aleutian Islands. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 24 (1–2): 51–72. deLaguna, Frederica. 1940. Eskimo Lamps and Pots. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland 70 (Part I): 53–76. Denniston, Glenda. 1966. Cultural Change at Chaluka, Umnak Island. Arctic Anthropology 3 (2): 84–124. Desautels, Roger, Albert J. McCurdy, James D. Flynn, and Robert R. Ellis. 1971. Archaeological Report Amchitka Island, Alaska 1969–1970. Archaeological Research Inc. Report for Holmes and Narver, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada. Submitted to United States Atomic Energy Commission Report TID-25481, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas. Dmytryshyn, Basil, E.A.P. Crownhart-Vaughan, and Thomas Vaughan. 1988. Russian Penetration of the North Pacific Ocean: A Documentary Record, 1700–1797. In To Siberia and Russian America: Three Centuries of Russian Eastward Expansion, 1558–1867, 3 vols, Trans. Basil Dmytryshyn. Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press. Dove, Carla J., and Suzanne C. Peurach. 2002. Microscopic Analysis of Feather and Hair Fragments Associated with Human Mummified Remains from Kagamil Island, Alaska. In To the Aleutians and Beyond: The Anthropology of William S. Laughlin, vol. 20, ed. Bruno Frohlich, Albert B. Harper, and Rolf Gilberg, 51–61. Copenhagen: Publications of the National Museum of Denmark, Ethnographic Series. National Museum of Denmark. Dumond, Don E. 1987. The Eskimos and Aleuts, 2nd ed. London: Thames and Hudson. Dumond, Don E., and Richard L. Bland. 1995. Holocene Prehistory of the Northernmost North Pacific. Journal of World Prehistory 9 (4): 401–451. Dumond, Don E., and Richard Knecht. 2001. An Early Blade Site in the Eastern Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, ed. Don E. Dumond, 9–34. Eugene: University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Emmons, George T. 1991. The Tlingit Indians, ed. Frederica de Laguna. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 70. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 1994. Boundaries and Passages: Rule and Ritual in Yup’ik Eskimo Oral Tradition. Civilization of the American Indian 212. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 2007. Yuungnaqpiallerput, The Way We Genuinely Live: Masterworks of Yup’ik Science and Survival. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Frink, Lisa, Brian Hoffman, and Debra Corbett. 1996. Gender, Space and the Division of Labor: Women’s Activities in Eastern Aleutian Prehistory. Paper presented at the Gender and Archaeology Conference. Ann Arbor, Michigan. Frink, Lisa. 2009. The Identity Division of Labor in Native Alaska. American Anthropologist 111 (1): 21–29. Geoghegan, Richard Henry. 1944. The Aleut Language: The Elements of Aleut Grammar with a Dictionary in Two Parts Containing Basic Vocabularies of Aleut and English, ed. Fredericka I. Martin. Washington, DC: United States Department of the Interior. Georgi, Johann Gottlieb. 1780. Russia: or, a Compleat Historical Account of all the Nations which Compose that Empire, vol. 3, Trans. William Tooke. Printed for J. Nichols, T. Cadell, H. Payne, and N. Conant. London.

References

355

Gilman, Charlotte Perkins.1898. Women and Economics. Maynard, Boston: Small. Gordaoff, Roberta M. 2016. The House on the Hill: A 3800-Year-Old Upland Site on Adak Island, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Master’s thesis. Anchorage: Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Anchorage. Grayson, Donald K. 1969. The Tigalda Site: An Eastern Aleutian Midden. Master’s thesis. Eugene: Department of Anthropology, University of Oregon. Haakanson, Sven, and Amy Steffian. 2004. The Alutiiq Museum’s Guidelines for the Care of Spiritual Objects. In Stewards of the Sacred, ed. Lawrence E. Sullivan and Alison Edwards, 155–166. Washington, DC: American Association of Museums. Hanson, Diane K. 1983. Analysis of Stone Tools from Western Chaluka, Umnak Island. Fairbanks: Report to the University of Alaska Museum of the North. Hatfield, Virginia. 2005. Historic Continuity from Shemya to Dutch Harbor: An evolutionary analysis of chipped stone technology in the Aleutian Islands. PhD dissertation. Lawrence: University of Kansas. Hatfield, Virginia. 2010. Material Culture across the Aleutian Archipelago. Human Biology 82 (5–6): 525–556. Hatfield, Virginia. 2011. Chipped Stone Technology and the Colonization of the Aleutian Archipelago. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 113–125. Hatfield, Virginia. 2018. The Stratigraphy and Archaeology of Two Villages in the Islands of Four Mountains, Aleutians, Alaska. Quaternary Research 2018: 1–20. Hoffman, Brian. 1999. Manufacturing Status: Eastern Aleutian Household Economy, ca AD 1650. Paper presented at the 64th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology. Chicago. Hoffman, Brian 2002. The Organization of Complexity: A Study of Late Prehistoric Village Organization in the Eastern Aleutian Region. PhD dissertation, Madison: Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin. Holdaway, Simon, and Matthew Douglas. 2012. A Twenty-First Century Archaeology of Stone Tools. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 19: 101–131. Holland, Katherine Marie. 1982. Chulka Bone Artifacts, Akun Island, Alaska. Master’s thesis. Tempe: Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University. Holland, Katherine Marie. 1992. Rethinking Aleutian Prehistory as Viewed from a Lithic Database. PhD dissertation. Tempe: Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University. Hough, Walter. 1898. The Lamp of the Eskimo. In Report of the U.S. National Museum for 1896, 1025–1105. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution, Government Printing Office. Hrdliˇcka, Aleš. 1945. The Aleutian and Commander Islands and their Inhabitants. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology. Hudson, Raymond L., ed. 1992. Unugulux Tunusangin, Oldtime Stories: Aleut Crafts and Traditions as Taught to Students at the Unalaska City School, by Augusta Dushkin (and others). Unalaska, Alaska: Unalaska City School District. Hudson, Raymond L. (ed.). 2005. Cuttlefish, Vols. 1, 2, 3. Originally published 1977. Unalaska: Museum of the Aleutians. Iverson, Sara J., and Heather M. Koopman 2018. Blubber. In Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. 3rd ed., ed. Bernd Wursig, J.G.M. Tewissen, and Kit Kovacs, 107–110. San Diego, California: Academic Press. Jackson, Louise Melanie. 1991. Nineteenth Century British Ceramics: A Key to Cultural Dynamics in Southwestern Alaska. PhD dissertation, Los Angeles: Department of Anthropology, University of California. Jochelson, Waldemar. 1909. Aleuts: How They Were Seen by V. Iokhel’son, collection of photographs from his expedition. Peter the Great Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, St. Petersburg, Russia. Jochelson, Waldemar. 1933. History, Ethnology and Anthropology of the Aleut. Publication 432. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution.

356

7 Life at Home

Jochelson, Waldemar. 2002. Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands. Reprinted. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Publication 367. Originally published 1925, Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC. Johnson, L. Lewis. 2016. Wooden artifacts from Asˆxaana-ˆx Cave, Islands of the Four Mountains. Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 53 (2): 114–140. Katz, Sandor E. 2012. The Art of Fermentation. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing. Khlebnikov, Kyrill T. 1994. Notes on Russian America, Parts II-IV: Kad’iak, Unalashka, Atkha, the Pribylovs, Trans. Marina Ramsay, ed. Richard Pierce. Alaska History Series 42. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Kissell, Mary Lois. 1907. An Aleutian Basket. The American Museum Journal 7 (8): 133–136. Knecht, Richard, and Richard Davis 2003. Archaeological Evaluation of Tanaxtaxak, The Amaknak Spit Site (UNL-00055) Final Report. Report prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District by the Museum of the Aleutians. Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Knecht, Richard, and Richard Davis. 2005. Unalaska South Channel Bridge Project Number MGSSTP-BR-0310(S)/52930 Amaknak. Bridge Site Data Recovery Final Report. Report on file with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage. Knecht, Richard, Richard Davis, and Gary Carver. 2001. The Margaret Bay Site and Eastern Aleutian Prehistory. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, ed. Don E. Dumond, 35–69. Eugene: University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Knudsen, Garrett. 2004. Ancient House and Households on the Western Alaska Peninsula. Master’s thesis. Pocatello: Department of Anthropology, Idaho State University. Langsdorff, Georg Heinrich von. 1993. Remarks and Observations on a Voyage Around the World 1803–1807, Trans. Victoria Joan Moessner, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History Series No. 41. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Laughlin, William S. 1955. Chaluka Archaeology. Final report for the Office of Naval Research ONR-82. Manuscript number GN 784 on file at the Arctic Institute of North America. Calgary, Alberta: University of Calgary. Laughlin, William S. 1963. Eskimos and Aleuts: Their Origin and Evolution. Science 142 (3593): 633–645. Laughlin, William S.1980. Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Laughlin, William S., and Jean S. Aigner. 1974. Burial of an Aged Chaluka Aleut Male. Arctic Anthropology 11 (1): 47–60. Laughlin, William S., and Jean S. Aigner. 1975. Aleut Adaptation and Evolution. In Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone, ed. William Fitzhugh, 181–201. The Hague, Paris: Mouton Publishers. Laughlin, William S., Sarah B. Laughlin, and S.B. Beman. 1991. Aleut Kayak-Hunter’s Hypertrophic Humerus. Current Research in the Pleistocene 8: 55–56. Laughlin, William S., and Gordon M. Marsh. 1954. The Lamellar Flake Manufacturing Site on Anangula Island in the Aleutians. American Antiquity 20 (1): 27–39. Lee, Molly, and Greg L. Reinhardt. 2003. Eskimo Architecture: Dwelling and Structure in the Early Historic Period. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Lefèvre, Christine, Debra Corbett, Dixie West, and Douglas Siegel-Causey. 1997. A Zooarchaeological Study at Buldir Island, Western Aleutians. Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 34 (2): 118–131. Lefèvre, Christine, Dixie West, and Debra Corbett. 2001. Archaeological Surveys in the Near Islands: Attu Island and Shemya Island. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, ed. Don E. Dumond, 235–250. Eugene: University of Oregon, Anthropological Papers No. 58. LeGuin, Ursula K. 2006. Voices. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Levashov, Mikhail. 1769. Woman of Unalaska Island. Russian Naval Archives, 1331-4-702-24, folio 24. Smithsonian. Institution, Arctic Studies Center. https://envisioning-alaska.org/authors/ levashov-mikhail-dmitirevich.

References

357

Lewis, Arthur. 1904. The Life and Work of E.J. Peck Among the Eskimos. New York: A. C. Armstrong and Son. Liapunova, Rosa G. 1996. Essays on the Ethnography of the Aleuts: At the end of the Eighteenth and First Half of the Nineteenth Century, Trans. J. Shelest. Rasmuson Library Historical Translation Series 9. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Litke, Frederic. 1987. A Voyage Around the World 1826–1829, Trans. Renée Marshall, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History Series No. 29. Fairbanks: Limestone Press. Loeb, Margery L. 1930. An Aleutian Burial. Manuscript on file. New York: American Museum of Natural History. Lujan, Jenny. 1984. Picking Grass for Baskets. Taniisiˆx 4: 35. McCartney, Allen. 1967. An Analysis of the Bone Industry from Amaknak Island, Alaska. Master’s thesis. Madison: Department of Anthropology, University of Wisconsin. McCartney, Allen. 1971. A Proposed Western Aleutian Phase in the Near Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 8 (2): 92–142. McCartney, Allen. 1974. Maritime Adaptations on the North Pacific Rim. Arctic Anthropology 11 (Supplement): 153–162. McCartney, Allen. 1977. Prehistoric Human Occupation of the Rat Islands. In The Environment of Amchitka Island, Alaska, ed. Melvin L. Merritt and R. Glen Fuller, 59–113. Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Service, Energy Research and Development Administration. McCartney, Allen, and Douglas Veltre. 1996. Anangula Core and Blade Site. In American Beginnings: The Prehistory and Paleoecology of Beringia, ed. Fred Hadleigh West, 443–450. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McLain, Allison Young. 1998. Aleut Technological Organization, Amchitka Island, Alaska. Manuscript in author’s possession. Marsh, Gordon. 1954. A Comparative Survey of Eskimo-Aleut Religion. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 3 (1): 21–36. Maschner, Herbert D.G. 1999a. Prologue to the Prehistory of the Lower Alaska Peninsula. Arctic Anthropology 36 (1–2): 84–102. Maschner, Herbert D.G. 1999b. Sedentism, Settlement and Village Organization on the Lower Alaska Peninsula: A Preliminary Assessment. In Settlement Pattern Studies in the Americas: Fifty Years Since Viru, ed. Brian R. Billman and Gary M. Feinman, 56–76. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Maschner, Herbert D.G., and Brian Hoffman. 2003. The Development of Large Corporate Households Along the North Pacific Rim. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 1 (2): 44–61. Maschner, Herbert D.G., James W. Jordan, Bruce Finney, Katherine Reedy-Maschner, Nancy Huntley, Amber Tews, Roly Russell, Spencer Wood, Nicole Misarti, Liza Mack, Andy Krumhardt, Diana Orduczuk, Sean Mack, Molly Odell, and Buck Benson. 2004. Report of Investigations on Sanak Island. Washington, DC: Report to National Science Foundation. Merck, Carl Heinrich. 1980. Siberia and Northwestern America 1788–1792: the Journal of Carl Heinrich Merck, Naturalist with the Russian Scientific Expedition led by Captains Joseph Billings and Gavriil Sarychev, Trans. Fritz Jaensch, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History Series No. 17. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Merkur, Daniel. 2013. Becoming Half Hidden: Shamanism and Initiation Among the Inuit. Originally published 1993, Garland Reference Library of the Humanities Series, vol. 1559. New York: Garland Publishing. Miller, James R. 1882. Home-Maker. San Antonio, Texas: The Vision Forum. Moc, Peter. 2000. Basic Bow Drill. wildwoodsurvival.com/survival/fire/bowdrill/pmoc/basicbowd rill.html. Accessed July 22, 2020. Mooney, James Phillip. 1993. An Eighteenth Century Aleutian Longhouse at Reese Bay, Unalaska Island, Alaska. Master’s thesis, Fayetteville: Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas. Nanda, Serena. 2014. Gender Diversity: Crosscultural Variations, 2nd ed. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press.

358

7 Life at Home

Nelson, Edward W. 1983. The Eskimo About Bering Strait. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Originally published 1899, in the Eighteenth Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology, 1896-97, part 1, Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Nevzorof, Vera, and Betsy Dirks. 1981. The Story of Basket Weaving. Taniisiˆx 2: 12–13. Nutritiondata. 2011. Self-Nutrition. Conde Nast Publishing. www.nutritiondata.com Odgaard, Ulla. 2003. Hearth and Home of the Palaeo-Eskimos. Études Inuit Studies 27 (1–2): 349–374. Okada, Hiroaki, and Atsuko Okada. 1974. The Hot Springs Village Site: Preliminary report of the 1972 Excavations at Port Moller. Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 11: 112–124. Okada, Hiroaki, Atsuko Okada, Yoshinobu Kotani, and Keishi Hattori. 1976. The Hot Springs Village Site (2): Preliminary Report of the 1974 excavations at Port Moller, Alaska. Tokyo: Hachioji Okada, Hiroaki, Atsuko Okada, and Yoshinobu Kotani. 1979. The Hot Springs Village Site (3): Preliminary Report of the 1977 excavations at Port Moller, Alaska. Hokkaido: Institute for the Study of Northern Eurasian Cultures, Faculty of Letters, Hokkaido University. Okada, Hiroaki, Atsuko Okada, Kunio Yajima amd Bin Yamaguchi 1984. The Hot Springs Village Site (4): Preliminary Report of the 1980 and 1982 excavations at Port. Moller, Alaska. Hokkaido: Institute for the Study of Northern Eurasian Cultures, Faculty of Letters, Hokkaido University. Oliver, Ethel Ross. 1988. Journal of an Aleutian Year. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Park, Sam Y. 1991. An Introduction to Korean Architecture: Folk Villages, Fortresses, Temples, and Pagodas, vol. 1. Seoul, South Korea: Jungwoo Sa. Pearson, Sean. 2007. Preserving Your Catch. Homer Tribune. homertribune.com/2007/06/preser ving-your-catch. Pelegrin, Jacques. 2012. New Experimental Observations for the Characterization of Pressure Blade Production Techniques. In The Emergence of Pressure Blade Making: From Origin to Modern Experimentation, ed. Pierre M. Desrosiers, 465–500. New York: Springer. Pendleton, Catherine L. 2008. Changes in Aleut House Construction in the Russian Period: Evidence from the Zapadni Site, St. Paul Island, Alaska. Master’s thesis. Anchorage: Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Anchorage. Philemonoff, Polly Ann, and Sheryl Stepetin. 1980. Aleut Baskets. Taniisiˆx 1: 9. Porcher, C. Gadsden. 1904. Aleutian Basketry. The Craftsman 5 (6): 575–583. Pressley, Benjamin. 1996. Conquering the Darkness: Primitive Lighting Methods. Bulletin of Primitive Technology 12. http://www.hollowtop.com/spt_html/lighting.htm, Accessed July 22, 2020. Quimby, George I. 1946. The Sadiron Lamp of Kamchatka as a Clue to the Chronology of the Aleut. American Antiquity 11 (3): 202–203. Ransom, J. Ellis. 1946. Aleut Natural Food Economy. American Anthropologist 48 (4): 607–623. Reedy-Maschner, Katherine, and Herbert D. G. Maschner (eds.). 2012. Sanak Island, Alaska: A Natural and Cultural History. Pocatello: Idaho Museum of Natural and Cultural History. Rogers, Jason. 2011. Architecture and Complex Hearth Features at the Amaknak Bridge Site, Eastern Aleutian. Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 92–112. Rogers, Jason, Michael Yarborough, and Catherine Pendleton. 2009. An Anangula Period Coreand-Blade Site, Amaknak Island. Eastern Aleutians. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 7 (1): 150–165. Sarychev, Gavriil Andreevich. 2016 [1807]. Account of a Voyage of Discovery to the North-East of Siberia the Frozen Ocean and the North-East Sea. Printed for Richard Phillips, London. 2016 facsimile ed. Facsimile Publisher, Delhi, India. Sauer, Martin. 1802. An Account of a Geographical and Astronomical Expedition to the Northern parts of Russia. London: T. Cadell. Schlung, Tyler (ed.). 2003. Umnak: The People Remember. Museum of the Aleutians Publications Series 2. Walnut Creek, California: Hardscratch Press.

References

359

Settles, O. 1945. Clothing, Mats, Baskets and Cordage from Kagamil Island. In The Aleutian and Commander Islands and Their Inhabitants, ed. Aleš Hrdliˇcka, 589–608. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology. Shantry, Kate. 2020. The Selection of Boiling Stones from a Heterogenous Supply. Journal of Archaeological Science 29: 102030. Shapsnikoff, Anfesia, and Raymond L. Hudson. 1974. Aleut Basketry. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16 (2): 41–69. Snigaroff, Cedor L. 1986. Niiˆguˆgis Maqaˆxtazaqangis: Atkan Historical Traditions, 3rd ed., ed. Knut Bergsland. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska. Spaulding, Albert C. 1962. Archaeological Investigations on Agattu, Aleutian Islands. Anthropological Papers No. 18, Museum of Anthropology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan. Steen, Susan L., Steven R. Street, Diane E. Hawkey, and Robert W. Lane 1996. An Application of a Comprehensive Strategy for Recording Activity-Related Stress Markers on the Skeletal Remains of Alaskan Eskimos. Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. North Carolina: Research Triangle Park. Steffian, Amy. 2001. Cummillallret—Ancestors. In Looking Both Ways: Heritage and Identity of the Alutiiq People, ed. Aron L. Crowell, Amy F. Steffian, and Gordon L. Pullar, 99–135. Anchorage: Arctic Studies Center, Smithsonian Institution, Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository, and University of Alaska Press. Steffian, Amy F., Marnei Leist, Sven Haakanson, and Patrick Saltonstall. 2015. Kal’unek: From Karluk. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Suvorov, Ivan, and Alexey Yatchmeneff. 1976. Unangam Ungiikangin: Aleut Traditions, ed. Knut Bergsland. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska. Thorssin, Holly Ann. 2020. Paleoethnobotany in the Central Aleutian Islands: A Case Study from ADK-00237, an Upland Archaeological Site on Adak Island, Alaska. Master’s thesis. Anchorage: Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Anchorage. Tikhmenev, P.A. 1978. A History of the Russian-American Company. Trans. and ed. Richard A. Pierce and Alton S. Donnelly. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Trigger, Bruce G. 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. Turner, Lucien M. 2008. An Aleutian Ethnography, ed. Raymond L. Hudson. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. USBIA (United States Bureau of Indian Affairs). 1985. Report of Investigations for The Aleut Corporation, AA-12223, Pustoi Island. Report on File, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Anchorage, Alaska. USBIA (United States Bureau of Indian Affairs). 1991. Report of Investigation for Bristol Bay Native Corporation, AA-10662, Ugashik Narrows. Report on File at Bureau of Indian Affairs, Anchorage. Varjola, Pirjo. 1990. The Etholén Collection: The Ethnographic Alaskan Collection of Adolf Etholén and his Contemporaries in the National Museum of Finland. Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities of Finland. Veltre, Douglas. 1979. Korovinski: The Ethnohistoric Archaeology of an Aleut and Russian Settlement on Atka Island, Alaska. PhD dissertation. Storrs: Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut. Veltre, Douglas, and Alan McCartney 2001. Ethnohistorical Archaeology at the Reese Bay Site, Unalaska Island. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska, ed. Don E. Dumond, 87–104. Eugene: University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Veltre, Douglas W., and Mary J. Veltre. 1981. Preliminary Baseline Study of Subsistence resource Utilization on the Pribilof Islands, Alaska. Anchorage: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper #57. Veltre, Douglas W., and Mary J. Veltre. 1982. Resource Utilization in Unalaska, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Anchorage: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper #58.

360

7 Life at Home

Veltre, Douglas W., and Mary J. Veltre. 1983. Resource Utilization in Atka, Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Anchorage: Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Subsistence. Technical Paper #88. Veniaminov, Ivan. 1984. Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District. Trans. Lydia T. Black and R.H. Geoghegan, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History Series No. 27. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press. Volokh, Anne. 1983. The Art of Russian Cuisine. New York: Macmillan. Webber, John. 1778. Interior of Habitation—Oonalashka, 1778, pp. ink and graphite on paper. vol. 31.2 × 49 cm, Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Prints and Drawings. pmem.unix.fas.harvard.edu. Weiss, Elizabeth. 2003. Effects of Rowing on Humeral Strength. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 121 (4): 293–302. West, Dixie, Debra Corbett, and Christine Lefèvre 1997. Report of the Buldir Island Expedition: Third Season in the Aleut Midden Site. Report to the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC: Anchorage, Alaska and the National Science Foundation. Weyer, Edward M. 1969. The Eskimos: Their Environment and Folkways. Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Press. Wilmerding, Mary Elizabeth. 1993. A Comparative Analysis of Textiles from Four Burial Caves in the Eastern Aleutian Islands. Master’s thesis. Pullman: Department of Anthropology, Washington State University. Wilmerding, Mary Elizabeth. 2005. The Culture Sequence at the Nunik Site, Chernabura Island, Alaska. PhD dissertation. Pullman: Department of Anthropology, Washington State University. Wilmerding, Mary Elizabeth, and Virginia Hatfield. 2012. Six Thousand Years of Lithic Technology on Adak in a Broader Aleutian Context. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gualtieri, 211–238. Oxford, England: BAR International Series 2322. British Archaeological Reports. Wrangham, Richard. 2009. Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human. New York: Basic Books. Zagoskin, Lavrentiiy, A. 1967. Lieutenant Zagoskin’s Travels in Russian America 1842–1844: The First Ethnographic and Geographic Investigations in the Yukon and Kuskokwim Valleys of Alaska, ed. Henry N. Michael. Anthropology of the North: Translations from Russian Sources, Issue 7. For the Arctic Institute of North America. Toronto, Ontario: University of Toronto Press.

Chapter 8

Transitions

When a tradition gathers enough strength to go on for centuries, you don’t just turn it off one day. (Chinua Achebe) A civilization is a heritage of beliefs, customs and knowledge slowly accumulated in the course of centuries. (Antoine de Saint-Exupery)

This chapter focuses on the life cycle of individuals from birth through death. The section on death leads into an examination of burial practices and beliefs. Shamanism and ceremonial life conclude the chapter. These aspects of life are the hardest for archaeologists to recognize and reconstruct. Ethnographic analogy is a critical tool but must be judiciously compared to the broken, discarded, and lost remains left behind. Context is crucial but sadly lacking from most existing Aleutian Island collections. This presentation focuses on the period just before the arrival of the Russians. Archaeology can extend some patterns deeper into the past.

Becoming a Person As birth approached, a woman was segregated. In Alaska Peninsula-style longhouses, she would occupy a side room. In other styles of house, women moved to a separate house used for puberty, childbirth, and menstrual seclusion (Lantis 1970; Veniaminov 1984). In 2010, during survey on Adak for upland sites, a small house depression (ADK-00265) was found inland from a cluster of sites in Trappers Cove, Bay of Islands (Hanson 2010). The 2 × 3 m depression faced a small meadow, out of sight of salt water. A small test excavation yielded a date of 300 ± 30 BP (461–296 cal BP). Artifacts included a fragmentary flaked knife with ground edges, a whetstone, a wedge, griddlestones, and an octopus beak. Most women’s houses were probably in a village, so this may be a more isolated example. The expectant mother was attended by older female midwives. After birth, the new mother’s abdomen was bound with a belt and massaged every day. She was propped up in a squatting position for four days. After four days, she was bathed and could lie down with her legs bent. Baby and mother remained together in the birthing © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Corbett and D. Hanson, Culture and Archaeology of the Ancestral Unangaˆx/Aleut of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44294-0_8

361

362

8 Transitions

house for 40 days, the Russian Orthodox ritual period, but the timing but could also be aboriginal (Lantis 1970). Umbilical cords were cut with a shell or “arrowhead” (Merck 1980: 175). The cord, afterbirth, and knife were buried together. The baby was washed in urine, rinsed in freshwater, and purified in the smoke of a fire. Then the village men all bathed. The baby was warmed, massaged, swaddled, and placed in a cradle formed of a triangular base block attached to a wooden hoop with four struts and covered with a sealskin or mat bag (Fig. 8.1). Children’s cradles were decorated with beads, thong tassels, and bird beaks (Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 77). Complete cradles and their parts have been found in burial caves. After 40 days, the mother bathed and donned clean clothes. It is likely the family sponsored a feast to introduce the baby to the community. At this time, a grandfather or uncle gave the child a lineage name from either parent’s family. Name-giving was accompanied by a recitation of family history. Naming gave a child a name soul, which possessed abstract traits from every previous and existing person sharing that name (Merkur 1991; Weyer 1969). These traits passed into a newborn and connected the living with the ancestors (Fienup-Riordan 1990a, b). Children were nursed until they got teeth (Merck 1980: 174). If the mother was unable to produce enough milk, a wood or ivory bottle, inuuluˆx, with a split to hold seal blubber, was used to feed the baby (Merck 1980: 175).

Fig. 8.1 Cradle frame and cover

Marriage

363

Puberty At her first menstruation, a girl was confined in darkness for 40 days. Cords tied around her neck, waist, wrists, ankles, and knees, and an amulet at her waist, regulated her power in this crucial period (Lantis 1970; Laughlin 1980; Shade 1949). She was not allowed to brush her hair, and she scratched any itches with a stick. When an older woman brought food and water, the girl ate and drank sparingly, and she was allowed to briefly walk outside after dark. Ten days after her seclusion began, she bathed, repeating the bath every five days. After 40 days, she was secluded for another 10 days with normal lighting. At the end of her seclusion, she cleaned the house and bathed again. After the first menstruation, she began to receive facial tattoos and piercings for earrings or labrets. She was now a woman. A boy’s puberty was not obviously marked with rituals. Boys received their own kayaks at about age ten. Among virtually all Inuit groups, boys gave away the meat of their first kill and then fasted for three days. Young Aleuts almost certainly had a similar obligation. The main midwinter Festival on Unalaska opened with a procession of naked boys who danced and beat on small drums (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Dall 1878). This ritual has obvious parallels with the Yup’ik ceremonies of Nakaciuq (Bladder Festival) and Kelek, when children who danced for the first time were honored with special treatment, new clothes, and other gifts in a formal, public initiatory rite (FienupRiordan 1994: 343).

Marriage Men married in their late teens or early twenties when they had proved themselves as hunters. Women married when they were competent housewives, soon after puberty. In the eastern Aleutians, marriages were arranged, often when children were young. When a man and woman had reached the appropriate age and achieved the necessary competence, and if they both consented to marry, the man would move in with his wife’s family and would work for them for one to two years. Alternatively, his family could make rich presents of clothing, boats, and slaves to the bride’s family (Khlebnikov 1994: 128; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 76; Sauer 1802: 125). At the end of his period of bride service or upon the birth of a child, the couple was married. In the central Aleutians, parents gave the couple household utensils, clothing, and hunting gear, and the man gave his new in-laws a slave. Veniaminov (1984: 193) very briefly states that a “feast and an entertainment” followed the completion of bride service or payment of the bride price. During the Yup’ik Nakaciuq, newlyweds were celebrated with dances (Fienup-Riordan 1994), and it is likely Aleut couples were similarly feted during a midwinter festival. Men married as many wives as they could support, commonly one or two, but up to seven (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988; Georgi 1780; Khlebnikov

364

8 Transitions

1994; Langsdorff 1993; Merck 1980; Sarychev 2016 [1807]; Sauer 1802). One wife held a senior position. Women could also have more than one husband (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Khlebnikov 1994; Veniaminov 1984). Since she was responsible for sewing their clothing and boat covers, a woman who could support two men was famed as “smart and efficient” (Veniaminov 1984: 194). The second husband was subordinate, and if he left, children stayed with the wife and primary husband.

Disease and Illness Disrespect toward the souls of hunted animals was the primary cause of illness. Souls of slain animals returned to their village in Sitxuuˆgiˆx Kuyuudaˆx, the Lower World, where they reported on the behavior of the hunter who killed them (Marsh 1954; Weyer 1969). Abused or disrespected souls become vengeful spirits or qugaˆx (Marsh 1954; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 76). Qugaˆx, or Aˆgadaˆx, Sun Woman, caused disease by either stealing a person’s free soul or inserting a pathogen into the victim (Marsh 1954; Merkur 1991; Milan 1974). Proper behavior was the best insurance against illness or accident. Amulets and qugaanguusiˆx (magic protectors) also conferred protection from illness and accident (Black 1981; Marsh 1954). If someone became ill despite these precautions, a shaman, summoned his qugaanguusiˆx to diagnose and cure the disease (Merkur 1991; Eliade 1964; Crowell and Leer 2001; Fienup-Riordan 1994). If a soul had been stolen, shamans traveled through alternate worlds to find and guide the soul home. If the disease was due to an inserted pathogen, the shaman mended the soul or removed the foreign pathogen. Not all injury or disease required a shaman. In addition to shamans, medical specialists included midwives, healers, and doctors (chaˆgidaˆx, hamayanaˆx, uˆgayanaˆx ). Midwives were old women with extensive experience tending births. Healers prescribed herbal medicines, tended injuries, set bones, and sutured wounds. Doctors were highly skilled and trained, undergoing lengthy apprenticeships which incorporated anatomical lessons from the dissection of dead sea otters and slaves (Litke 1987: 103). The profession was passed from father to son. Besides obvious injuries, healers and doctors recognized internal illnesses such as diarrhea and fever as well as external diseases such as rashes, boils, headache, arthritis, and, post-contact, tuberculosis. Analysis of 141 Unangaˆx skeletons and 151 crania from the eastern Aleutians provides some information on pre-contact health (Keenleyside 2003). Most common conditions are arthritis, broken bones, traumatic injury, and infections. Crania exhibited cribra orbitalia, trauma, and infections. Found in 53 crania, cribra orbitalia, porous or spongy bone around eye sockets, is caused by nutritional stress or chronic infections and is considered an indicator of general poor health. Cranial trauma was noted in 26 individuals and signs of cranial infection in 51. Dental health was evaluated by examining tooth wear and loss, caries, abscesses, and periodontal disease. No cavities were found in any individuals. However, 93

Disease and Illness

365

older individuals had lost teeth prior to death, and abscesses were common. All of the teeth were worn down from heavy use. Twenty-three individuals had healed bone fractures in ribs, upper and lower arms, lower legs, shoulder blades, pelvis, hands, and feet. Arthritis was common in the back, hips, and shoulders. Mummified individuals yield more information on diseases and soft tissue injuries. Autopsies on two mummies confirmed the presence of arthritis and extreme tooth wear (Zimmerman et al. 1971). An adult male likely died of pneumonia. He had no arthritis or worms, but he did have sooty deposits in his lungs. A woman estimated to have died at age fifty or older had arthritis in her hips and left elbow, the latter likely caused by holding objects firmly in her left hand, probably while sewing. Musculoskeletal stress markers on women’s arms in general indicate a great deal of time was spent weaving (Steen et al. 1996). The mummified woman had a perforated eardrum and chronic mastoiditis from ear infections. Her lungs were coated with sooty deposits, likely from tending her lamp, and irritation from breathing smoke had caused her bronchial tubes to enlarge (Zimmermann et al. 1971). Soil samples collected from Adak and Buldir revealed the presence of roundworms (Ascaris sp.) and tapeworms (Diphyllobothrium sp.; Bouchet et al. 1999, 2001). Both are common parasites passed to humans from sea mammals and fish. The general picture is of people living robust, physically active lives. Accidents were common facts of life. Other conditions, such as parasites and soot-filled lungs, were the inevitable results of diet and open fires in residences. Following the arrival of the Russians, general health declined. Introduced infectious diseases ravaged the Aleuts. By 1800, tuberculosis, influenza, and measles were endemic. After epidemics of measles, smallpox, and influenza, tuberculosis erupted in virulent form devastating the survivors. Illnesses and injuries were treated with fasting and endurance (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988; Georgi 1780; Merck 1980; Veniaminov 1984). If those were insufficient, Aleuts had extensive knowledge of plant medicines. On the islands are at least 67 plants with known therapeutic uses (Bank 1953b, 1975, 1977). Plant leaves and roots were made into teas, poultices, or warm compresses to treat respiratory, intestinal, and skin problems. Teas were used to treat colds, flu, sore throat, earache, and asthma. Intestinal ailments treated with teas include gas, constipation, stomach aches, and bladder and kidney problems. Poultices and compresses treated sores, cuts, infections, boils, and rashes, including diaper rash. Plant medicines were also used to treat burns, muscle pains, bleeding, bad teeth, and sore eyes. More serious illnesses were treated with massage, bloodletting, acupuncture, lancing, and surgery. Massage was practiced by older women and used before and after childbirth (Marsh and Laughlin 1956; Veniaminov 1984). Individuals feeling “anguish” in the abdominal area could have a masseuse restore their organs to their proper places (Fortuine 1985: 30; Veniaminov 1984: 293). Bloodletting to release “bad air” enlivened torpid blood, treating tiredness or feebleness (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988; Georgi 1780; Marsh and Laughlin 1956: 44–45; Merck 1980; Veniaminov 1984: 292). A vein in the ankle or wrist was opened and blood sucked out. The operation was highly skilled and

366

8 Transitions

done only by men. The most common patients were men aged 20 to 40, usually in February during calm weather (Marsh and Laughlin 1956). Lancing is closely related to bloodletting (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Fortuine 1985; Litke 1987). Used to treat internal disorders, including headache, a stone lancet was pushed into the area being treated. The operation released fluids from swellings, boils, and abscesses. In addition to the physical releasing of fluids, the operation also released bad air or foreign pathogens. Piercing (poking), a form of acupuncture, differed from lancing in that the lancet did not penetrate deeply into the body (Fortuine 1985). Used for the most serious illnesses, it was always performed by doctors. Poking treated headaches, eye problems, arthritis, and lumbago. Skin over the problem area was pinched and the lancet run through the fold. The goal was not to drain blood or other fluids but to release “bad air” (Fortuine 1985: 33). Doctors used knives, lancets, awls, and needles. Knives and awls used for medical would not differ much, if at all, from tools used for domestic purposes. Lancets were preferentially made from “a special rock from Umnak,” probably obsidian (Merck 1980 [1792]: 176). These have a sharp point and a short blade. Albatross beaks were used as pincers to help doctors in removing spear or harpoon points embedded in warriors (Jochelson 2002).

Mourning and Death Unangaˆx had, and have, immortal souls (Veniaminov 1984: 220). Their Inuit coreligionists believe humans have up to seven souls, each with a specific function and fate after death (Eliade 1964). Because of differences in terminology, it is difficult to know how many souls Aleuts had, but evidence for three can be pieced together. At birth, humans and animals had a breath soul but lacked “mind”: memory, reason, or emotion (Merkur 2013). The breath soul, an’ˆgim, anˆgidgiˆx, derived from anˆgiˆx, anˆgilix, “to breathe, to sigh” but also meaning “life, ghost, spirit, spiritual being,” is the basis of conscious life. (Merkur 1991). Breath souls develop experience, wisdom, and strength. These souls inhabit joints, and binding or tying joints at various life events keeps them from being lost. Cutting joints releases this soul (FienupRiordan 1990b; Marsh 1954). Loss of the breath soul causes death (Merkur 1991; Weyer 1969). Only humans have a name soul (Marsh 1954). In Alaska, the name soul is supposed to be important only to adults, reflecting social relationships (Marsh 1954). Little information has been found for Aleut beliefs about name souls. (See section on birth and naming). When Veniaminov (1984: 220) said human souls were immortal, he was referring to the free soul. The Unangam tunuu term is ugimiqaayaˆx (ghost, shade, shadow) (Bergsland 1994: 419). The free soul is either a tiny independent entity inside a person or a following shadow (Merkur 1991). It imparts shape, individuality, and personality. This soul affects health, weather, and other souls (Marsh 1954). During sleep, trance,

Mourning and Death

367

or illness, free souls leave and return. The free souls of shamans experience visions and undertake spirit journeys to the land of dead or to the moon. Free souls are subject to loss, resulting in illness; they can also intrude into another person and cause illness (Merkur 1991). They are immortal and are normally reincarnated. If mishandled, however, they become qugaˆx (Merkur 1991). Burial rites were intended to ensure proper treatment of these various souls and to ensure rebirth and continuity with ancestors. Souls released following a natural death went to a village in the underworld where they lived as humans do on earth (Fienup-Riordan 1990b; 1994; Veniaminov 1984: 221). Following violent deaths, souls went into the sky and became birds while awaiting rebirth (Crowell and Leer 2001; Eliade 1964). Aˆgadaˆx allows reincarnation (Marsh 1954). Reincarnation could be interrupted by humans violating customs and behavioral norms (Marsh 1954; Merkur 1991). Such interruptions caused a soul to become a ghost or qugaˆx, inimical to humans with the potential to cause illness or misfortune (Marsh 1954; Eliade 1964). Virtually all information concerning mourning and burial comes from the eastern Aleutians and is specific to high status individuals. Parting with the dead was delayed as long as possible. Their spirits were dangerous to enemies or strangers but always benevolent to relatives (Jochelson 2002). The corpse was washed and dressed in his or her best clothing. The body was bound in a seated position, “swaddled like a baby,” and placed in a wooden huˆgnaˆx, burial cradle, from a base word which also means warm, sheltered, swaddled. (Bergsland and Dirks 1990; Coxe 1970 [1787]: 202; Dall 1875: 435, 1878: 6; Langsdorff 1993: 22; Veniaminov 1984: 196). Some individuals were eviscerated and stuffed with grass (Khlebnikov 1994; Merck 1980; Sauer 1802; Sarychev 2016 [1807]). After 15 days in the house, the corpse was carried in a procession to the cemetery, accompanied by drumming and singing (Lantis 1970). Infants and small children were bundled into cradles and kept near the mother for a year or more (Khlebnikov 1994: 122; Merck 1980: 77, 178; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 77; Sauer 1802: 125). Final burial took place when the mother could bear parting from her child. Mourning lasted 40 days (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 218). Mourners cut their hair and tore their clothing (Merck 1980: 179; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 77). A widow bound her joints with strips of seal skin. She was isolated in a special hut and kept away from the sea. Mourning women could not use sharp objects (Lantis 1970). A man observed the same mourning for his wife. Anyone not performing the ritual was deprived of their wits, became incontinent, and died prematurely. After 40 days, the family held as large a feast as they could afford for everyone in the village. Feasting lasted one to three days. On the last day, the family gave away food and the belongings of the deceased. The display honored the lineage, not the specific individual (Lantis 1970). Rich people sometimes killed slaves to show grief and indifference to possessions (Khlebnikov 1994: 129; Merck 1980: 177; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 77). Others freed slaves during the funeral feast (Veniaminov 1984: 198). In the central Aleutians, those who died at sea were disemboweled and buried in a “special manner” (Veniaminov 1984: 370). Mourners observed a fast lasting several

368

8 Transitions

days and avoided “defiling” their flesh (Veniaminov 1984: 370). Spouses of those lost at sea mourned 60 days, beginning 11 days after death. If an infant died before its first tooth appeared, its mother fasted 20 days, and the father ten.

Burial The way people bury their dead provides the best information available to archaeologists about world view and culture (Black 1984). Burial practices are symbolic systems tied to religious concepts and mythologies. They can only be understood with reference to cultural and social ideals (Hodder 1992; Trigger 2006). Symbolic systems are not a passive reflection of a culture but are constantly interpreted and negotiated by people (Hodder 1992). Changes in burial customs often indicate major changes throughout a culture. Much of the early archaeology done in the Aleutians was aimed at recovering human remains, most infamously by Hrdliˇcka (1945) from the Smithsonian Institution. Sadly, the plunder of burials has not resulted in a commensurate increase in what we know about the Aleut people or their culture. Repatriation Hundreds of human burials have been looted from the Aleutian Islands by scientists since the 1870s. Hundreds more have been taken by amateurs, especially bored military men during World War II who were sometimes encouraged to dig as a recreational activity (Guggenheim 1945). Ostensibly collected for research, these remains were stored in museums around the world, ignored and forgotten. In 1990 Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA 1990). This law requires all federal agencies and institutions receiving government funds to inventory human remains and funerary objects in their possession. Consultation with descendant communities is required. The descendant community decides on the final disposition. The process is slow, painful for the descendants, and far from complete but in the Aleutian region these individuals are being returned for reburial in their native soil. Today Unangaˆx, making informed, consensual decisions, generously allow respectful excavation and study of their ancestors. Virtually all ethnographic information on burial pertains to the eastern Aleutian Islands, with rare scattered references for the central islands. The best known burials are from caves in the Islands of Four Mountains, but these were hardly the norm. Ancient Aleuts employed a bewildering variety of burial practices. Disposition of bodies varied depending on the status, wealth, and occupation of the deceased. Women were treated the same as men, except that their burials were sometimes, but

Burial

369

not always, less elaborate. If there was a standard practice, it consisted of placing a flexed burial inside a mortuary house (Fig. 8.2). Reported burial locations for wealthy people include caves, beneath artificial hills, in side rooms in houses, and in rockshelters (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 66–69, 254–267, 462–465, 472–477, 542–561; Dall 1875, 1878; Elliott 1976; Golder 1907; Harrington 1941; Jochelson 2002: 42–52; Sauer 1802: 125; Veniaminov 1984: 196– 199, 370). On Unalaska Island, some wealthy people were placed in above-ground wooden tombs, or qumnaˆx, specially constructed for specific individuals (Dall 1878: 6–7; Hrdliˇcka 1945: 178–180; Sauer 1802: 125; Veniaminov 1984: 196). Weapons and clothing, furs, food, household utensils, personal belongings, and sometimes slaves were potential grave goods (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 121, 202; Merck 1980: 77, 179; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 77; Veniaminov 1984: 196–197). Items placed with the dead were not to assist them in the afterlife but to display the wealth, skill, and deeds of the individual (Lantis 1970). From Unimak east, personal belongings were burned (Dmystryshyn et al. 1988: 266). Non-elite “ordinary” people might be placed in an ulaakaˆx, a small hut overlaid with planks and covered with earth (Jochelson 2002). Ulaakaˆx may have been family sepulchers. Non-elites were also interred in rock shelters and caves. “Inferior people” and slaves were laid in the ground or in rock crevices (Coxe 1970 [1787], 1790: 201; Jochelson 2002; Veniaminov 1984: 196). Extended burials are reported, as are cremations (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 254–267; Hrdliˇcka 1945: 150, 267, 399).

Burials in Structures Burial in structures may be linked to a belief that because breath souls were closely connected to the body, the burial place needed to be a reminder of the person’s dwelling (Jochelson 2002).

Abandoned Houses Use of houses abandoned either before or after a death does not appear common. Because early excavations lack descriptions, the practice may have been more common than is currently known. The best example is from Port Moller, where seven individuals were buried in U-House-B (Okada et al. 1984: 8, 38). Two mature males lay next to each other in an extended position in the center of the floor. Near the west wall, three child burials had been covered with seven beluga whale skulls. The six-year-old child and two infant skeletons were covered with red ochre. The final burial was an adult skull. In Lowland House 1, near a burial in a floor pit, a child four or five years old lay on the floor, covered with ochre (Okada and Okada 1974: 8).

370

8 Transitions

Fig. 8.2 a Distribution of burial types, Attu Island to Kanaga Island b distribution of burial types, Adak Island to Umnak Island c distribution of burial types, Unalaska Island to Port Moller

Burial

371

Fig. 8.2 (continued)

Pits in Floor Burials in pits dug into houses are also uncommon, but this may be due to a lack of provenience information from early excavations. A pit along the northwest wall of Port Moller’s Lowland House 1 held an adult male. In Highland House 2, pits excavated near three of the house post structural supports each held a single burial. These two houses dated to between 1280 and 1050 BP (Okada and Okada 1974). At Reese Bay, an extended burial in a shallow trench in the center of an early historic house suggests the body was interred as the house was abandoned or shortly afterward (Mooney 1993).

Side Rooms There is a close connection between terms for burying and living or sleeping spaces. One term applied to side/ storerooms is iˆxuˆgaˆgiiluˆx, from the root iˆxuˆxsix, to bury. Another root for bury, isxat-, is also isxaˆx, “place where one lives, stays, sits, or sleeps” (Berglsand 1994: 212). Dall (1878) described burials in side rooms of Alaska Peninsula-style longhouses on Unalaska Island. At Reese Bay, two individuals were found in a side room on the south side of the house. The individuals were flexed and

372

8 Transitions

may originally have been sitting upright; they were found lying head to foot. There were no grave goods with either individual (Mooney 1993). On Unimak (UNI-00067), two different kinds of burials were found in side rooms of a medium-sized house. Eroding into the lagoon, one contained extended burials of two adult males. In a second side room of the same house, excavators found the remains of at least eight individuals. Seven were jumbled together, with the eighth lying extended over the others. These are likely the victims of a massacre by Russian fur hunters in the 1760s, hastily buried by survivors (Hoffman 2000).

Ulaakaˆx Ulaakaˆx may be one of the oldest, and most common, types of Aleutian burial. They are specially constructed houses for burial within villages. Merck (1980) mentions burials in pits, with bodies in sitting positions and covered with boards. Some of the pits held several people (Merck 1980: 179, 202). Of 12,150 measured depressions on Aleut midden sites from Attu to Port Moller, 57%, or 6981, are less than 4 m in maximum length, a size that indicates either ulaakaˆx or storage features. A large number of potential burial houses dotted every village. The practice is at least 4000 years old. Dall (1872) described a triple burial in a stone-walled house in the Amaknak Spit site. All three individuals were flexed, and one was female. Excavations at the Amaknak Bridge site revealed numerous burials inside stone-walled, round to oblong structures built in depressions formed by collapsed or abandoned dwellings (Yarborough et al. 2010). These structures were reopened as needed for adding bodies. In one, four adult burials had been disturbed by the addition of two individuals 12–18 years old. One adult, a woman, 18 to 23 years old, had given birth. These burials were accompanied by fish hook parts, harpoon and lance heads, root picks, needles, an awl, bone wedges, stone projectile points, knives, a drill, scrapers, hammers, whetstones and abraders, an oil lamp, and a pumice effigy. Later ulaakaˆx were small wooden huts which, when decayed, left round pits 1–2 m in diameter (Fig. 8.3). Descriptions of ulaakaˆx excavated on Attu, Atka, and Umnak indicate four-post construction with plank or log floors and roofs of wooden rods or planks. Jochelson (2002: 51–52) found one to three burials in each and felt these included everyone in a settlement who had died at the same time. Hrdliˇcka (1945: 218, 301–304, 368) described “nests” with multiple burials on Agattu, Umnak, and Amaknak. His photographs indicate burials in ulaakax. Desautels and his colleagues (1971) excavated two ulaakaˆx on Amchitka. At RAT-00010, a 2.5 × 2.75 m structure with roof planks held a loosely flexed male in his mid-twenties. Associated artifacts included an albatross skeleton, ground stone point, abraders, scrapers, fire-cracked rock, chalcedony pebbles, a chisel, an ulu, flaked adzes, drilled bones, an awl, a wedge, and a spatulate bone. A small pit inside the ulaakaˆx held a sea otter effigy, a foreshaft and toggle harpoon, an incised socket piece, a spatulate bone, a lamp, a chopper, a knife, and an ulu. At RAT-00014, a small 2 × 1.5 m oval pit, roofed with wood, held two burials. One was a woman

Burial

373

Fig. 8.3 Ulaakax burial house, family crypts built within villages

40–50 years old with advanced arthritis. The second was a child ten to 12 years old. These individuals were buried with hammerstones, choppers, an ulu, harpoons, a spatulate bone, a lamp, a burned rock, grooved teeth, a drilled whalebone disk, wedges, a knife, a flaked stone adze, side scrapers, a foreshaft, and knife handles with iron rust in the hafting slots. Small pits reported in off-midden areas in the Delarof and Andreanof Islands are identified as possible burials; these were often found near umqan burials. Most are less than 3 m across. Some open into larger chambers under the sod, with visible human remains and wooden structural supports (O’Leary and Bland 2013).

Qumnaˆx At Russian contact on Unalaska Island, wealthy or notable people were buried in qumnaˆx (Coxe 1970 [1787] 1790: 202; Georgi 1780: 231; Khlebnikov 1994: 129; Merck 1980: 177; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 77; Sauer 1802: 125). Qumnaˆx were elaborate wooden tombs constructed above ground but covered with sod and earth. A qumnaˆx at Chernofski had a door so the noted hunter within could be viewed (Dall 1878). The interior was lined with skins and grass mats. His body was suspended and accompanied by his boat and weapons as well as more furs and mats. Veniaminov

374

8 Transitions

(1984) described qumnaˆx as a tall box covered with a gabled roof and painted on the outside (Fig. 8.4). They were decorated with finely woven mats, embroidered textiles, and paintings (Dall 1878; Sauer 1802; Veniaminov 1984: 196). These were always built on an elevation in an established cemetery. Dressed in his or her best clothing and bundled in a cradle, the deceased was suspended from the ceiling. Then, according to the love of the family and the wealth of the deceased, weapons, household tools, and clothing were packed into the box (Veniaminov 1984: 196). After the tomb was sealed, the structure could be covered with earth and sod. Archaeologically, this burial type is known from only one excavation (Weyer 1929). The qumnaˆx was on an inaccessible, offshore islet, not clearly associated with any single village. It was only visible because one edge was eroding. The wooden structure was covered with a half meter (about a foot and a half) of earth. The side walls, ten feet long, consisted of horizontal logs supported by three upright posts on each side. The ends, eight feet wide, consisted of upright logs. The walls were held together with “expert mortising” and bone nails (Weyer 1929: 230). The plank roof, well caulked with “neatly tied straw bundles and pieces of fur,” was oriented along the long axis of the sarcophagus (Weyer 1929: 230). A small stone lamp sat on top. Under the roof were, from top to bottom, a grass mat, seal skins, another grass mat, bundles of grass padding, and a final grass mat. In the matting and pads were a wooden paddle and wooden shafts. An eight-inch long stone lamp sat on a

Fig. 8.4 Qumnax, above ground burial house

Burial

375

second roof cover consisting of split logs oriented perpendicular to the long axis. This covered a 2 × 1 m (7 × 4 foot) burial chamber that was 0.5 m (1.5 feet) deep (Weyer 1929: 230). Within lay five mummified burials. All had been interred at the same time. Burials 1, 2, and 4 were in wooden cradles. Burial 1, an adult male, was wrapped in several grass mats and buried with a gut rain parka, a bird skin parka, rolls of bird skins, a shield-like object, a helmet, and numerous spear shafts. Burial 2 was a woman wrapped in a single grass mat. She wore a nose ornament with “Korean” amber beads (Weyer 1929: 234). A wooden breast plate lay between the man and woman. An infant, eight months old, was found next to the woman’s head. At her feet, Burial 4, was a three- to four-year-old child bundled in a sealskin blanket. Underneath these four was Burial 3 of a middle-aged woman (Murphy 2017). This body was poorly preserved but had been mummified. Grass was found in the abdominal cavity and moss filled her eye sockets. This sarcophagus closely matches the ethnographic descriptions. The wooden sarcophagus was carefully built and located in a special cemetery. The interior was prepared with layers of mats and hides, the bodies carefully placed. The deceased were accompanied by furs, skins, mats, clothing, weapons, and household items. The burials were covered with more layers of skins and mats to render them waterresistant, and additional tools, including boat parts, were included. The whole structure was covered with a thick layer of earth. The sole difference from the ethnographic descriptions is that the tomb seems to have been a family crypt with a man, two women, and two children. The care given to the three burials strongly argue for a family unit. The women and children may have died before the man and been preserved to accompany him.

Umqan Found on slopes near prehistoric villages from western Unalaska Island to Amatignak Island, umqan are a unique type of burial mound consisting of triangular or subtriangular mounds outlined by inverted V-shaped trenches (Aigner and Veltre 1976; Frohlich and Laughlin 2002; Hrdliˇcka 1945: 323; Laughlin and Marsh 1954). Burial in mounds was noted by Khlebnikov (1994: 117) and Merck (1980: 77). Laughlin and Marsh (1954) first described umqans near Anangula Village and excavated “a number” without finding evidence of burials. In the 1970s, clusters of umqan were identified on southwestern Umnak Island (Frohlich and Laughlin 2002; Laughlin and Marsh 1954). Roughly triangular with a U- or V-shaped trenches opening downhill, many have a small pit in the center, and larger ones may have several pits (Aigner and Veltre 1976; Frohlich and Laughlin 2002; Hrdliˇcka 1945: 323; Laughlin and Marsh 1954). A local resident called them umqaˆx, pit, storage pit “like a freezer” (Bergsland 1994: 442). Mounds without trenches or pits are also considered umqans (Aigner and Veltre 1976; O’Leary and Bland 2013).

376

8 Transitions

Five of these umqan have been excavated and at least 11 tested (Frohlich and Laughlin 2002). In most cases, human remains are limited to tooth fragments. Under the sod of the mound, a floor of beach cobbles arranged in oval patterns covers the ground, in one case extending beyond the trenches (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 323; Laughlin and Marsh 1954). Below the cobbles are one or more pits shored up with stone, bone, or wood (Frohlich and Laughlin 2002). Bone or grass mats were placed on the pit floor, and the prepared body or bodies were laid on top. Five of 13 burial pits were capped with whale or sea mammal bone; one was capped with a lamp as well. One had a stone slab cover. In one on Anangula, two graves were found below the pits, and another was on the outer edge of the mound. The trenches were excavated after these burials were emplaced, and earth was heaped up over the graves to be covered with sod. Burials were also found outside of the trenches, making umqan later additions to established cemeteries. For decades, the only reported umqan were from southwestern Umnak Island although difficulty in recognizing them led researchers to believe they were likely more widespread (Aigner and Veltre 1976; Frohlich and Laughlin 2002). They have now been reported from Amatignak Island to western Unalaska, with a few scattered references farther east (O’Leary and Bland 2013).

Mounds Mounds were first were described by Hrdliˇcka, who was taken by a rancher to a field of “small low but clearly artificial hillocks scattered over about an acre of their ground. On the side of each “mound” is seen a hollow from which evidently the earth for the little hillock was taken. The piles range from 2 to 4 feet high, are roughly rounded and each shows a flat oblong about 18 × 30 inch depression on top” (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 323). This would be 0.6–1.2 m high with a 0.45 × 0.76 m depression on top. Hrdliˇcka’s crew excavated two of these mounds to a depth of 0.6 m (2 feet). Not finding any bones, they were not recognized as burials. Conical, vegetated mounds are common landscape features, especially in the Rat Islands. In 2019, a mound tested at Gertrude Cove on Kiska Island, yielded evidence of a human burial in the original ground surface below the mound. The function of most mounds is unknown, but at least some seem to have been raised over burials (Hornbeck 2020).

Rockshelters and Caves Cave burials from the Islands of Four Mountains are the best known form of Aleut burial. Plundering caves for mummified human remains began in the late 1800s when American traders collected several for museums. The pillage reached its peak in 1936 when Dr. Aleš Hrdliˇcka (1945) of the Smithsonian collected mummified

Burial

377

remains from two caves on Kagamil Island. Until recently, his diary was the most complete and thorough treatment of cave burials (Hrdliˇcka 1945; Johnson 2016, 2018; Wilmerding 1993). The shorelines and slopes of the Aleutian Islands are riddled with a rock overhangs, crevices, and caves. However, there are no limestone caves or lava tubes; the caves are formed in cracks in the rock. Jochelson (2002) distinguished two types: small hollows and larger grottoes. To be used as cemeteries, rockshelters or caves had to be high enough to be protected from storm surges (Jochelson 2002), but if also used for normal human activities, they also needed to be near the ocean (Laughlin 1980). While mummified remains are the best known, cave and rockshelter burials encompassed many different forms of internment. Excavations of caves in the Islands of Four Mountains have formed the basis of popular conceptions of Aleut burial practices. Veniaminov (1984: 72) first reported a cave on Kagamil with corpses suspended in cradles accompanied by belongings including mats, parkas, weaponry, etc. It is now known as the Warm Cave because “its orifice a cleft in the volcanic rocks” marked by a steam jet, was hot and dry (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 238). The cave surface contained only a few scattered bones (May 1951: 6). Upon digging through the mineral-encrusted floor, Hrdliˇcka (1945: 240) reported “wondrous riches.” Digging with their hands, his party uncovered 45–50 mummified bodies and 30 skulls along with a wealth of carved wood, textiles, and bone and stone tools (May 1951: 6). There was “no apparent system” to the arrangement of the bodies, which were found along the walls, in niches, and in the center of the chamber (May 1951: 6). Some were set on driftwood planks. As Hrdliˇcka’s party was leaving the beach, they spotted a second cave, now called the Cold Cave. This cave was larger but also wetter, with poorer preservation. On the left side of the entrance, mummified burials were arranged on five layers of scaffolding made from finely adzed planks (May 1951). Hrdliˇcka returned in 1938 but obtained only “gleanings” from the two caves (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 267). In all, he took 226 individuals from the caves, mostly skeletons but including 50 mummies from the Warm Cave and 55 from the Cold Cave (Hrdliˇcka 1945; Hunt 2002; May 1951). The caves on Kagamil were used for burials between 386–916 BP (AD 890-1667), ending just before the arrival of the Russians in the 1750s (Coltrain et al. 2006). Bank visited the Cold Cave in 1948 and 1949 (Bank et al. 1950; Bank 1952, 1953a, 1956). He found numerous remains, including boat frames, matting, and tools. Digging into the floor, he recovered additional skeletal remains. A narrow tunnel at the rear of the cave led to a second chamber, which he emptied. In 1949, his team discovered a small cave adjacent to the Cold Cave. Now called Mask Cave, this held the burial of a single individual along with numerous masks and mask fragments. Bank also collected the contents of caves on Unalaska and off the south coast of Tanaga Island (Bank et al. 1950; Bank 1954). No report of any of these collections has been written, nor is there any catalog or description of the human remains or objects recovered. A fourth cave in the Islands of Four Mountains was excavated in the 1990s (Johnson 2016, 2018; Wilmerding 1993). Seven dates from the cave indicate use between 160 and 700 BP (Johnson 2016). Contents were clustered in three areas

378

8 Transitions

(Fig. 8.5). Human remains had been arranged on racks of wood and whalebone planks. The front of the cave held 19 mummified bodies. The majority of the stone tools were also found is this spot, probably from an older living surface. Due to exposure from the elements, few textiles remained in the area. Wooden shafts, iqyaˆx parts, and bentwood bowls were the most common wooden artifacts. A carved stone human image and most of the labrets, were from this area. The central area, with ten burials, held the majority of the decorated textiles and ceremonial objects. It was likely the last area to be used. The rear held seven mummy burials along with most of the carved wooden objects, including bowls and masks, as well as woven textiles. The cave textiles varied in weaving type, the center dominated by Adovasio’s types 4, 7, and 10, and the rear by types 14 and 37 (Wilmerding 1993). Most of the ground stone knives and adze blades were also found in the rear (Johnson 2018). Johnson (2018) concluded the cave was used for the “noble dead” of local communities. The grave goods were extravagant displays of the wealth and power of these individuals. These are not the only cave excavations, however. Until Hrdliˇcka’s Kagamil expeditions, a cave on Unga Island was the best known. In 1871, French ethnologist Alphonse Pinart collected four bodies, a number of wooden masks, and carved

Fig. 8.5 Burial cave entrance

Burial

379

wooden arms and legs from a 4.7 × 2.5 m cave (Pinart 1875). Two of the burials lay next to each other, with a third at their feet. The fourth is undescribed. Pinart (1875) considered the cave a whale hunter’s sepulcher. The same area, but possibly not the same cave, was visited by Dall (1878, 1884) in 1873. He described the cave as a series of rockshelters. He made a large collection of masks and mask fragments from the largest rock crevice, which was covered by a basalt slab. The masks are all of a general type, elaborately painted in black and red with broad, thick noses, straight eyebrows, thin lips, and wide mouths with teeth (Dall 1878). Based on the masks found, Black (2003: 83–84) agrees with Pinart the cave was used by whalers. She postulates that the broad noses on the masks represent killer whale heads, and that the masks transformed the wearer into a being capable of killing whales. Several smaller caves have been briefly described. Amaknak Cave held three stone-paved whalebone boxes containing extended burials (Dall 1873). This cave had a threshold built up from whalebones (Jochelson 2002). Another cave near Ulakhta Spit on Amaknak Island consisted of a round chamber with seven burials arranged around the edges (Dall 1873). In 1983, a BIA crew discovered a 10 m long cave on Adak Island (Dotter 1987). A cairn at the back of the cave held an extended burial. The skeleton of a young individual lay on the ground in front of the cairn. In 1952, geologists with the USGS described a 15.24 m (50-foot) wide, 6.09 m (20-foot) deep cleft in the sea cliffs on western Kanaga Island (Nelson and Barnette 1955). Inside, they noted a circle of beach boulders and the remains of a 7.32 m (24foot) long boat, probably an umiak or niˆgilaˆx (Attuan iˆgilaˆx ) rather than an iqyaˆx. Scattered among the boulders and boat parts, they identified seven crania belonging to older individuals. Reinvestigation in 1991 identified additional human remains (USBIA 1992). No cave burials were known west of the Delarof Islands until 1998, when Western Aleutians Archaeological and Paleobiological Project (WAAPP) archaeologists located a 5 m wide, 48 m long fissure in a cliff face. The front of the cave was a living/work area. A Japanese ceramic tea cup found in the front indicates it was used during WWII by nearby Japanese soldiers. Organic material from test pits indicate the front area was used 390 ± 40 to 100 ± 70 years BP. To the rear of the cave, stone circles and cairns marked a cemetery. Lying on the surface, the scattered bones of at least one elderly adult, a young adult, a two- to four-year-old toddler, a six- to eight-year-old, and four 12 to 30-month-old children were recorded. The burials are considerably older than remains in the living area at the front of the cave 1160 ± 60 to 790 ± 90 BP (West et al. 2003). Lack of information about early collections from caves makes it nearly impossible to identify patterns or make generalizations about their use. Cave burials are known from the Delarof Islands to the Shumagin Islands, with one from the Near Islands. They appear to have been used for centuries, beginning about 1050 BP. Cave burials took a variety of forms that included intentionally mummified individuals, bundled but not mummified individuals, extended burials, and cremations. Mummies and bundled burials were arranged on platforms or scaffolding of driftwood and whalebone. Whalebone was used to cover burials and to construct walls,

380

8 Transitions

platforms, and boxes to hold burials. Cave floors are dotted with rock piles or cairns. Some extended burials are buried in cave floors. Others are defined by rock circles. Infants were placed in small crevices or on shelves in the cave walls. Rockshelters are smaller than caves and generally more open to the elements. Bank (1954) noted they are found at the bases of rocky spurs jutting from hillsides. Most were some distance from a village, but a few have been found within villages. In the eastern islands, rockshelters were used to bury slaves and “inferior people” (Dall 1878; Veniaminov 1984: 196). Elsewhere, they were village cemeteries where all but the elites were buried (Jochelson 2002). Rockshelters, as well as some caves, may have been family sepulchers (Jochelson 2002). Stripped bare by Hrdliˇcka, the largest rockshelter is on Shiprock, between Unalaska and Umnak Islands. Veniaminov (1984: 82) reported that a cave on the island held the undecayed corpses of unbaptised Aleuts in a sitting position. In 1937, Hrdliˇcka (1945: 325) described a “great long rockshelter” with a “structure of driftwood.” There are actually two shelters. In the largest, a structure of driftwood poles and a whale skull was overlain with three whale scapulae. Remains of 36 mummified adults sat on the platform (May 1951). Upright driftwood logs lay against the shelter walls, making a lean-to-like roof, once covered with sea lion skins (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 326). Returning in 1938, Hrdliˇcka reported noticing petroglyphs on one of the stones in the shelter. The whale skull forming the base of the platform was also painted with red designs, not further described (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 336). A few feet to the left, a smaller rockshelter held the remains of non-mummified men, women, and children. In 1938, Hrdliˇcka’s excavations focused on niches at the bases of overhangs on Shiprock, characteristic of more typical rockshelters. Remains here were found with white glass trade beads and four sadiron lamps. In all, Hrdliˇcka removed 101 burials from the islet (Hunt 2002). Analysis of remains from Shiprock, undertaken in the 1990s, yielded an age range between 370 and 953 BP (997–1580 AD) for the burials (Coltrain et al. 2006). Most rockshelters are much smaller than the one on Shiprock, and few have been reported or investigated in detail. Dall described two on Amaknak Island (Dall 1872: 3–4). A shallow overhang near the base of the spit held at least 16 bodies. A wall of rocks faced with turf closed the entrance. Inside, bodies were lying prone, stacked on each other with layers of driftwood and grass mats between them (Dall 1872: 3–4, 1878: 4; 7). Rockshelters farther west have only been briefly described. Most are some distance from villages and are protected from waves (USBIA 1990a, b, 1991a, b, c, d). One on Atka Island, similar to the Amaknak rockshelter, held 15 bodies, and one on Kanaga Island has a single extended burial (Dall 1878: 4; Bill Pepper personal communication 2015). In a Kavalga Island shelter, blue glass beads lay scattered among at least six burials (USBIA 1991b). Burials were usually placed on wooden scaffolding or platforms. Most rockshelters also held fragments of boat frames, textiles, basketry, and cordage.

Burial

381

Mummies, Asˆxaanaˆx Mummies, bodies with soft tissues preserved, are found all over the world, preserved through natural processes of freezing, drying, or tanning in bogs. Intentional mummification, where a body is treated to preserve it indefinitely, is much rarer. The best known are those of Ancient Egypt, where almost everyone was dried and preserved after death. The oldest known intentional mummies are from the Atacama Desert of South America, where the Chinchorro culture preserved their dead 9000 years ago, 2000 years before the first Egyptian mummies. Other intentional mummies were made in the Canary Islands, New Guinea, and the Torres Straits of Australia, and among the Aztec and Inca elites. Intentional mummification was also practiced among Aleut, Koniag, or Alutiiq, and Chugachmiut people in southcentral Alaska. This practice has received a great deal of attention since the first mummified bodies were removed from their burial places in the 1880s (Bank 1956; Bank et al. 1950; Dall 1873, 1875, 1878; Elliott 1976; Hrdliˇcka 1941a, b, 1945; Meany 1906; Zimmerman et al. 1971; among others). Not everyone was embalmed, but men, women, children, and infants have been found mummified, suggesting whole families, probably of elite lineages, were preserved (Jochelson 2002; Johnson 2016). Because of poor preservation, the actual distribution of mummification in the Aleutians is unknown. Laughlin (1980) reports mummies from Ship Rock, Kagamil, Amlia, Kanaga, Tanaga, and Ilak Islands. Hrdliˇcka removed mummies from Kagamil and Ship Rock, and reported “traces” of despoiled mummies on Amlia (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 339). Khlebnikov (1994: 224) reported mummified burials in crevices near the village on Atka. Thirteen mummies were supposedly removed from Ilak, in the Delarof Islands, but the Smithsonian holds mummies only from Kagamil and Ship Rock (Hunt 2002). Although Dall (1873: 4, 1878: 29) reported the Unga cave burials were mummies, most researchers reject this identification (Black 2003; Hrdliˇcka 1945; Jochelson 2002). The center of intentional mummification was clearly the Islands of Four Mountains, but it was practiced to some extent westward to Atka and Amlia Islands. To prepare a body for preservation, the internal organs and intestines were removed through an incision at the pelvis. In some cases, the body may have been soaked in cold water to “remove the fat” (Dall 1875). The empty body cavity was stuffed with moss, dry grass, or both, and the corpse tied into a tightly flexed position (Dall 1875; Khlebnikov 1994: 122, 129; Laughlin 1980; Merck 1980: 177, 202; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 77; Sauer 1802: 125). The body was suspended for drying in the residence, and moisture was carefully wiped off. After drying, the body was dressed in his or her best clothes and a bird skin cover placed over the face (Dall 1875; Zimmerman et al. 1971). The clothed body was wrapped in four to five layers of seal or sea otter skins, or in woven matting, and then covered with waterproof gut or sea lion hide (Dall 1875; Laughlin 1980; May 1951; Zimmerman et al. 1971). Children were placed in a cradle. In a sample of 17 adults and subadults, eight were wrapped in hides and

382

8 Transitions

five in mats. Ten of 16 children and infants were wrapped in mats (Hunt 2002). The bundled corpse was then buried in a sarcophagus (Weyer 1929) or cave. Mummification presupposes a reason for preserving the dead (Laughlin 1980: 96). Aleuts preserved the spiritual power of elite, wealthy, influential people for the benefit of their lineage. People wanting assistance from a preserved ancestor purified themselves, refrained from sex, and brought gifts to the sepulcher. In return, the assembled asˆxaanaˆx displayed objects indicating potential solutions (Laughlin 1980: 102). Other men went further, removing a bone or some fat from a preserved hunter. This became a powerful charm to neutralize supernatural weapons and to enable men to kill whales and other humans (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 70–79, 116–129, 164–193, 316–323; Veniaminov 1984: 72, 223). Use of such a potent charm, however, meant the user would die prematurely, become insane or rot away (Jochelson 1933: 78; Laughlin 1980: 102; Veniaminov 1984: 72, 223). Mummification, dismemberment, and joint binding were attempts to manage the power inherent in human bodies (Fortuine 1985; Laughlin 1980). Intact bodies retained their power, which was accessible to the relatives of the individual. Enemies remained dangerous if their bodies were left intact and could cause harm unless the power of their free soul was destroyed by dismemberment (Laughlin 1980). Cremations Treatment of the dead focused on preservation of loved ones so they could assist their descendants. Cremation was not a normal burial option. Beneath and to the sides of mummified remains in caves or rockshelters, Hrdliˇcka (1941a, b) found cremated remains which he thought were of women and children. The largest concentration was in a crypt covered by a large rock slab in the floor of the Kagamil Warm Cave, with the remains of at least ten individuals (May 1951). Atkans reportedly tortured some war captives by burning them (Veniaminov 1984). Waangilaˆx, a fragmentary story collected in Unalaska, tells of three brothers captured by Koniags (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 254–267). Two were killed, burned, and deposited in an ulaakaˆx. The third escaped to return home. His father assembled a war party and led a retaliatory strike. The offending Koniag chief was captured, tortured, killed, and cremated. In a belief system that required the deceased to be treated properly for the soul to be reborn, cremation inflicted eternal extinction upon the victim.

Shamans and Shamanism

383

Shamans and Shamanism Animism is a systematic philosophical/religious system in which everything in nature—every blade of grass, leaf, rock, wave, cloud, bird, or beast—is endowed with an active or passive spirit (Fienup-Riordan 1990c; Solomon and Higgins 1996; Turner 2008). Structured relationships between humans and natural forces are a defining principal of animism. Proper behavior is a moral force, responsible for maintaining cosmic order. Aguuˆguˆx, the Aleut source of universal power, was generally welldisposed toward humans who behaved properly (Black 1981). Violating tradition angered Aguuˆguˆx who, through his children, Tugidam (the Moon Man) and Aˆgadaˆx (the Sun Woman), inflicted punishment that included withholding the animals needed for food and infliction of diseases and other misfortune (Black 1981; Veniaminov 1984). Shamans, qugaˆgiˆx, intermediaries between the visible and invisible worlds, were one means of maintaining and repairing relationships with the spirit world (Veniaminov 1984: 219). Qugaˆgiˆx entered altered states of consciousness to perceive and interact with spirits, souls, and mythological beings that populated the universe. Little is known about Aleut shamanism. Russian observers experienced and described it as a variant of the Asian shamanism they knew in Siberia (Georgi 1780: 237; Khlebnikov 1994: 122; Veniaminov 1984: 219). Aleut shamanism was highly developed, but “peculiar,” more complicated and mysterious than Inuit shamanism (Dall 1878: 3; Turner 2008). Tugidam and Aˆgadaˆx selected individuals, male and female, to become shamans at about age 15 (Veniaminov 1984: 220). On Kodiak Island, boys raised as women were particularly susceptible to the call (Crowell and Leer 2001). Aleut aayagiiˆguˆx may have been similarly sensitive. In Siberia, the call could not be refused, but in North America, people sometimes successfully fended off the summons. Individuals could also actively seek to become shamans, or could inherit the office from relatives (Crowell and Leer 2001; Veniaminov 1984: 220). Becoming a shaman required braving physical and psychological terrors. The process includes vision quests or out-of-body experiences (Merkur 2013). The initiate learned the role from helping spirits, qugaˆx, and served an apprenticeship to a practicing shaman (Merkur 2013; Veniaminov 1984: 220). Through hard work and discipline, the initiate could receive from the sponsoring deity additional qugaˆx, or “magic protectors” qugaanguusiˆx (Campbell 1959; Crowell and Leer 2001; Eliade 1964; Marsh 1954; Veniaminov 1984: 220). Shamans possessed and controlled multiple qugaˆx as helpers (Campbell 1959; Jolles 2002). Almost all animals, natural phenomena, and anything to do with death could become a qugaˆx (Crowell and Leer 2001; Eliade 1964; Marsh 1954; Merkur 1991). Entities explicitly identified in folklore as qugaˆx include fox, wolf, sea lion, bear, killer whale, fire, clam, ulu, mussel shell knife, black beetle, and bird down. Shamans could concentrate the power of one or more of their helpers in amulets, chaˆgaˆx, qugaanguusiˆx, for use by anyone. Objects used as qugaanguusiˆx include leather or rawhide thongs, griddlestones, clothing, ermine skins, fur seal anklet/ bracelets, volcano ribs, dead man’s fat or bones, fluid from a corpse, grass mats,

384

8 Transitions

and wooden hats (Bergsland and Dirks 1990). Magic guises, qugadaanguusiˆx, transformed a person into the qugaˆx. These included auklet, fox, song sparrow, bear, wolf, caribou, wren, finch, bird down, sea lion, killer whale, maggots, young eagle, blowfly, seal, hawk, bumblebee, and reedgrass (Bergsland and Dirks 1990). Commanded by the shaman, qugaˆx determined the safety of a journey and the location of missing goods. They also diagnosed and cured illness and identified broken taboos (Crowell and Leer 2001; Khlebnikov 1994: 122; Marsh 1954; Merck 1980: 176; Merkur 2013; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 65). They transported shamans to other worlds where they could petition Tugidam, the Moon to release the souls of animals and ensure hunting success. Shamans also practiced divination, cured misfortune, aided in difficult childbirth, and controlled weather (Campbell 1959; Coxe 1970 [1787]: 217; Eliade 1964; Merck 1980: 169, 176; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 67; Veniaminov 1984: 219). The story “Two Little Old Women” describes them dancing naked to change the weather from cold and windy to hot and dry (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 422–423). When those conditions became excessive, they danced to cool things down again. Sarychev (2016 [1807]: 67) witnessed a ritual at Kashega, on Unalaska Island, to forecast and change the weather. Ultimately, the spirits refused to alter the storm raging outside but did predict its end. When called upon, shamans held séances during which they summoned their qugaˆx. Unlike other traditions where shamans wore special regalia or performed nude, eastern Aleutian shamans had no particular costume and did not use extravagant gestures (Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 65). The masked shaman drummed and danced until entering an ecstatic state with no conscious control (Veniaminov 1984: 219). The masks were “hideous” and depicted animals in distorted fashion (Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 60–61). After consulting the qugaˆx, shamans provided their clients with advice and information to reverse illnesses or bad luck. They received no pay, but if their assistance worked, they accepted offerings for the qugaˆx. Historic accounts indicate they were not greatly respected and often poor. This probably reflects decades of forced acculturation and Christianization. In the central Aleutians, shamans were usually male but could be female. In addition to the functions of eastern shamans, they disciplined people who violated traditional mores and customs. Rat Island shamans sent rain to discomfit enemies during attacks (Black 1984: 53). Some Andreanof and Rat Island shamans carved masks and life-sized, human-shaped “magic puppets,” tayaˆguliiˆgus or taamuyas, to whom they made offerings of pigment, falcon skins, and fine thread (Black 1984: 54; Veniaminov 1984: 366). This was dangerous: once a tayaˆguliiˆgus fulfilled its duties, it could turn on and destroy the shaman and his lineage. Place names record five locations frequented by taamuyas or qugaˆx. Three are on the western tips of Kanaga, Atka, and Amlia; one on the eastern end of Tanaga; and one is on southeast Seguam (Bergsland 1994: 619, 625, 637, 647). Communities took steps to destroy uncontrolled puppets. Dangerous puppets were destroyed on Atka, Kanaga, and Adak as late as 1827 (Veniaminov 1984: 368). No remains of objects that may be tayaˆguliiˆgu or taamuyas have been recovered in the central or western Aleutians.

Public Ceremonies

385

Only women served as shamans in the Near Islands. They would retire to the mountains and spend several days in solitude before returning to report on visions (Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 240). Old women on Attu foretold the future and healed the sick (Khlebnikov 1994: 239). Shamanism lasted well into the historic period. Netsvetov (1980) reported that the Attuans retained their belief in sorcery and spirits after they were discontinued by the Atkans. In the 1830s, an Amlia woman led other women into schism and superstition. Confronted by her village chief, she was “as if unconscious” (Netsvetov 1980: 215–220). He performed Orthodox exorcisms to relieve her of possession by evil spirits. On Akun in 1828, Father Veniaminov examined Ivan Smirennikov, who was acting as a seer, healer, and food finder, roles filled by a traditional shaman (Mousalimas 1990). Smirenikov had been visited by two spirits, one in human form and wearing church clothing. Both visited him daily and granted his requests. He was not formally trained as a shaman but had been called and had a personal link to the divine. Veniaminov allowed him to continue to heal and minister to people as he determined the man’s powers came from God and were not evil (Mousalimas 1990). Isidor Solovyov of Unalaska, who died in 1912, may have been a trained Unangan shaman (Berreman 2002). Solovyov lived a traditional life, was highly influential in local politics, and knew and transmitted a large body of traditional literature to Jochelson (2002; Bergsland and Dirks 1990). Of his 33 stories, 15 relate the actions and deeds of men, clearly shamans, who traveled to the moon, slew demons, and interacted with gods. If not a practicing shaman, Solovyov had an intimate knowledge of the procedures and role of a shaman.

Public Ceremonies Ritual is important to us as human beings. It ties us to our traditions. Miller Williams, American poet 1930–2015.

From Siberia to Greenland and south to Prince William Sound and the Aleutians Islands, winter was the time for a broadly shared tradition of lavish ceremonial spectacles and feasts that Lantis (1947) called the “Eskimo Ceremonial Complex.” Communal ceremonies established relationships between animal Persons, humans, souls, and hunting weapons (Marsh 1954). People showed necessary respect for prey animals, especially sea mammals, through lavish and generous feasting, the exchange and display of technically perfect craftmanship, and singing and dancing (FienupRiordan 1994). The elaborate Yup’ik ceremonial cycle consisted of a nearly continuous series of distinct celebrations lasting from freeze-up in October/ November through March (Fienup-Riordan 1990b; Morrow 1984). Alutiiq people in Prince William Sound, Kodiak, and the Alaska Peninsula held a midwinter Hunting Festival beginning in November and lasting to the end of January (Crowell and Leer 2001).

386

8 Transitions

Nearly all available information for Aleutian festivals is specific to Unalaska but probably applies to the rest of the Fox Islands. Dall (1878: 3) asserted the ceremonies were more complicated than those of Yup’ik and Iñupiat. The exact number is unknown, but Aleuts had several “extraordinary ceremonies” (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 180). With Dall’s assertion on complexity and the length of the season, it is likely Aleuts celebrated a cycle akin to that of the Yup’ik rather than a single midwinter festival, with the ceremonial season beginning after the fur seal hunt ended in November (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Dall 1878; Dmytryshyn et al. 1988; Georgi 1780; Glushankov 1973: 209; Khlebnikov 1994: 124; Merck 1980; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 61). Masked dances continued into April when whales reappeared (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Sarychev 2016 [1807]; Sauer 1802). Although individual elements of Aleut ceremonies have been described, no coherent picture of the complete cycle exists. Pixels of information provide enough shadowy glimpses of the rituals to demonstrate shared elements with both Yup’ik and Alutiiq rituals, especially the Bladder Festival and Messenger Feast (Crowell and Leer 2001; Fienup-Riordan 1990a; 1994; 2007; Hawkes 1913; Morrow 1984; Steffian et al. 2015; Veniaminov 1984). The following is a composite of multiple accounts. As fall approached, shamans carved new masks for the dances (Georgi 1780: 236; Merck 1980: 71). They depicted shamans’ helpers, animal spirits, and ancestors, categories that could and did overlap (Crowell and Leer 2001: 202; Georgi 1780: 236; Glushankov 1973: 208; Lantis 1947: 80; Merck 1980: 126; Quimby 1944: 17; Sauer 1802: 207). Simultaneously, people began composing new songs, and scripted and rehearsed theatrical performances (Davydof 1977: 185; Veniaminov 1984: 199). Before the ceremony, the hosting house was cleaned and decorated with fresh grass, family crests, trophies, regalia hung from a lattice on the ceiling, manikins or images, and curtains to shield performers (Davydof 1977; Khlebnikov 1994; Langsdorf 1993; Lantis 1947; Merck 1980; Veniaminov 1984). To highlight successful hunts, inflated bladders, housing the animal’s soul, and animal skins were displayed (Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 62). The host village sent formal invitations to guest villages (Crowell and Leer 2001: 202; Georgi 1780: 234; Lantis 1947: 77; Merck 1980; Sauer 1802: 207; Veniaminov 1984: 199). As in the Yup’ik Nakaciuq and the Chugach Bladder Festival, the Persons of prey animals were invited to villages to be honored so they could be reborn (Crowell and Leer 2001: 200; Fienup-Riordan 1994; Lantis 1947: 81; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 62). Giant stuffed or carved wooden images were carried between villages (Dall 1878: 4; Khlebnikov 1994: 124; Lantis 1947: 79; Pinart 1875: 7; Quimby 1944: 17, Veniaminov 1984: 199). These images were possessed by spirits of either the animals being invited and honored, or of shamans’ spirit helpers, or possibly both (Coxe 1970 [1787]: 217; Crowell and Leer 2001: 205; Dall 1878: 5; Merck 1980: 126; Quimby 1944: 17). These are different from the central Aleutian tayaˆguliiˆgus or taamuyas. Guests arrived at the host village all together and in daylight. They built a shelter on the beach and entered, remaining quiet (Merck 1980). Hosts greeted the guests with a procession led by women dancing, with men following and drumming (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Dall 1878: 4; Georgi 1780: 235; Merck 1980; Quimby 1944: 17; Veniaminov

Public Ceremonies

387

1984: 199–200). Women carried arrows with bladders in their right hands and inflated bladders in their left, proof of their men’s hunting prowess (Lantis 1947: 77; Merck 1980: 127; Sauer 1802: 207). Hosts attempted to surprise or scare the guests (Merck 1980). Each song and dance was repeated three times (Merck 1980). After greeting the guests, the women headed back to the hosting house. The men formally invited the guests to feast and led them into the house (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Merck 1980; Veniaminov 1984: 199–200). Before entering the house, guests threw bladders, parkas, and wooden shafts inside (Merck 1980). Host women carried new masks and dance regalia into the festival house (Golder 1907; Merck 1980; Veniaminov 1984: 307). Guests attempted to enter via a trick ladder of inflated bladders and decoys separated by spaces 1.2, 2.4, and 3.6 m (4, 8, and 12 feet) apart (Lantis 1947: 78; Merck 1980: 125–127; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 61–62; Veniaminov 1984: 200). Slips and falls were greeted with laughter and ridicule (Merck 1980: 125–127; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 62). Guests were seated by rank, and feasting followed (Georgi 1780; Merck 1980; Ocheridin in Coxe 1970 [1787]; Veniaminov 1984: 200). Women might be offered to the guest men (Georgi 1780; Ocheridin in Coxe 1970 [1787]). Feasting lasted until the food was gone, often several weeks (Khlebnikov 1994; Veniaminov 1984: 199). After the opening feast, the ceiling lattice was lowered with a masked child perched on it. He or she answered questions predicting hunting success in the year ahead (Khlebnikov1994: 124). Dances took place after dark (Merck 1980). Sarychev (2016 [1807]: 61–62) described the program for one night of a multi-day festival at Makushin village. Two naked boys entered first, followed by drumming men dressed in caps, with girdled loins, wrist, and ankle bands (Dall 1878: 4; Glushankov 1973: 208; Lantis 1947: 77; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 61–62). Two pairs of women followed, dancing with preserved bird skins from their children’s first kills, a display and celebration of the children’s coming of age (Fienup-Riordan 1990a; 1994; 2007; Langsdorf 1993; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 61). Then came a line of women carrying spears. A train of men in masks representing the spirits seen by shamans followed. Sarychev (2016 [1807]: 62) illustrates and describes many of the masks. The evening ended with one dance in which naked women wore masks (Black 2003: 14; Quimby 1944: 17; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 62) and another in which they were “curiously attired,” possibly as men with sea lion beards (Dall 1878: 4; Khlebnikov 1994: 124). The first day of a similar festival at Spirkin village (Biorka, UNL-00108) was described by Merck (1980: 70–71). After the opening feast, masked men from the host village danced singly while holding additional masks. These men were followed by women dancing with masks. Each mask had its own song. The men then enacted various events, including sea mammal and bird hunts and a possible spirit encounter. A masked matchmaker offered his or her services to the guests. The final dance was by young women wearing copper paint and carrying arrows. Men’s dances consisted of short hops forward and back, with turns and “strange gestures” (Sauer 1802; Krebs in Merck 1980; Langsdorf 1993; Soloviev in Coxe 1970 [1787]: 180). Men took turns drumming and dancing (Merck 1980). Dances and accompanying songs commemorated ancestors, enacted campaigns, and related encounters with the spirit world (Black 2003: 78; Crowell and Leer 2001: 200;

388

8 Transitions

Georgi 1780: 235, Khlebnikov 1994: 124; Quimby 1944: 17; Veniaminov 1984: 201). Some dances and songs satirized or teased individuals and whole villages for bad behavior (Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 61; Veniaminov 1984: 199). Teasing defused tensions between villages, reinforcing status distinctions within and between settlements (Black 1981; Hawkes 1913). In masquerades or masked dances, masks and wooden hunting hats represented the guest spirits (Black 1991: 13; Jochelson 1933: Figs. 16, 17; Veniaminov 1984). Masked men danced naked (Georgi 1780; Ocheridin and Soloviev in Coxe 1970 [1787]). During mimes and other non-masked dances, they wore parkas tied at the waist, or dance belts, trousers, fur wrist and ankle bands, and gut parkas (Dall 1878: 4; Georgi 1780: 234; Lantis 1947: 76–77; Merck 1980; Sarychev 2016 [1807]; Veniaminov 1984: 201). Men also sported tall, richly embroidered caps decorated with white caribou hair (Langsdorff 1993; Merck 1980; Sarychev 2016 [1807]; Soloviev in Coxe 1970 [1787]). Ethnographic examples of ritual hats are 28–30 cm tall, made of seal hide panels painted black and interspersed with seal fur or black-feathered cormorant skins (Fig. 8.6). Panels are separated by bands of embroidery in caribou hair, woolen yarn, and silk threads in white, green, blue, red, black, and brown. They are further decorated with macrame loops, also found in Kagamil caves, and bird beak bangles. Women’s regalia included inflated bladder rattles, puffin beak rattles, feather wands, and head filets of fur and feathers (Dall 1878: 4, 25; Davydof 1977: 185;

Fig. 8.6 Festival cap worn by men for dancing

Public Ceremonies

389

Glushankov 1973: 200; Jochelson 1933: 12, 15; Langsdorf 1993: 34, 49; Merck 1980: 127). Women danced with the same style of hopping as the men, with feet together. They danced singly or in pairs, accompanied by male drumming. Sources hint at several distinct kinds of dances. Women danced in lines, holding arrows (Merck 1980; Sarychev 2016 [1807]). They danced holding inflated bladders in their hands or teeth, some filled with rocks as rattles, or with girdles held out before them (Krenitsyn and Levashov in Coxe 1970 [1787] and Dmystryshyn et al. 1988; Merck 1980; Sarychev 2016 [1807]). They danced, two by two, holding inflated or preserved bird skins (Sarychev 2016 [1807]). In masked dances, women were fully clothed. Finally, women danced with disheveled hair and wearing sea lion beards and men’s parkas (Sarychev 2016 [1807]). Between dance sets, hosts recited family histories and displayed crests and trophies (Crowell and Leer 2001: 202; Veniaminov 1984: 201). Young men presented exhibitions of strength and agility (Bergsland and Dirks 1990; Merck 1980; Pinart 1875; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 61–62). An ivory carving from Atka depicts two naked men wrestling (Varjola 1990). Wrestling was a part of winter festivals in both Unalaska and the central Aleutians. During spring dances, two masks or figures of giants, Igadagax and Qugalitalix, were always present (Veniaminov 1984: 200). These enigmatic images were consulted to forecast the new year’s hunting success (Dall 1878: 5; Jochelson 1933: 95; Pinart 1875: 7). Black (1984) states shamans did not participate as shamans in the public winter ceremonies. However, as dancing wound down, they did appear and performed séances, chanted incantations, and healed the sick (Georgi 1780; Khlebnikov 1994; Krenitsyn and Levashov in Coxe 1970 [1787] and Dmystryshyn et al. 1988; Ocheridin in Coxe 1970 [1787]; Sauer 1802). Their most important role was to make predictions about the new year. The last day of the ceremony was the climax. The host village made lavish distributions of material goods to guests and village residents (Lantis 1947: 77; Veniaminov 1984: 201). In addition to preserved foods and pokes of seal or sea lion oil, gifts included raw materials such as hides, fur, shells, rare stones, and capital goods like boats, tools, weapons, jewelry, and festive and utilitarian clothing. Generously giving away goods and using all available food demonstrated to the animals that humans had used them wisely and respected and honored them (Fienup-Riordan 1994, 2007). The distribution also provided dead ancestors with provisions and clothing. So that the spirits could accept the donations, the host named the donors of the goods (Crowell and Leer 2001: 204; Veniaminov 1984: 197). The morning after the gift distribution, the inflated bladders were returned to the sea (Merck 1980: 120). The souls from the bladders returned to their village, reported on human behavior, and could be reborn to be hunted again (Fienup-Riordan 1990a; Morrow 1984). During the last day of the Yup’ik Nakaciuq, spirits of seals arrived to “eat” the women and children (Fienup-Riordan 1994). Veniaminov (1984: 315) describes a secret society performance, Qugas Aˆgalix (Spirits Approach or Become Visible), that could parallel this ritual, although it may not have been held during the winter ceremonials, instead being held “when needed” to scare women. The men split up

390

8 Transitions

and one group left the village. Those left behind built anticipation and fear. Eventually, disturbing noises were heard and a man was sent to investigate. He reappeared, terrified, and announced that demons were coming. Accompanied by a din of roaring, whistling, screaming, scratching, and knocking, a tall, deformed human figure entered the house. The lamps were extinguished and amid the darkness and noise, the men drove out the qugaˆx. When light was rekindled, one of the men was missing. The qugaˆx demanded a woman as ransom, and one was dragged out of the house. The men retrieved the abducted man and rescued the woman. The nearly dead man was revived with an inflated bladder, and the woman was given rich presents. A few days later, the other men returned home. Sauer (1802: 170) described young men on Tanaga Island being tossed on a large sea lion hide, a blanket toss. Andreanof Islanders celebrated a Bladder Festival with naked male dancers wearing transparent red and white gut kamleikas and grass mitts; they also exhibited skins and inflated bladders. Women knelt to dance, swaying but made no hand movements (Merck 1980; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 61). Atkan women at the Makushin festival danced individually and entered the festival house in procession, dressed as men and carrying spears with bladder floats (Black 1984; Sarychev 2016 [1807]: 61). Ivory carvings from Atka, collected between 1829 and 1846, add a few more details to descriptions of Atkan dancing. The carvings are 2.5–5 cm tall and exquisitely detailed. Incised facial features are emphasized with black paint. Details on clothing and dance accessories are colored with black, green, and red pigment. Seated on low benches, two men hold tambourines in their left hands, drumming with the right. Five men are dancing. They hold two inflated bladders, possibly rattles, and wear ritual hats with a forward-pointing crown. Their knees are bent and they lean slightly forward. One holds his bladder forward and to the right. Another holds one bladder forward and one to the rear. Another displays a hide or a length of textile with his bladders. The fourth holds bladders in his left hand and points with his right. The final dancer holds an inflated seal skin along with his bladders. On his back, a stiff panel may have been his portable hunting blind (Varjola 1990). An older and a younger woman are also depicted in the carvings. They stand with hands on hips, holding bladders which face to the rear. These dance positions and movements are strongly reminiscent of Yup’ik ceremonial dances. Displaying bladders is evidence the figures are celebrating the Bladder Festival. Virtually nothing is known of western Aleutian ceremonialism. Black (1984) asserted the people of this part of the archipelago held no “scheduled” festivals but held ceremonies when an occasion demanded. The only description of a festival from Attu cites women dancing in single file around the interior of the Chief’s House while men drummed and sang. It is likely this was a form of the widespread midwinter ceremonial complex (Dmytryshyn et al. 1988: 209).

Archaeology of Aleut Ceremonialism

391

Archaeology of Aleut Ceremonialism Archaeological evidence of ceremonialism is rare and is never been reported as such. Most ceremonial objects were made of wood, feathers, fur, hides, and other fragile and perishable materials. After festivals, masks and other ritual objects were burned or put away in caves (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Georgi 1780; Merck 1980; Sauer 1802). These items have only been recovered from cave deposits. Ceremonial objects of stone and bone would include large and/or decorated stone lamps, bone lamps, lamp stands or pedestals, stone and bone bowls, finely made stone spear points, and, more subtly, needles for fine sewing. Lamps are readily identifiable and common in all sites. Few are decorated. The most common decorations are grooves pecked into the exterior of the lamp, just under the rim. At Amaknak Bridge, one lamp had a pair of eyes cut into it, and one was carved as a seal face (Knecht and Davis 2005). Of 187 lamps described by Jochelson (2002), Hrdliˇcka (1945), and Desautels et al. (1971), nine are decorated. Three of ten lamps from Chaluka and three of 104 from Unalaska were decorated (Denniston 1966). Two decorated stone lamps were recovered at the Chief’s house on Buldir Island, from clearly ritual deposits (Corbett 2011). Particularly large lamps are mentioned a few times from the western islands (Desautels et al. 1971, Hrdliˇcka 1945). A 38 cm-long lamp from Amchitka, grooved on the bottom, may have been suspended (Desautels et al. 1971: 171). Whalebone lamps are far less common but have been reported from Umnak, Amchitka, and Attu (Desautels et al. 1971; Hrdliˇcka 1945). Lamps were supported on stands or pedestals during ceremonies (Merck 1980). Bone lampstands have been recovered from Amaknak, Umnak, Shiprock, Kagamil, Amchitka, Little Kiska, and Agattu Islands (Hrdliˇcka 1945). Whalebone plates and pots may have been used to serve guests during feasts. These have been reported from Kashega on Unalaska Island, and on Umnak, Amchitka, Little Kiska, Agattu, and Attu Islands (Hrdliˇcka 1945). Pots are hollowed-out whale vertebrae, and plates are epiphyses from whale vertebrae. Stone pots are known from Anangula, dating to 8000 years ago, and they continued in use on Umnak until 1000 years ago. Perishable items are only reported from caves, with few detailed descriptions. Potential ceremonial artifacts include manikin parts, bowls, drums, dance wands, and masks. Dall (1878: 25) described a filet of human hair from Kagamil. This object has not been illustrated or further described. Carved wooden human arms and legs with moveable joints were recovered from caves on Unga Island (Fig. 8.7; Pinart 1875; Dall 1878, 1884). The torso was present but too fragile to recover (Pinart 1875). These objects were beautifully painted with red, blue-green, black, and white pigments (Black 2003; Pinart 1875). Serving bowls carved from single pieces of wood are known from Aleutian caves and rockshelters, and a few are illustrated (Hrdliˇcka 1945:Figs. 179, 180, 182). Bowls from Carlisle Island are round, oval, and rectangular. A small rectangular dish is 8.5 cm long. A larger bowl, carved as a halibut, is 44 cm long. This bowl is similar to

392

8 Transitions

Fig. 8.7 Ceremonial objects: top down, left to right: toothed bird effigy, hands and legs from lifesized puppets, ivory human figure (13 cm), wooden paddle with green tip and red and black handle, blue and white “wavy” object, drum (28 cm diameter), stone human figure (6 cm). Drawn from photographs courtesy of Allison Young McLain

grease bowls used at feasts in Prince William Sound and on Kodiak Island (Johnson 2016: 127). Dall (1878: Plate 7) illustrates a similar bowl from Kagamil. No dance wands are explicitly described from any collections. Dall’s (1878: Plate 8) “pushing stick,” used in kayaks, may actually be a wand or staff. It has a knob at the top, is painted red, and has a carving of an oval with short lines radiating outward. Eight rod-like objects from Carlisle may also have been wands. They range in length

Archaeology of Aleut Ceremonialism

393

from 7.5 to 14 cm and have been painted with red, blue, and brown paints. One is carved in a spiral. Two have peg holes, attached pegs, or string adhering (Johnson 2016). Drums were wooden hoops covered with thin seal skin or whale bladders (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Merck 1980). A drum handle from the Mask Cave is a rectangular piece of wood with a square notch on one edge (Bank 1953a: 44). Similar objects are known from Amaknak and Atka Islands but not identified (Hrdliˇcka 1945: 467; Jochelson 2002: 94). Drum parts are likely mixed in with undescribed bone and wooden objects from these and other caves.

Masks Masked dancing was integral to Aleut society, inseparable from the songs, dances, and performances of the winter ceremonies (Rogers and Anitchenko 2011). No comprehensive study of Aleutian masks is available, but Black (1983, 1984, 2003) discussed them at some length. Mask styles are related to those of the Bering Straits region, with influences from the Northwest Coast. The complete mask from Bank’s Mask Cave strongly resembles masks from Point Hope, while others from the Shumagins have strong Alutiiq affinities. A number of masks are known from ethnological and archaeological collections. They encompass wide regional variation in forms and motifs, hinting at major cultural or intergroup differences. Masks have not been found in the Near or Rat Islands, nor are they reported in the ethnohistoric sources. A dozen whalebone masks are known. Five came from excavations on Amaknak Island. Three are from Port Moller. Two each have been found at Chaluka on Umnak Island and around Izembek Lagoon. These whalebone masks are round to oval, with a wide variety of eye, nose, and mouth treatments. None of them have eye openings or attachments for wearing. They have been interpreted as burial or death masks, placed with the dead (Black 2003; Dall 1878: 5; 1884: 141–142; Lantis 1947; Rogers and Anitchtenko 2011). Most are surface finds or from undated contexts, but five with dates cluster around 3000 BP (Rogers and Anitchenko 2011). Wooden masks used in midwinter ceremonies were carved by shamans, new for each festival in the fall (Georgi 1780; Merck 1980; Sauer 1802). These masks were painted in red, green, and black and decorated with fanciful ornaments (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Merck 1980; Sauer 1802). At the end of the festival cycle, masks were broken and deposited in caves or crevices in cliffs. They were never burned (Coxe 1970 [1787]; Georgi 1780; Merck 1980; Sauer 1802). Archaeological and ethnographic masks show a remarkable range of construction techniques, decorative styles, and motifs. Masks depicted the Persons of animals, qugaˆx, and ancestors (Dall 1884; Davydof 1977; Lantis 1947; Merck 1980). The wearer was able to take control of the spirit within, and become that spirit (Black 2003; Campbell 1959; Dall 1875; Eliade 1964; Rogers and Anitchenko 2011). Two masks recovered from a cave on Atka in 1842 by Russian-American Company skipper Illarion Arkhimandritov were described as shamans’ masks (Fig. 8.8; Black

394

8 Transitions

2003: 68). They were worn with toothgrips and have holes for a headband. Both are round, with large eyes and prominent bulbous noses. Mouths are lifted at the ends in a slight smile. One has a protruding lower lip and traces of black paint on the eyebrows; the face is surrounded by a removable helmet-like frame. The other has a wide tongue and wooden teeth. Pegs around the rim suggest it, too, may have had a helmet. The eyes and chin had been painted black, the eyelids and mouth red. Caves in the Islands of Four Mountain have yielded mask fragments and one complete mask. Most of the Kagamil fragments are from composite masks with holes and grooves for feathers, bangles, sea lion whiskers, and other attachments. They are painted red and blue, with white and black accents. Carlisle fragments, all from the central portion of the cave, also seem to be from composite masks with pegs and holes for attachments. One piece was dotted with 26 holes, one of which still held a sea lion whisker. Traces of red paint formed lines on some of the pieces. Objects identified as mask decorations include small “spools, pegged rectangles, disks with and without central holes”; also triangular, arrowhead-shaped, and teardrop-shaped pieces with pegs and a variety of unique shapes (Johnson 2016: 130). Some show traces of red or green paint. The only complete mask from the Mask Cave has an associated date of 1690 BP (Bank 1953a). This oval mask has a deep V-shaped mouth, giving the appearance of a deeply wrinkled face. The mask may represent an old person, or it may represent a whale. No archaeological masks are known from Umnak or Unalaska Islands, but Sarychev illustrated several used in the dances he described at Makushin (Sarychev 2016 [1807]; Sauer 1802: 207). These have grotesque human faces, with a single eye or twisted mouths. Some hold attachments such as hats, feather headdresses, wings, ear and lip plugs, and mustaches. Twelve masks taken from a cave on an islet near Tigalda before 1912 were sent to New York. By 1978, only six remained, plus a photo of a seventh. In 1998, an eighth mask from this collection was offered for sale and eventually returned to Alaska (Toomey 1998). All of the masks are portrait-like human faces and may depict ancestors or heroes. They were likely used during the midwinter festivals in theatrical performances (Black 2003). The most spectacular and lavishly illustrated masks are from a cave or caves on Unga Island in the Shumagin group. Most were collected in 1871 by Alphonse Pinart (1875) and are now in Boulogne-sur-Mer, France. Dall (1878) collected a smaller number of more fragmentary masks in 1873. These are large and thick but meant to be worn with toothgrips. Nostrils were pierced as eyeholes. The eyes are black circles with heavy black eyebrows. The noses are massive, with prominent nostrils ringed in blue. The slightly open mouths hold peg or pointed teeth. The cheeks are decorated with incised designs painted blue and black. Some have a forehead trident with a circle/dot base or a halfmoon motif, painted red. Pinart believed the caves were used to stow whalers’ gear. Black (2003: 81–84) believed the masks represented men transformed into killer whales, giving them the power to hunt and kill whales (Fig. 6.2). The bulbous noses and protruding chins resemble the snouts of killer whales as viewed head on. The pointed teeth strengthen Black’s impression.

Archaeology of Aleut Ceremonialism

395

Fig. 8.8 a Left, Atkan mask with removable helmet, 25 cm long. Wooden mask from Islands of Four Mountains b Shumagin Island masks with assorted mask bangles. Length of left 30 cm. Drawn from photographs courtesy of Allison Young McLain

396

8 Transitions

Conclusions Spiritual life and traditional cultural values are the elements of culture that make life meaningful for the participants (Fienup-Riordan 1988: 256). Spiritual values are embedded in every action of daily life. Correct personal behavior, private rituals and public ceremonies conveyed respect to ancestors and to the spirits of the animals relied on for life (Crowell and Leer 2001; Marsh 1954). These elements of traditional Unangan culture are very poorly known and rarely integrated into descriptions of traditional life. Private rituals were held by lineages to commemorate major moments in their members lives–birth, puberty, marriage, and death. These ceremonies centered families in the larger cosmos and in their village community. Elaborate public ceremonies demonstrate the Unangaˆx were full participants in the spiritual milieu linking Northern people from Prince William Sound to Greenland. Elaborate midwinter festivals brought together large numbers of people to socialize and exchange goods. These deeply spiritual rites established and maintained vital relationships with ancestors, the spirits of the animals that gave life, and the deities that rewarded good behavior and punished deviation from tradition and respect. Early loss of these rituals makes the archaeological record particularly important for recovering traces that can enhance the sparse ethnohistoric records.

References Aigner, Jean, and Douglas W. Veltre. 1976. The Distribution and Pattern of Umqan Burial on southwest Umnak Island. Arctic Anthropology 13 (2): 113–127. Bank, Theodore P. 1952. Experiences of Scientific Exploration in the Aleutian Islands. Asa Gray Bulletin New Series 1 (1): 77–86. Bank, Theodore P. 1953a. Cultural Succession in the Aleutians. American Antiquity 19 (1): 40–49. Bank, Theodore P. 1953b. Ecology of Prehistoric Aleutian Village Sites. Ecology 34 (2): 246–264. Bank, Theodore P. 1954. Field Report of the Archaeological Expedition to Unalaska, Aleutians during 1954. Explorer’s Club. Manuscript on file, Consortium Library Archives, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage. Bank, Theodore P. 1956. Birthplace of the Winds. New York: T.Y. Crowell Company. Bank, Theodore P. 1975. Aleutian-Bering Sea Institutes Research Proposal. Manuscript on file in the Ted Bank Papers, Collection HMC 0068, Series 4a, 2/37, Archives and Special Collections, University of Alaska Anchorage, Anchorage. Bank, Theodore P. 1977. Ethnobotany as an Adjunct to Archaeology: Studies in the Aleutian Islands. Anthropological Papers of the Museum of Anthropology, 61. University of Michigan. Ann Arbor. Bank, Theodore P., Albert Spaulding, Harvey Miller, and Janet Bank. 1950. University of Michigan Expedition to the Aleutian Islands, 1948–1949. Preliminary Report to the Office of Naval Research, Department of the Navy. Botanical Gardens and Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Bergsland, Knut (ed.). 1994. Aleut Dictionary/Unangam Tunudgusii. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Bergsland, Knut, and Moses L. Dirks. 1990. Unangan Ungiikangin Kayuk Tunusangin: Unangam Uniikangis Ama Tunuzangis: Aleut Tales and Narratives. Collected 1909–1910 by Waldemar Jochelson. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

References

397

Berreman, Gerald D. 2002. Aleut Shamanism in the Twentieth Century? An Assessment of Evidence. In To the Aleutians and Beyond: The Anthropology of William S. Laughlin, ed. Bruno Frohlich, Albert Harper, and Rolf Gilberg, 25–50. Ethnographic Series vol. 20. Copenhagen, Denmark: National Museum of Denmark. Black, Lydia T. 1981. The Nature of Evil: Of Whales and Sea Otters. In Indians, Animals, and the Fur Trade: A Critique of Keepers of the Game, ed. Shepard Krech, 109–154. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Black, Lydia T. 1983. Eskimo motifs in Aleut Art and Folklore. Études Inuit Studies 7 (1): 3–23. Black, Lydia T. 1984. Atka: An Ethnohistory of the Western Aleutians. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press. Black, Lydia T. 1991. Glory Remembered: Wooden Headgear of Alaska Sea Hunters. Juneau: Alaska State Museums. Black, Lydia T. 2003. Aleut Art. 2nd ed. Anchorage, Alaska: Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association. Bouchet, Francoise, Christine Lefèvre, Dixie West, and Debra Corbett. 1999. First Paleoparasitological Analysis of a Midden in the Aleutian Islands (Alaska): Results and Limits. The Journal of Parasitology 85 (2): 369–372. Bouchet, Francoise, Dixie West, Christine Lefèvre, and Debra Corbett. 2001. Identification of Parasitoses in a Child Burial from Adak Island (Central Aleutian Islands, Alaska). Comptes Rendus De L’académie Des Sciences - Series III - Sciences De La Vie 324 (2): 123–127. Campbell, Joseph. 1959. The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology, vol. I. New York: Penguin. Coltrain, Joan B., M. Geoffrey Hayes, and Dennis O’Rourke. 2006. A Radiometric Evaluation of Hrdliˇcka’s Aleutian Population Replacement Hypothesis. Current Anthropology 47: 537–548. Corbett, Debra. 2011. Two Chief’s Houses from the Western Aleutian Islands. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 3–16. Coxe, William. 1970 [1787]. Account of the Russian Discoveries Between Asia and America. 3rd ed. T. Cadell. London. 1970 facsimile ed. Augustus M. Kelley. New York. Crowell, Aron, and Jeff Leer. 2001. Ukgwepet “Our Beliefs”: Alutiiq Spiritual Life and Traditions. In Looking Both Ways: Heritage and Identity of the Alutiiq People, ed. Aron Crowell, Amy Steffian, and Gordon Pullar, 189–222. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Dall, William H. 1872. Notes on Prehistoric Remains in the Aleutian Islands. San Francisco: California Academy of Sciences, Nov. 4. Dall, William H. 1873. Antiquities of Unalaska. The West. San Francisco. On file, Smithsonian Institution Archives, RU7073, Box 47, Folio 2, Washington, DC. Dall, William H. 1875. Alaskan Mummies. The American Naturalist 9 (8): 433–440. Dall, William H. 1878. On the Remains of Later Prehistoric Man Obtained from the Caves in the Catherina Archipelago, Alaska Territory, and Especially from Caves of the Aleutian Islands. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge 318. Smithsonian Institution. Dall, William H. 1884. On Masks and Labrets and Certain Aboriginal Customs, with an Inquiry into the Bearing of their Geographical Distributions. In 3rd Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology 1881–82, 67–203. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office. Davydof, Gavriil I. 1977. Two Voyages to Russian America, 1802–1807, Trans. C. Bearne. Materials for the Study of Alaska History Series No. 10. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Denniston, Glenda. 1966. Cultural Change at Chaluka, Umnak Island. Arctic Anthropology 3 (2): 84–124. Desautels, Roger, Albert J. McCurdy, James D. Flynn, and Robert R. Ellis. 1971. Archaeological Report Amchitka Island, Alaska 1969–1970. Archaeological Research Inc. Report for Holmes and Narver, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada. Submitted to United States Atomic Energy Commission Report TID-25481. Las Vegas: Nevada Operations Office. Dmytryshyn, Basil, E.A.P. Crownhart-Vaughan, and Thomas Vaughan. 1988. Russian Penetration of the North Pacific Ocean: A Documentary Record, 1700–1797. In To Siberia and Russian America: Three Centuries of Russian Eastward Expansion, 1558–1867, 3 vols, Trans. Basil Dmytryshyn. Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press.

398

8 Transitions

Dotter, Walter. 1987. Preliminary Report of an Aleut Cave Burial on Adak Island. Paper presented at the 14th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage. Eliade, Mircea. 1964. Shamanism: Archaic Techniques of Ecstasy. Revised edition, Trans. Willard R. Trask. Ballinger Series 64. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Elliott, Henry Wood. 1976. The Seal Islands of Alaska. Reprinted Materials for the Study of Alaska History No. 9. Limestone Press, Kingston, Ontario. Originally published 1881, Elliott, Henry Wood, G. Brown Goode, and Spencer Fullerton Baird. The History and Present Condition of the Fishery Industries: the Seal-Islands of Alaska. Washington, DC: Tenth Census of the United States, Department of Interior, U.S. Government Printing Office. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 1988. Eye of the Dance: Spiritual Life of the Bering Sea Eskimo. In CrossRoads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska, ed. W. W. Fitzhugh and Aron Crowell, 256–270. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 1990a. The Bird and the Bladder. Études Inuit Studies 14 (1–2): 23–38. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 1990b. Eskimo Essays: Yup’ik Lives and How We See Them. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 1990c. Eskimo Iconography and Symbolism: An Introduction. Études Inuit Studies 14 (1–2): 7–22. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 1994. Boundaries and Passages: Rule and Ritual in Yup’ik Eskimo Oral Tradition. Civilization of the American Indian 212. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press. Fienup-Riordan, Ann. 2007. Yuungnaqpiallerput, The Way We Genuinely Live: Masterworks of Yup’ik Science and Survival. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Fortuine, Robert. 1985. Lancets of Stone: Traditional Methods of Surgery Among Alaska Natives. Arctic Anthropology 22 (1): 23–45. Frohlich, Bruno, and Sara B. Laughlin. 2002. Unangan mortuary practices and The Umqan Burials on Anangula Island, Alaska. In To the Aleutians and Beyond: The Anthropology of William S. Laughlin, ed. Bruno Frohlich, Albert Harper, and Rolf Gilberg, 89–119. Ethnographic Series vol. 20. Copenhagen, Denmark: National Museum of Denmark. Georgi, Johann Gottlieb. 1780. Russia: or, A Compleat Historical Account of all the Nations which Compose that Empire, vol. 3. Trans. William Tooke. Printed for J. Nichols, T. Cadell, H. Payne, and N. Conant. London. Glushankov, I.V. 1973. The Aleutian Expedition of Krenitsyn and Levashov. The Alaska Journal 3 (4): 204–210. Golder, F.A. 1907. Songs and Stories of the Aleuts, with Translations from Veniaminov. Journal of American Folklore 20 (77): 132–142. Guggenheim Paul, 1945. Anthropological Campaign on Amchitka. Scientific Monthly 61 (1): 21–32. Hanson, Diane K. 2010. 2010 Archaeological Survey of the Caribou Peninsula, Adak Island, Alaska. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Harrington, John Peabody. 1941. Papers of John Peabody Harrington. Linguistic notes and records Box 172, Alaska/Northwest Coast. Accession #1976–95 NMNH-Harrington_mf1 vols. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Hawkes, Ernest W. 1913. The “Inviting-In” Feast of the Alaskan Eskimo. Memoir 45, Canada Department of Mines, Geological Survey, Anthropological Series No. 3. Government Printing Bureau, Ottawa, Ontario. Hodder, Ian. 1992. Theory and Practice in Archaeology. New York: Routledge. Hoffman, Brian W. 2000. A Catastrophic End. Paper: Archaeological Evidence for Violent RussianAleut Contact on Unimak Island, ca. AD 1760. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Anchorage, Hornbeck, Bobbi M. 2020. Unangaˆx Monumentality: Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer Transformations of the Rat Islands, Alaska, c.4,000–1,000 BP. PhD dissertation. Buffalo: Department of Anthropology, State University of New York. Hrdliˇcka, Aleš. 1941a. The Exploration of Mummy Caves in the Aleutian Islands: Part I. Previous Knowledge of Such Caves, Original Explorations. The Scientific Monthly 52 (1): 5–23

References

399

Hrdliˇcka, Aleš. 1941b. The Exploration of Mummy Caves in the Aleutian Islands: Part II. Further Exploration. the Scientific Monthly 52 (2): 113–130. Hrdliˇcka, Aleš. 1945. The Aleutian and Commander Islands and their Inhabitants. Philadelphia: Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology. Hunt, David. 2002. Aleutian Remains at the Smithsonian. In To the Aleutians and Beyond: The Anthropology of William S. Laughlin, ed. Bruno Frohlich, Albert Harper, and Rolf Gilberg, pp. 137–153. Ethnographic Series vol. 20. Copenhagen, Denmark: National Museum of Denmark. Jochelson, Waldemar. 2002. Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands. Reprinted. University of Utah Press, Salt Lake City. Publication 367. Originally published 1925, Carnegie Institution, Washington, DC. Jochelson, Waldemar 1933. History, Ethnology and Anthropology of the Aleut. Publication 432. Washington, DC: Carnegie Institution. Johnson, L. Lewis. 2016. Wooden Artifacts from Asˆxaana-ˆx Cave, Islands of the Four Mountains. Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 53 (2): 114–140. Johnson, L. Lewis. 2018. The Stone and Bone Artifacts from Asˆxaana-ˆx Cave, Islands of the Four Mountains. Alaska. Quaternary Research 91 (3): 1–12. Jolles, Carol Zane. 2002. Faith, Food, and Family in a Yupik Whaling Community. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Keenleyside, Anne. 2003. Changing Patterns of Health and Disease Among the Aleuts. Arctic Anthropology 40 (1): 48–69. Khlebnikov, Kyrill T. 1994. Notes on Russian America, Parts II-IV: Kad’iak, Unalashka, Atkha, the Pribylovs. Trans. Marina Ramsay, ed. Richard Pierce, Alaska History Series 42. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Knecht, Richard, and Richard Davis. 2005. Unalaska South Channel Bridge Project Number MGSSTP-BR-0310(S)/52930 Amaknak. Bridge Site Data Recovery Final Report. Report on file with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage. Langsdorff, Georg Heinrich von. 1993. Remarks and Observations on a Voyage Around the World 1803–1807, Trans. Victoria Joan Moessner, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History No. 41. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Lantis, Margaret. 1947. Alaskan Eskimo Ceremonialism. In Monographs of the American Ethnological Society, vol. 11, ed. J.J. Augustin. New York. Lantis, Margaret. 1970. The Aleut Social System, 1750 to 1810, from Early Historical Sources. In Ethnohistory in Southwestern Alaska and the Southern Yukon, ed. Margaret Lantis, 139–301. Studies in Anthropology 7. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Laughlin, William S. 1980. Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Laughlin, William S., and Gordon M. Marsh. 1954. The Lamellar Flake Manufacturing Site on Anangula Island in the Aleutians. American Antiquity 20 (1): 27–39. Litke, Frederic. 1987. A Voyage Around the World 1826–1829, Trans. Renée Marshall, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History Series No. 29. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press. Marsh, Gordon H. 1954. A Comparative Survey of Eskimo-Aleut Religion. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 3 (1): 21–36. Marsh, Gordon, and William S. Laughlin. 1956. Human Anatomical Knowledge among the Aleutian Islanders. Southwest Journal of Anthropology 12 (1): 38–78. May, Alan. 1951. Appendix. Manuscript on the File at the Archives. University of Alaska Consortium Library, Alan G. May Papers, Collection HMC-0690. Anchorage: University of Alaska Anchorage. Meany, Edmond S. 1906. Alaskan Mummies. Washington Magazine 1: 459–468. Merck, Carl Heinrich. 1980[1792]. Siberia and Northwestern America 1788–1792: The Journal of Carl Heinrich Merck, Naturalist with the Russian Scientific Expedition Led by Captains Joseph Billings and Gavriil Sarychev, Trans. Fritz Jaensch, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History Series No. 17. Fairbanks, Alaska: Limestone Press.

400

8 Transitions

Merkur, Daniel. 1991. Powers Which We Do Not Know: The Gods and Spirits of the Inuit. Moscow: University of Idaho. Merkur, Daniel. 2013. Becoming Half Hidden: Shamanism and Initiation Among the Inuit. Originally published 1993, Garland Reference Library of the Humanities Series, vol. 1559. New York: Garland Publishing. Milan, Leda Chase. 1974. Ethnohistory of Disease and Medical Care among the Aleut. Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska 16 (2): 15–40. Mooney, James Phillip. 1993. An Eighteenth Century Aleutian Longhouse at Reese Bay, Unalaska Island, Alaska. Master’s thesis. Fayetteville: Department of Anthropology, University of Arkansas. Morrow, Phyllis. 1984. A Time for Drumming: A Summary of Recent Research on Yup’ik Ceremonialism. Études Inuit Studies 8: 113–140. Mousalimas, Soterios. 1990. Russian Orthodox Missionaries and Southern Alaska Shamans: Interaction and Analysis. In Russia in North America: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Russian America, Sitka, Alaska, August 19–22, 1987, ed. Richard A. Pierce, 314–321. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press. Murphy, Nell E. 2017. Questions—Comments: Weyer Burial Id’s, ed. D. Corbett. Electronic Document, e-mail request for gender identification of 5 burials from Weyers “An Aleutian Burial” 1929. Received December 4, 2017. Nelson, Willis, and Frank Barnett. 1955. A Burial Cave on Kanaga Island, Aleutian Islands. American Antiquity 20 (4): 387–393. Netsvetov, Iakov. 1980. The Journals of Iakov Netsvetov: The Atkha Years, 1828–1844. Trans. L. T. Black. Alaska History Series No. 26. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press. O’Leary, Matthew, and Richard Bland. 2013. Aleut Burial Mounds: Ulaakan and Umqan. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 11 (1 & 2): 139–168. Okada, Hiroaki, and Atsuko Okada. 1974. The Hot Springs Village Site: Preliminary report of the 1972 Excavations at Port Moller, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 11: 112–124. Okada, Hiroaki, Atsuko Okada, Kunio Yajima, and Bin Yamaguchi. 1984. The Hot Springs Village Site (4): Preliminary Report of the 1980 and 1982 Excavations at Port Moller, Alaska. Hokkaido, Japan: Institute for the Study of Northern Eurasian Cultures, Faculty of Letters, Hokkaido University. Pinart, Alphonse. 1875. La Caverne d’Aknañh, Ile d’Ounga: Archipel Shumagin, Alaska. Paris: E. Leroux. Quimby, George I. 1944. Aleutian Islanders: Eskimos of the North Pacific. Anthropology Leaflet no. 35. Chicago, Illinois: Chicago Natural History Museum. Rogers, Jason R., and Evgenia V. Anitchenko. 2011. A Whalebone Mask from Amaknak Island, Eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 48 (1): 66–79. Sarychev, Gavriil Andreevich. 2016 [1807]. Account of a Voyage of Discovery to the North-East of Siberia the Frozen Ocean and the North-East Sea. Printed for Richard Phillips, London. 2016 facsimile ed. Delhi, India: Facsimile Publisher. Sauer, Martin. 1802. An Account of a Geographical and Astronomical Expedition to the Northern parts of Russia. London: T. Cadell. Shade, Charles I. 1949. Ethnological Notes on the Aleuts. PhD dissertation. Boston: Department of Anthropology, Harvard University. Solomon, Robert C., and Kathleen M. Higgins. 1996. A Short History of Philosophy. London: Oxford University Press. Steen, Susan L., Steven R. Street, Diane E. Hawkey, and Robert W. Lane. 1996. An Application of a Comprehensive Strategy for Recording Activity-Related Stress Markers on the Skeletal Remains of Alaskan Eskimos. Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. Steffian, Amy F., Marnei Leist, Sven Haakanson, and Patrick Saltonstall. 2015. Kal’unek: From Karluk. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press.

References

401

Toomey, Sheila. 1998. This Is So Precious to Us. Anchorage Daily News, December 10, A1. Anchorage, Alaska Trigger, Bruce G. 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. Turner, Lucien M. 2008. An Aleutian Ethnography, ed. Raymond L. Hudson. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. USBIA (United States Bureau of Indian Affairs). 1990a. Report of Investigation for The Aleut Corporation, AA-12214, Kagamil Island. Report on file, Bureau of Indian Affairs, ANCSA Projects Office, Anchorage, Alaska. USBIA (United States Bureau of Indian Affairs). 1990b. Report of Investigation for The Aleut Corporation, AA-12204 Carlisle Island. Report on file, Bureau of Indian Affairs, ANCSA Projects Office, Anchorage, Alaska. USBIA (United States Bureau of Indian Affairs). 1991a. Report of Investigation for The Aleut Corporation, AA-12043. Report on file, Bureau of Indian Affairs, ANCSA Projects Office, Anchorage, Alaska. USBIA (United States Bureau of Indian Affairs). 1991b. Report of Investigation for The Aleut Corporation, AA-12170. Report on file, Bureau of Indian Affairs, ANCSA Projects Office, Anchorage, Alaska. USBIA (United States Bureau of Indian Affairs). 1991c. Report of Investigation for The Aleut Corporation, AA-12038, Tanaga Island. Report on file, Bureau of Indian Affairs, ANCSA Projects Office, Anchorage, Alaska. USBIA (United States Bureau of Indian Affairs). 1991d. Report of Investigation for The Aleut Corporation, AA-12028, Kavalga Island. Report on file, Bureau of Indian Affairs, ANCSA Projects Office, Anchorage, Alaska. USBIA (United States Bureau of Indian Affairs). 1992. Report of Investigation for The Aleut Corporation, AA-12075, Kanaga Island. Report on file, Bureau of Indian Affairs, ANCSA Projects Office, Anchorage, Alaska. Varjola, Pirjo. 1990. The Etholén Collection: The Ethnographic Alaskan Collection of Adolf Etholén and his Contemporaries in the National Museum of Finland. Helsinki: National Board of Antiquities of Finland. Veniaminov, Ivan. 1984. Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District, Trams. Lydia T. Black and R.H. Geoghegan, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History Series No. 27. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press. West, Dixie, Christine Lefèvre, Debra Corbett, and Susan Crockford. 2003. A Burial Cave in the Western Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 40 (1): 70-86. West, Dixie, Bulat Khasanov, Olga Krylovich, Virginia Hatfield, Timur Khasanov, Dmitry Vasyukov, and Arkady Savinetsky. 2019. Refining the Paleo-Aleut to Neo-Aleut Transition using a New ΔR for the Eastern Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Quaternary Research 91 (3): 972–982. Winslow, Margaret A. 1992. Modeling Paleoshorelines in Geologically Active Regions: Applications to the Shumagin Islands, Southwest Alaska. In Paleoshorelines and Prehistory: An Investigation of Method, ed. Lucille Lewis Johnson and Melanie Stright, 151–169. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press. Winslow, Margaret A., and L. Lewis Johnson. 1989. Prehistoric Human Settlement Patterns in a Tectonically Unstable Environment: Outer Shumagin Islands, Southwestern Alaska. Geoarchaeology 4 (4): 297–318. Workman, William B. 1979. The Significance of Volcanism in the Prehistory of Subarctic Northwest North America. In Volcanic Activity and Human Ecology, ed. Payson D. Sheets and Donald K. Grayson, 339–371. New York: Academic Press. Weyer, Edward M. 1929. An Aleutian Burial. American Museum of Natural History Anthropological Papers 31, Pt 3. New York: American Museum of Natural History. Weyer, Edward M. 1969. The Eskimos: Their Environment and Folkways. Hamden, Connecticut: Archon Press.

402

8 Transitions

Wilmerding, Mary Elizabeth. 1993. A Comparative Analysis of Textiles from Four Burial Caves in the Eastern Aleutian Islands. Master’s thesis. Pullman: Department of Anthropology, Washington State University. Yarborough, Michael, Jason S. Rogers, Catherine L. Pendleton, Edward P. Arthur, Shawna M. Rider, and Erika E. Malo. 2010. Salvage Recovery at the Amaknak Bridge Site (UNL-050), Dutch Harbor. Alaska. Cultural Resource Consultants: Submitted to Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Anchorage. Zimmerman, Michael, Gentry W. Yeatman, Helmuth Sprinz, and W.P. Titterington. 1971. Examination of an Aleutian Mummy. Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine 47 (1): 80–103.

Chapter 9

Reflection

They appeared, they appeared the islands over there, over there, As they appeared with these hills at the foot of every one, every one There are women, there are men. They appeared, they appeared, the islands over there, over there, these women, these men, Together with them I laugh at myself and begin to look around. After that, however, Feeling what I had not felt before, I am still sleeping here in the morning. Song of a man paddling toward islands where he joins women and men on the shore and dreams about them. (Bergsland and Dirks 1990: 684–685)

This book represents a journey that begins with the formation of the islands and the environment, but the core is about the people—the lives of Unangaˆx women, men, and children of the archipelago and the Alaska Peninsula before the appearance of Russians, as they are understood through archaeology, ethnohistories, and recorded oral histories. Throughout the book, we have addressed questions about the origins of the Unangaˆx and their relationships to other coastal people of Alaska and more broadly to the Arctic. Integrating new archaeological information with the older research, we have considered their relationship to their environment and complex social life, and we have discussed old assumptions drawn from ethnohistories and biases pulled from older archaeological theories that have fallen out of favor or been shown not to apply in the Aleutian Islands. Addressing myths that developed over the last two centuries of archaeological thought, we have challenged several misconceptions that that there was little change through time, that the Unangaˆx lived in what was pictured as a cultural cul-de-sac and had little interaction with their neighbors, that theirs was a homogenous culture that varied little along the thousandmile archipelago, and that there is a wealth of archaeological information available about the region.

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 D. Corbett and D. Hanson, Culture and Archaeology of the Ancestral Unangaˆx/Aleut of the Aleutian Islands, Alaska, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-44294-0_9

403

404

9 Reflection

Continuity Attempts to document cultural continuity in the Aleutian Islands depend on the completeness of the archaeological record developed through archaeological research. The problem in the Aleutian Islands is that there are few archaeologists working in the region and even fewer excavated sites. Most of the record was established from pedestrian surveys of lands selected through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA). The initial selections by The Aleut Corporation were based on archaeological surveys in the 1970s conducted from boats or accessed by boats, and some of these archaeologists were under the impression that sites were only along the shoreline. These most visible sites also tended to be late. Most radiocarbon assays come from shovel tests that are normally less than a meter below the ground surface, and there is no assurance that the carbon samples dated a cultural layer. Even where there is a good regional record, there are gaps or hiatuses in the chronology. These gaps are usually explained as the result of a natural disaster of some sort (pyroclastic flow from a volcanic eruption, tsunami, etc.) that forced people to flee. As continued work in the area fills these gaps, it appears they were caused primarily by incomplete documentation. For instance, a cultural hiatus of 3500 years between the initial occupation at Anangula and the later Aleutian tradition has since been eliminated (Davis and Knecht 2010; McCartney 1984). Smaller hiatuses at Unalaska and on Adak Islands were eliminated recently after additional sites were dated (Anders and Hanson 2020; Rogers et al. 2009; West and Crockford 2012: 318). The same may prove true of a hiatus identified in the Rat Islands (Funk 2011: 48). For such a large region with an extensive and deep history, it is unlikely that the little archaeology done to date can provide complete information. Chronologies tend to be established in a few places and then applied archipelago-wide. Davis and Knecht (2010: 510) articulated this well. “Archaeological sequences are clumpy in most instances, because they are derived from a limited number of well-excavated and reported sites that cumulatively span a considerable length of time. The total number of archaeological components that make up a regional sequence represents only a tiny fraction of the total material record actually produced by the various communities that lived in the area. Hence particular archaeological sites chosen as the defining bases for sequences need to be regarded with some caution because they may be overly influential in forming our image of the sequence as a whole” (Davis and Knecht 2010: 510). Showing a deep relationship with other Arctic coastal cultures, some basic aspects of Unangaˆx material culture are retained from the first material remains recorded on the islands well into the period of Russian colonization. Some artifacts changed shape, but their roles remain. The most obvious is the unique construction of Unangaˆx ulaˆx, or house with a roof-top entry. They appear more like pit houses from the North American plateau or Southwest, while their Arctic and sub-Arctic neighbors have side entrances. Even as the house form changed to accommodate multi-family communal living, people entered using a ladder through the roof, and work areas were also on

Continuity

405

the roof-top. A wood or whale bone frame with post supports and a sod superstructure covered a semi-subterranean floor. Lamps are another long-term aspect of family life that was maintained over hundreds of generations. Archaeologists identified “bowls” at the Anangula site, the oldest site excavated to date, that may have served as lamps containing sea mammal oil burned with a grass wick. Lamps made from stone are evident in all succeeding cultural deposits. Even cobbles with natural depressions served as lamps. Stone oil lamps are characteristic of pan-Arctic coastal people and are particularly important where there is little wood fuel, but animal fat and oil are readily available. The antiquity of subsistence practices is difficult to verify although clearly the first people had a marine focus given their position on islands and the lack of access to large terrestrial mammals. Crockford (2012: Figure 6.8 through Figure 6.11) synthesized data from analyzed archaeological faunal assemblages across the Chain. She separated the assemblages into Early (7000–4700 BP), Neoglacial (4700–2500 BP), Post-Neoglacial (2500–1000 BP), and Late Periods (1000–170 BP) The subsistence information comes primarily from sea mammals while other fauna (birds, fish, and invertebrates) were often not collected or, if collected, were not analyzed or reported. Faunal remains are also adversely affected by acidic volcanic soils and degrade in older or upland sites until they are not identifiable or have disappeared entirely. The continuity of the importance of sea mammals (fur seals, sea lions, seals, and sea otters) is evident during all times. Whale bones are difficult to identify although new methods may solve this problem. This probably explains their absence in faunal reports. Sea birds are most frequently identified in the bird assemblages. In those sites that document fish remains, the most important fishes are Pacific cod and Atka mackerel. Nearshore fishes such as Irish lords (sculpins), greenlings, and rock fishes are ubiquitous in sites even while they might not dominate the assemblages. Crockford (2012: 133) notes that fur seals were an important part of Unangaˆx subsistence beginning at least 7000 years ago until the populations crashed and the rookeries were abandoned after Russian arrival. She attributes this to the decimation of kelp forests by urchins after sea otters were annihilated during the Russian and American drive to acquire furs. She proposes that fur seals required healthy nearshore kelp forests to rest, give birth, and nurse their pups. When the kelp forests disappeared so did the fur seals. Likewise, the destruction of sea bird colonies is attributed to the introduction of predatory land mammals such as rats and foxes (and more recently dogs and cats). Because the modern environment does not reflect the pre-Russian Aleutian Archipelago, modern conditions cannot be used to evaluate the long-term continuity of Unangaˆx subsistence practices. Instead the information needs to come from oral histories and archaeological data.

406

9 Reflection

Change Early archaeologists transformed an assumption of continuity into an image of cultural isolation. By the 1950s, they had proposed that people who had entered the archipelago from Beringia closed the door behind them after sea levels rose, not reconnecting with other Alaska coastal cultures until approximately 3000 years ago (Laughlin et al. 1979). New data show this not accurate. Continuity does not imply a static or an unchanging culture. There is a basic assumption in archaeology that technological approaches and artifacts styles that appear as consistent patterns during a particular time and place represent a physical manifestation of cultural beliefs about how things should look or be made, and that these ideas are passed from one generation to the next as each person learns from their parents, aunts, uncles, and grandparents. These ideas include how a house should made and where people should live within the house, where they should conduct certain activities, how to make a harpoon, and what foods are good for them or appropriate during specific events in their lives. When these patterns endure, represented as certain styles or technical methods for making tools, archaeologists who lack access to the social parts of culture assume there is also continuity in beliefs (Davis and Knecht 2010: 513). Cultural change might be introduced through contact when ideas diffuse from one group to another, when one group moves into a new territory and brings their culture with them, when inventions are developed to meet new social or physical needs, or when an event changes understandings about how the world works. It is clear, however, that other aspects of culture might remain unchanged even as a new technology is adopted (or adapted to meet local needs). The best sources for identifying social changes are features or artifacts associated with the social aspects of culture—houses, burials, and artwork for example. Some artifacts are poorly represented in the oldest sites because of problems with preservation, and it is difficult to determine if particular organic artifacts were part of the earliest material cultures. Bone artifacts do not preserve well until shell build-up in middens alters the soil chemistry from acidic volcanic soils to more basic soils that promote organic preservation. Wood artifacts also tend to appear late because of decay. The record of basketry is late, not necessarily because the technology was developed recently, but because grasses only preserve under exceptional conditions. Houses exhibit both continuity and change over time. Features such as framing, roof entry, hearth placement, floors dug into the ground surface, and sod roofing remain the same or similar chronologically and geographically along the Chain, but function and size vary. During the Neoglacial period, house walls were stone-lined in the eastern archipelago, with stone-lined channels of unknown function carved into the floor leading to a chimney adjacent to one wall. In the west, neither the walls nor channels were stone-lined, but they had a similar organization with channels bifurcating from a hearth adjacent to a wall and a chimney extending through an outer wall. At some unknown time, this design ended. Longhouses and possibly chiefs’ houses were a relatively late development. Restricted to the Rat Islands, Buldir Island, and

Change

407

Near Islands, chiefs’ houses, appeared shortly after 2000 years ago. These are identified by the atypical items buried in the floor or under the posts. Longhouses appear 1500 years ago along the whole Chain and likely housed multiple families. Peninsula Style Longhouses, associated with the Alaska Peninsula and adjacent islands to the Delarof Islands, are exaggerated versions, with connecting side rooms. Restricted to Umnak and Unalaska Islands, the Unalaska Style Longhouse consists of two or more attached longhouses that are assumed to have sheltered 30–45 families within the large structure. The shift from smaller houses, which were home to either one family and extended family members, or a couple of related families, to large longhouses with multiple families is believed to represent increasingly complex social organization from relatively autonomous family groups with a kin-based village to a corporate structure dominated by kin-members as is found along the Northwest coast when populations became more dense. In Chap. 8, the ulaakaˆx, or small burial houses were identified as one of the older forms of burials documented in archaeological record, appearing in 4000-year-old sites, but there were likely more simple burials that were older than this. By 2000 years ago, burial arrangements, particularly for higher status individuals, become more elaborate, preparations became more labor intensive, and umqan appear in eastern Aleutian sites. Wooden tombs or qumnaˆx and mummification are assumed to also be late, but this may also be a factor of preservation. The shift in burial patterns 2000 years ago during a simultaneous change to more complex or elaborate house designs is used to argue that the people developed a more complex social organization and a shift in world views. It is interesting that this period beginning between 2500 and 1200 years ago is also when there is an elaboration in burial patterns, artwork, and house complexity or numbers in other archaeological cultures of the American Arctic, including the Late Kachemak in the Kodiak Archipelago, the Ipiutak in Northwest Alaska, and the Late Dorset in the Central Arctic of Canada. Similar changes in the Aleutian Islands might indicate that the Unangaˆx were part of cultural shifts occurring on a much broader scale than the immediate region. What needs to be determined is whether these changes are associated with increasing populations or interactions with neighboring groups. Stone tools have been a particular source of scrutiny for indications of culture change. This is partly because they are sometimes the only archaeological trace other than hearth, house, or cache features remaining at a site. The technology that accompanied the first people was a core and blade technique for making stone tools. This generated long narrow flakes (blades) that were struck from a rock core. The blades were then modified into other tools. In the earliest sites these blades had smaller flakes that were removed from the edges knapped from only one surface (unifacially flaked) to form tools. Impressively large blades were generated this way, but there were also microblades. This technology was like the technology used by other early Alaska groups and is comparable to the Denali complex in interior Alaska and microblade industries in southeast Alaska (Aigner 1977; Gómez-Coutouly 2015). The core and blade technology was used for nearly 4000 years well into the Neoglacial period which ended approximately 3000 BP. However, bifacial flaking and other techniques were incorporated into their repertoire (Knecht and Davis 2001: 278).

408

9 Reflection

There seems to be a notion that the Unangaˆx were usually the recipients of cultural changes that may have accompanied an illusion of cultural isolation, but Knecht and his colleagues (2001: 38) suggest the Arctic Small Tool tradition (ASTt) developed locally in the Aleutian region, perhaps from the core and blade technology, and then spread among the American Arctic cultures during the Neoglacial rather than being imported from the mainland. Eventually, this technology reached Greenland. In a subsequent paper, the same authors characterize ASTt presence as a “pulse” associated with ASTt bearing people who arrived on the peninsula and the eastern islands (Davis and Knecht 2005, 2010: 519). Dumond (2005: 74–75) suggests that ASTt bearing groups moved southward with the extended sea ice during this cooler period, eventually interacting with the people already living in the Aleutian region. Clearly more work is needed to clarify the origin and role of ASTt technology in the Aleutian Islands. Another marked difference in stone tool technology that occurred in Unangaˆx material culture history was the widespread adoption of slate ground tools. Ground slate knife blades and points were occasionally present between 4000 and 3000 years ago on Unalaska Island sites. By 2000 years ago, slate tools had become popular. They seem to have come from Kodiak Island to the Alaska Peninsula, appearing on Akun Island a thousand years later, and approximately another 500 years later on Unalaska Island, not occurring in Umnak Island sites until shortly after Russian arrival (Davis and Knecht 2005; Hanson 1983; Holland 1992; Knecht and Davis 2001). Interestingly, there is an anomalously 2200-year-old ground stone knife (but not slate) on Attu Island. Knecht and Davis (2001: 280) state that based on shared stone and bone tool types, there is evidence of contact with Kodiak Archipelago cultures that extends back at least to the Neoglacial period. Davis and Knecht (2010: Table 4; Knecht and Davis 2001: Table 3) introduced a table of artifacts present during the archaeological phases in the eastern Aleutian Islands. The absence of some classes of artifacts may be a result of the small sample sizes available from the various sites, but several classes extended through all phases, including lamps, ochre grinders, and net sinkers. Bifaces, harpoons, and needles appear early and extend to the colonial period although styles changed. Labrets and artwork appear during the Neoglacial period, but again, this dating may reflect a sampling problem. Microblades and the large blades that characterized the earliest occupations disappeared by the end of the Neoglacial period. As with any culture, there is a combination of thousands of years of continuity with new technology and ideas incorporated into this ancient cultural history. This brief synopsis of material cultural variation demonstrates that the Unangaˆx were neither isolated from other cultures of Alaska, nor were they passive recipients of Alaska mainland technology. They were full participants engaged in dynamic social interactions among the many cultures of southwest and southcentral Alaska.

Myths and Dogma

409

Myths and Dogma Ingrained within the field of Aleutian archaeology are several beliefs that span generations of researchers and persist either because contrary evidence has not been recognized or because assumptions have been accepted without testing. The personalities of the first archaeologists in the region sometimes overwhelmed the data until increasingly conflicting evidence could no longer be ignored, leading to a shift in perspective. One example is the idea of two migrations of people to the Chain, with the older original population supplanted by a relatively recent group from the mainland after a long hiatus. Another is that people living on an extended Island Chain with only a single land connection were culturally and physically isolated. Yet another involves misplaced land-use models generated from the observations of terrestrially based cultures but applied to a marine-adapted people in an island environment. Ideas about social organization drawn from cultural evolutionary models that placed hunting/gathering people at the most simple stage likewise deserve scrutiny, as do generalities derived from Russian and American ethnohistories applied to a 9000year history of a people that had already lost nearly 80% of their population and whose villages, families, and autonomy were forever altered through harsh colonial subjugation. The first Europeans and Americans addressing Unangaˆx origins drew from an early American belief that dominated American archaeology in the mid-1800s that recent Indigenous people conquered and overwhelmed older groups (Trigger 2006: 160, 186). Originally Dall (1970 [1877]), Jochelson (1975 [1925]) and Veniaminov (1984: 58), all proposed that the original people of the Aleutian Islands and adjacent Alaska Peninsula were the ancestors of the present-day people. In the 1840s, Veniaminov (1984) proposed a recent arrival, but Dall and Jochelson argued for an ancient occupation. This was reversed after Hrdliˇcka (1945) sorted Unangaˆx skulls accumulated from burial caves and graves in the Aleutian Islands and shipped to the Smithsonian Institution. He divided the skulls into categories by shape. Round/ broad crania he called “Aleut,” and narrow/long crania he called “Pre-Aleut.” He hypothesized that the two groups were not genetically related and that the modern people (“Aleut”) had moved in recently and married into the older population (“PreAleut”), leaving only a vestige of the original population in the far western islands. This hypothesis was adopted by Laughlin and Marsh (1951) and the populations were renamed Paleo- and Neo-Aleut with the hypothesized immigration to have occurred only a thousand years ago. After migrations fell out of theoretical favor in North American archaeology in the late 1960s, this was modified as evolutionary change owing to greater genetic variation in the more highly populated islands of the east, leading to a rounder skull (Laughlin and Aigner 1975). Bank (1953: 45) disagreed, stating that based on his data, there was no chronological differences in skull morphology. But Ted Bank was not so well degreed nor well-positioned academically, as Hrdliˇcka or Laughlin, nor did he leave an assembly of graduate students to popularize his hypotheses.

410

9 Reflection

Since then, various studies have been designed to test or to establish the time of the morphological change, the assumption initially being that Hrdliˇcka’s lessthan-rigorous methods had yielded accurate results. People have analyzed associated material culture looking for changes (e.g., tools or house types). They have performed additional osteological examinations of the original skulls, conducted DNA analyses, obtained radiocarbon dates from the skeletons, and carried out isotopic investigations to identify differences in subsistence. These studies do not appear to support the arbitrary assignment of a 1000-year-ago entry of Neo-Aleut people or even of a genetic shift in the two groups during that period. In fact, because the assignment of the skulls that were originally used to create the categories cannot be reliably assigned to one group or the other, there is dwindling evidence for two morphological groups. This hypothesis on which so many archaeologists based their interpretations may have been come from flawed methods and persisted owing to the charisma of character. It is probably time to discard this concept and stop wasting time on this dated hypothesis. Initial estimates of pre-Russian Unangaˆx population size were based on Veniaminov’s estimates for the eastern Aleutian Islands, which was half of the estimate provided by the Unangaˆx of their village populations before Russian arrival. The Unangaˆx estimated 25,000 people for Unalaska Island. Veniaminov’s (1984: 246) numbers were used by anthropologists and archaeologists to generate estimates from 6000 to 40,000 for the Chain (Lantis 1970; Laughlin 1980; Liapunova 1996). The most frequently cited precolonial population estimate is about 16,000 people for the archipelago (e.g., Laughlin 1980: 17, 23), which is well under the Unangaˆx population estimate for just Unalaska Island. Archaeologists have since documented an incredible number of sites in nearly every habitable place, ranging from large Unalaska Style longhouses that probably sheltered as many as 100–200 people or more, to small houses that were home to perhaps no more than six to ten people. Table 5.2 provides estimates using house and sites numbers that vary from 38,000 to nearly 20,000 people during the later precontact period (between 1000 and 250 BP), which is at the higher end of population estimates. If populations approached 40,000 people along the archipelago, there are consequences for interpretations about social and political organization, ethnic identities of groups along the Chain, and resource accessibility. For the period predating 1000 years ago, Table 5.1 shows population estimates from approximately 50,500 to 12,500 people, but of course this compresses a 3000-year period into a single estimate. The Aleutian Islands are a unique environment in North America. Many of North American-trained archaeologists were most familiar with people living in exclusively terrestrial environments or were trained by professors with a terrestrial bias. The repertoire of archaeological theory and models of human adaptation to their environment are largely drawn from terrestrial settings. Generated from animal ecology, one of these models proposes that people will use high-producing patches until the patches no longer produce as many calories, or until increasing amounts of energy are required to secure the calories required for life. When this occurs, the patches will be abandoned for other patches that can be exploited more efficiently (fewer

Myths and Dogma

411

calories expended compared to the number of calories gained). Overexploitation or seasonal changes in food availability may cause patch degradation. The archaeological literature is filled with interpretations of sites as seasonal camps, and yet the resources available adjacent to the Aleutian Islands sites are largely the same as the resources available in large villages. Aleutian Islands tend to have a complex mosaic of highly productive patches that do not require people to move seasonally. With high recruitment of intertidal resources, and a constant resupply of migratory marine mammals and other animals (birds, fishes, etc.), overexploitation is not likely. The function of site size variation might require other sources for interpretation than the easily seized seasonal round explanation used for mainland sites. It may be something as physically apparent as available ground into which to dig house floors, protection from enemies, prevailing wind direction, wave action, and beach or drinking water access. It may also be as socially complex as polities and village rank. Another idea that took hold in the field of Aleutian Island archaeology was that archaeological sites would be limited to the shoreline, although this idea was not accepted by everybody. The idea probably developed from ethnohistories of the late1700s and mid-1800s, which stated that villages were placed along the shoreline to be close to resources (Sarychev 2016 [1807], Veniaminov 1984). The first archaeologist to work in the archipelago, Dall (1970) stated that based on his experience in the 1870s, villages were located along beaches, near creeks, or on spits. Jochelson (1975), who worked there in 1909 and 1910, stated that villages were on the shoreline. Although Jochelson (1975: 23) explicitly states that sites were not on high land, the others never mentioned a consideration of upland sites. Likely based on these statements by his predecessors, Laughlin (1980: 20) states that upland or interior areas were “irrelevant to their way of life” because attention was on marine resources. After consulting with Laughlin, Bruno Frohlich and David Kopjanski (1975: 8) chose not to survey upland areas because of the presumed insignificance of upland resources. This “allowed us to assume that all Aleut sites would be found along coasts.” Naturally, this approach to archaeological survey in the 1970s tended to confirm there were no upland sites. Not everybody agreed with this approach. During his time on Attu in the 1880s, Turner (2008) mentioned structures built in upland areas for waterfowl hunting. By the late 1960s and the 1970s, archaeologists were documenting upland sites on Amchitka Island (Desautels et al. 1971; Roe 2007; Sense 1969). During the ANCSA surveys, additional upland sites were documented beginning on Adak Island (Hanson and Staley 1984) and then spreading to other survey areas (Corbett 2008; Roe 2007). Dumond and Knecht (2001: 28) reported that older sites were on tectonically raised beach terraces at least 10 m above the current sea levels. The search for sites well away from the shoreline was renewed in 2007 with a systematic survey on Adak Island that culminated in the excavation of a 3800-year-old house in a site with at least 20 house depressions on the surface (Anders and Hanson 2020; Gordaoff 2016; Hanson 2011; Hanson and Corbett 2010). Upland sites were found in 2007 on Tanaga Island. Another site with approximately 20 surface depressions from houses or ulaˆx was found on Kanaga Island in 2014, and Caroline Funk (2011) and her crew recorded

412

9 Reflection

upland sites on Amchitka and Hawadax Islands that also date from 3500 to 4500 BP. Clearly, the upland area was important enough for people to build substantial structures with hearths, and floor features that required repeated occupation. Because there is little organic preservation in the upland sites, and minimal excavation, the purpose for these sites is still to be determined (Gordaoff 2016). This demonstrates that rarely is anything new discovered when one looks for what one expects. Another interesting feature involves examination of mounds or mound clusters in the Rat Islands. Based on oral histories, these may have been considered habitations of spiritual beings. Hornbeck (2020) recently excavated mounds on Kiska and Amchitka Islands in the western Aleutian Archipelago and found cultural material in the matrix and strata indicating they were developed through a series of deposition episodes. The date from the base was 3706–3830 BP (Hornbeck 2020). Previously, the mounds and similar features had been assumed to be natural formations. During the early European occupation, observers stated that the Unangaˆx did not store food, either because they preferred not to or because they lacked the ability. Assuming these were accurate statements, archaeologists initially may have neglected documenting storage features, but that has changed over the past three decades. Food storage features are common in house floors. On the Rat Islands, storage pits are associated with houses. One cache pit on ADK-00237, an upland site on Adak Island, was a deep pit constructed outside of a house feature with preserved digging tool marks carved into the cache walls. On Attu Island, archaeologists found pit clusters that may be independent storage sites built away from the village (Lefèvre et al. 2001). These few examples make archaeologists speculate about what other unquestioned assumptions are directing their research. These need to be identified and addressed. They also illustrate the power of dogmatic statements by previous researchers, influencing the next generation until those statements fall under the weight of contradictory evidence.

Where is the New Research Going? Much of what is being learned about the ancient Unangaˆx is not coming from correcting misconceptions but from entirely new data. Some of these new insights are generated by additional information filling gaps in the data. And some is generated by applying new techniques quickly adopted by recently trained scholars. As mentioned in the first chapter, the most limiting factors for work in the Aleutian Islands are logistics and cost. The archipelago is remote by any standard, and that drives travel costs. While archaeologists in many other places might throw their equipment into the back of a truck or hike a short distance to their site, the archaeologist working in the Aleutians, particularly in an area not near a town, village, or military site, will start their budget estimates by including several thousand dollars (usually tens of thousands) for transportation. Worksites are accessed from simple tent camps or from boats anchored offshore, and weather days can consume a quarter to half of the days

Where is the New Research Going?

413

on site in the summer. Excavations during other seasons are normally impractical. Therefore, projects tend to be short-term, a season or two, before work is interrupted by lack of access or funds. When “salvage” or mitigation excavations take place before construction or military clean-up projects, that archaeological investigation ends with the start of construction. Given a nearly 10,000-year history over a 1000-mile-long territory, it is not surprising that we only have a peek at the complexity of Unangaˆx culture and probably not the best understanding of it. Gaps in the basic cultural chronology are likely because so few sites are excavated, with the data analyzed, and reported to the public. Some researchers are compensating by analyzing old collections, but they are stymied by poor or incomplete notetaking, lack of photographs, misplaced artifacts, or dispersed collections. Little has been done to document the arrival of the first people to the Chain. Only four sites dating between 9000 and 7000 BP have been excavated or sampled, although clearly there are more. Part of the problem is that archaeologists were initially looking in the wrong places for truly ancient sites, and the oldest sites are difficult to find from surface features. They have been covered by many layers of volcanic ash and sediment. They are most likely to be found in quarries (e.g., UNL00469), in construction excavations, or erosional faces. Sites dating from 9000 to 6000 years ago are on elevated terraces on the Alaska Peninsula, in Eastern Islands, and on other islands such as Umnak and Adak Islands (Dumond and Knecht 2001; Gaultieri et al. 2012; Jordan 2001). Misarti and her colleagues (2012) demonstrated that glaciers were pulling back from the shoreline by 17,000 years ago, exposing the offshore island of Sanak. Jordan (2001) states that the western Alaska Peninsula was deglaciated by 13,000 cal BP. Compared to the period when the shoreline was exposed, the earliest site on Anangula Island is relatively late. The small camps left by the first people on the southeastern shores of Beringia were likely submerged under rising sea levels at the end of the Pleistocene. Underwater drones are now being used to survey for sites in southeast Alaska (e.g., Monteleone 2019), and it is only a matter of time before researchers move to the junction of Beringia and the archipelago to search for those first sites in the Unangaˆx region. Technology has the potential to provide new information about old topics. Zooarchaeology by Mass Spectrometry (ZooMS), sedimentary ancient DNA (sedaDNA), and DNA research from humans are becoming increasingly common tools in archaeology. ZooMS uses collagen from animal bone to identify peptide sequences, or linked chains of amino acids that form through DNA coding. The peptide sequences are used as a substitute for DNA. Peptides are sorted by sizes and the sequence that develops is unique for each family, genus, or species. The advantages are many: ZooMS is cheaper than DNA analysis, collagen preserves under conditions that damage DNA, and collagen can be collected from small bone fragments or artifacts. The primary problems are that not all animals are yet sequenced, and some animals cannot be separated by species although the genus or family can be identified. DNA collected from site sediments, or sedaDNA, can be used to identify organisms (plants, sea mammals, birds, bacteria, parasites, intertidal invertebrates) from the DNA left behind from food preparation, working hides, or preparing baskets.

414

9 Reflection

Even the DNA left behind by a family who once occupied a house can be recovered. This has the potential to provide new information about people’s lives, particularly where organic remains are not recovered or where the plant and animal remains are not recoverable or identifiable. Samples collected for ancient DNA analysis are subject to contamination from modern sources (collection, handling samples in the lab, and from fungi and bacteria growing in the stored bags) so, soil samples collected long ago are not adequate for reliable results. Nuclear DNA used to identify genetic histories, disease, appearance, or to provide information about human migrations are normally collected from human remains (teeth, bone, hair). Permission must be granted by descendant communities when DNA is collected from ancestral remains. DNA analysis has not been conducted yet from people that lived before 3400 cal BP (Coltrain 2010) or outside of the area surrounding Umnak Island (Kagamil Island, Chaluka site at Nikolski, and Ship Rock). Should Unangaˆx today request additional DNA analysis from ancestral remains, this technique has the potential to provide information directly from the people about their origins and their relationships along the Island Chain. It might also provide biological information about genetic diseases and even about physical appearances. Ways of documenting sites and evidence from sites are also improving. Aerial drones (also called unmanned aerial vehicles or UAVs) are being used to identify sites in hard-to-reach areas. Underwater drones are likely to be next. Three-dimensional (3D) imagery and LiDAR can document sites and features as they are being excavated. These technologies can also improve the resolution of maps that had been drawn formerly with varying accuracy using hand-held compasses and measuring tapes. Computer images can be shared with communities and other researchers. To reduce the damage of excavating additional sites, archaeologists are reanalyzing old assemblages using improved techniques and generating new hypotheses, but they are also dealing with the burden of translating cryptic field notes and missing information. As dating and other technology has allowed archaeologists to collect new information, they have become more interested in people’s lives in the past, placing less emphasis on artifact styles except where styles may provide information about human behavior. More recent theoretical approaches recognize that people are individuals who do not necessarily conform to a generalized or normative cultural behaviors. Social topics that are being addressed archaeologically include how people identified themselves. By examining domestic features and data, archaeologists hope to be able to tease out gender roles, children’s activities, and individual behaviors. Political affiliations by groups of villages or families might be identified through the physical locations of villages, their size, or the kinds of resources they could access relative to neighboring polities. Roberta Gordaoff is currently trying to identify polities on Unalaska Island from site distributions. Ethnic groups, that might encompass multiple polities in a region have been identified using the ethnohistoric record through dialects, kayak (igyaˆx ) shapes, and basket-weaving techniques among other features, although the ethnic variation blurred significantly after European occupation with population decline, village and territory loss, and the forced relocation of village members into new areas or through combining people from

Applications of Ancestral Knowledge

415

multiple villages into a single community. Additional homogenization of Unangaˆx variation was attempted during the American period through World War II. Archaeologists also strive to identify precolonial ethnicity through artifact forms, technology, house shapes, and artwork. Attention is turning to determining how the Unangaˆx may have altered their environments to make it more productive or to stabilize resources for long-term use. Archaeologists are considering how people may have selected and replanted important plants and tended them to establish gardens well before Russian arrival. In other parts of the northeast Pacific, people altered beaches to improve clam growth, created low rock walls to capture fish and other intertidal animals at low tide, and fashioned wood-stake fences with intertwined limbs to guide fish into traps. Just as upland areas were ignored for so long archaeologically, the intertidal area fronting shoreline sites has also been ignored, and it will be interesting when archaeological surveys include a search for intertidal features. Only recently have intertidal fishing features been identified on Kodiak Island (Saltonstall 2017). More Unangaˆx researchers are also choosing to work in the fields of anthropology and archaeology, and they will be directing projects and training students. As more Unangaˆx scholars are involved in the work and as more communities participate in archaeological investigations, new hypotheses will likely be explored, generated from lessons passed from their Unangaˆx grandparents and their intimate experience with the Aleutian environment.

Applications of Ancestral Knowledge Michael Livingston (Igyaˆx), with a background in both education and anthropology, taught adolescent Unangaˆx students about traditional igyaˆx (kayaks) by having them make models. Livingston incorporated traditional wood working tools, information gained from studying wood artifacts which he had identified as igyaˆx parts, and with lessons from his mentor Sergei Sovoroff into lessons for his students. He found that self-esteem increased among both sets of students at the conclusion of the lessons (Livingston 2015). Livingston’s (2015) experience confirms elders’ views that learning traditional knowledge was important. “Having a model kayak built by one’s own hand to display to others and realizing that one’s ancestors might have built similar craft with stone age tools may lead to appreciation of the culture history in which that kayak evolved” (Livingston 2015: 168). Livingston and Millie Jackson with Aleutian/Pribilof Islands Association also generated the Unangam ulaa project. The intent is to study the construction of the ulaˆx or traditional house, using archaeological data and ethnohistories to determine which attributes can be used to make modern houses more adaptive for the conditions in the Aleutian Islands (extreme wind, earthquakes, snow, and rain). They hope to incorporate modern construction methods and material to develop affordable housing in the Aleutian region that meets current needs and expectations.

416

9 Reflection

Emily Corley is generating facial approximations (images) of ancestral Unangaˆx with the permission of the Qawalangin Tribe of Unalaska by scanning the skull of a distant ancestor to develop a 3D image of the skull. Computer software with information about skin thickness and soft part estimations that might be used in a forensic setting will be applied to the computer-generated model of the skull to rebuild the features of that person so descendants can once again view their face. Archaeological data have been used to determine what past human responses were to climate change and whether current climate change can explain modern shifts in animal populations, although there are clearly many more variables affecting the environment today. Two other factors affecting modern environments are invasive animal species and contaminants left by the military during World War II and the Cold War. The US Army Corps of Engineers has been removing contaminants since at least the 1980s, even on some of the more remote islands. Rats and foxes are also being removed from islands by the US Fish and Wildlife service, causing Rat Island to being renamed Hawadax Island. Sea bird populations are now increasing growing on the islands where invasive mammals have been removed. Traditional subsistence practices are maintained in most communities through fishing, sea mammal hunting, and collecting intertidal foods. A book assembled by Suanne Unger (2014), Qaqamiiˆguˆx, refers to subsistence hunting and collecting (Dirks in Unger 2014). The book shares ways to prepare traditional foods and provides nutritional values for the meals. It was designed to pass along Elders’ information about subsistence and food preparation to new generations (Unger 2014: 11). Maintaining traditional subsistence practices is particularly important in a region with high shipping costs and where local foods are more nutritious than food shipped to the stores. The precolonial past is not separate from people’s lives today. It is a past that reaches from the earliest people who made their home in the islands and the Alaska Peninsula to the people who live in the same places today on the very soil created by their ancestors, influencing language, food, and the way the environment is viewed and appreciated. Specific artifacts or house styles may vary, but the culture expressed by descendants around the world remains Unangaˆx, thanks to the actions, decisions, and resilience of their ancestors.

References Aigner, Jean S. 1977. Anangula: An 8,500 B.P. Coastal Occupation in the Aleutian Islands. Quartär 27/28: 65–104. Anders, Jake, and Diane K. Hanson. 2020. Radiocarbon Dates from the Central Aleutian Upland Archaeological Project, Southwest Adak Island: 2007–2012. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 18 (2): 74–81. Bank, Ted. 1953. Cultural Succession in the Aleutians. American Antiquity 19 (1): 40–49. Bergsland, Knut, and Moses L. Dirks. 1990. Unangan Ungiikangin Kayuk Tunusangin: Unangam Uniikangis Ama Tunuzangis: Aleut Tales and Narratives: Collected 1909-1910 by Waldemar Jochelson. Fairbanks: Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

References

417

Coltrain, Joan Bremmer. 2010. Temporal and Dietary Reconstruction of Past Aleut Populations: Stable- and Radio-Isotopic Evidence Revisited. Arctic 63 (4): 391–398. Corbett, Debra G. 2008. Shemya Island and the Question of “Inland” Sites in the Aleutians. Report to the US Air Force. Elmendorf AFB: 611th Civil Engineer Squadron, Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska. Crockford, Susan. 2012. Archaeozoology of Adak Island: 6000 Years of Subsistence History in the Central Aleutians. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gaultieri, 107–143. BAR International Series 2322. Oxford, UK: British Archaeological Reports. Dall, William Healy. 1970 [1877]. On Succession in the Shell-Heaps of the Aleutian Islands. 1970 Facsimilie ed., The Shorey Book Store, Seattle. 1877. In Contributions to North American Ethnology, vol. 1, 41–91. Washington, DC: Department of the Interior. Davis, Richard S., and Richard A. Knecht. 2005. Evidence for the Arctic Small Tool tradition in the Eastern Aleutians. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 3 (2): 51–65. Davis, Richard S., and Richard A. Knecht. 2010. Continuity and Change in the Eastern Aleutian Archaeological Sequence. Human Biology 82 (5–6): 507–524. Desautels, Roger, Albert J. McCurdy, James D. Flynn, and Robert R. Ellis. 1971. Archaeological Report Amchitka Island, Alaska 1969–1970. Archaeological Research, Inc. Submitted to United States Atomic Energy Commission Report TID-25481, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas. Dumond, Don E. 2005. The Arctic Small Tool tradition in Southern Alaska. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 3 (2): 67–78. Dumond, Don E., and Richard A. Knecht. 2001. An Early Blade Site in the Eastern Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 8–34. University of Oregon Anthropology, Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Frohlich, Bruno, and David Kopjanski. 1975. Aleutian Site Survey: Preliminary Report. Report Submitted to the Aleut Corporation. Laboratory of Biological Anthropology, University of Connecticut Storrs, Storrs. Funk, Caroline. 2011. Rat Islands Archaeological Research 2003 and 2009: Working Towards an Understanding of Regional Cultural and Environmental Histories. Arctic Anthropology 48 (2): 25–51. Gualtieri, Lyn, Brenn Sarata, Mitsuru Okuno, and Dixie West. 2012. Did Holocene Paleoenvironmental Factors Affect Ancient Aleut Occupation and Settlement in the Central Aleutian Islands? In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lyn Gaultieri, 47–57. BAR International Series 2322. Oxford, UK: British Archaeological Reports. Gómez-Coutouly, Yan Axel. 2015. Anangula—A Major Pressure-Microblade Site in the Aleutian Islands, Alaska: Reevaluating its Lithic Component. Arctic Anthropology 52 (1): 23–59. Gordaoff, Roberta Michelle. 2016. The House on the Hill: A 3800-Year-Old Upland Site on Adak Island, The Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Master’s thesis. Anchorage: Department of Anthropology, University of Alaska Anchorage. Hanson, Diane K. 1983. Analysis of Stone Tools from Western Chaluka, Umnak Island. Report submitted to the University of Alaska Museum of the North, Fairbanks. Hanson, Diane K. 2011. 2010 Archaeological Survey of Caribou Peninsula, Adak Island, Alaska. Report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska. Hanson, Diane K., and David P. Staley. 1984. An Inland Site on Adak Island, the Aleutians. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Meeting of the Alaska Anthropological Association, Fairbanks, Alaska. Hanson, Diane K., and Debra G. Corbett. 2010. Shifting Ground: Archaeological Surveys of Upland Adak Island, the Aleutian Islands, Alaska and changing assumptions of Unangan Land Use Patterns. Polar Geography 33 (3–4): 165–178.

418

9 Reflection

Holland, Katherine Marie. 1992. Rethinking Aleutian Prehistory as Viewed from a Lithic Database. Ph.D. dissertation. Tempe: Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University,. Hornbeck, Bobbi. 2020. Unangaˆx Monumentality: Hunter-Fisher-Gatherer Transformations of the Rat Islands, Alaska, C. 4,000 BP–1,000 BP. PhD dissertation. Buffalo: Department of Anthropology, University of New York at Buffalo. Hrdliˇcka, Aleš. 1945. The Aleutian and Commander Islands and Their Inhabitants. Philadelphia: Wistar In-stitute of Anatomy and Biology. Jochelson, Waldemar. 1975. Archaeological Investigations in the Aleutian Islands. AMS Press Inc., New York. Originally published 1925, Publication 367, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC. Jordan, James W. 2001. Late Quaternary Sea Level Change in Southern Beringia; Postglacial Emergence of the Western Alaska Peninsula. Quaternary Science Reviews 20: 509–523. Knecht, Richard A., and Richard S. Davis. 2001. A Prehistoric Sequence for the Eastern Aleutians. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 269– 288. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Knecht, Richard A., Richard S. Davis, and Gary A. Carver. 2001. The Margaret Bay Site and the Eastern Aleutian Prehistory. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. Don E. Dumond, 35–69. University of Oregon Anthropology Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Lantis, Margaret. 1970. The Aleut Social System, 1750 to 1810, from Early Historical Sources. In Ethnohistory in Southwestern Alaska and the Southern Yukon: Method and Content, ed. Margaret Lantis, 129–301. Studies in Anthropology, 7. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky. Laughlin, William S. 1980. Aleuts: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge. Case Studies in Cultural Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston. Laughlin, W.S., and G.H. Marsh. 1951. A New View of the History of the Aleutians. Arctic 4 (2): 74–88. Laughlin, William S., and Jean S. Aigner. 1975. Aleut Adaptation and Evolution. In Prehistoric Maritime Adaptations of the Circumpolar Zone, ed. William Fitzhugh, 181–201. The Hague, Paris: Mouton Publishers. Laughlin, William S., Jørgen. B. Jørgensen, and Bruno Frøhlich. 1979. Aleuts and Eskimos: Survivors of the Bering Land Bridge Coast. In The First Americans: Origins, Affinities, and Adaptations, ed. William S. Laughlin and Albert B. Harper, 91–104. New York: Gustav Fischer. Lefèvre, Christine, Dixie West, and Debra Corbett. 2001. Archaeological Surveys in the Near Islands: Attu Island and Shemya Island. In Archaeology in the Aleut Zone of Alaska: Some Recent Research, ed. D.E. Dumond, 235–250. University of Oregon Anthropological Papers No. 58. Eugene: University of Oregon Museum of Natural History. Liapunova, Rosa G. 1996. Essays on the Ethnography of the Aleuts: At the End of the Eighteenth and First Half of the Nineteenth Century, Trans. J. Shelest. Rasmuson Library Historical Translation Series 9. Fairbanks: University of Alaska Press. Livingston, Michael. 2015. Iqyax: A Case Study Investigation of the Effect of an Online Traditional Unangan Sea Kayak Model Course on Self-Esteem of Five Adolescent Students. PhD dissertation. Pocatello: College of Education, Idaho State University. McCartney, Allen P. 1984. Prehistory of the Aleutian Region. In Arctic, ed. David Damas, 119–135. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 5, William C. Sturtevant, general editor, Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution. Misarti, Nicole, Bruce P. Finney, James W. Jordan, Herbert D.G. Maschner, Jason A. Addison, Mark D. Shapley, Andrea Krumhardt, and James E. Beget. 2012. Early retreat of the Alaska Peninsula Glacier Complex and the Implica-tions for Coastal Migrations of First Americans. Quaternary Science Reviews 48: 1–6. Monteleone, Kelly Rose Bale. 2019. Uncovering Submerged Landscapes: Towards a GIS method for locating submerged Archaeology in Southeast Alaska. BAR International Series 2917. Oxford, UK: British Archaeological Reports.

References

419

Roe, Christopher. 2007. Analysis of Aleut/Unangan Site Placement on Amchitka Island, Alaska. Manuscript on file with the Author. Rogers, Jason S., Michael R. Yarborough, and Catherine L. Pendleton. 2009. An Anangula Period Core-and-Blade Site on Amaknak Island. Eastern Aleutians. Alaska Journal of Anthropology 7 (1): 153–165. Saltonstall, Patrick. 2017. Prehistoric Fish Trap and Petroglyphs Found on Kodiak Island. Press Release by Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository, Kodiak, Alaska, June 20. https:// alutiiqmuseum.org/images/stories/news/Press/2017FishTrapFinal.pdf. Accessed July 14, 2022. Sarychev, Gavriil Andreevich. 2016 [1807]. Account of a Voyage of Discovery to the North-East of Siberia the Frozen Ocean and the North-East Sea. Printed for Richard Phillips, London. 1969 facsimile ed. Facsimile Publisher, Delhi, India. Sense, Richard G. 1969. Archaeological Field Notes: May 31 through October 22, 1968, Amchitka Island, Alaska. Holmes and Narver, Inc., Las Vegas, Nevada. Trigger, Bruce G. 2006. A History of Archaeological Thought, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. Turner, Lucien M. 2008. An Aleutian Ethnography, ed. Raymond L. Hudson. Fairbanks, Alaska: University of Alaska Press. Unger, Suanne. 2014. Qaqamiiˆguˆx: Traditional Foods and Recipes from the Aleutian and Pribilof Islands. Anchorage, Alaska: Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association Inc. West, Dixie, and Susan J. Crockford. 2012. Conclusions. In The People Before: The Geology, Paleoecology and Archaeology of Adak Island, Alaska, ed. Dixie West, Virginia Hatfield, Elizabeth Wilmerding, Christine Lefèvre, and Lynn Gualtieri, 317–325. BAR International Series 2322. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford, UK. Veniaminov, Ivan. 1984. Notes on the Islands of the Unalashka District, ed. Lydia T. Black and R.H. Geoghegan, ed. Richard A. Pierce. Alaska History Series No. 27. Kingston, Ontario: Limestone Press.