Gwich'in Athabascan Implements : History, Manufacture, and Usage According to Reverend David Salmon 9781602231450, 9781602231443

Citation preview

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Figure 1: Reverend David Salmon, 1912–2007.

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements History, Manufacture, and Usage According to Reverend David Salmon

Thomas A. O’Brien

University of Alaska Press Fairbanks

© 2011 Thomas A. O’Brien All rights reserved. All illustrations and photos are by the author unless otherwise noted. University of Alaska Press P.O. Box 756240 Fairbanks, AK 99775-6240 ISBN 978-1-60223-144-3 (paper); 978-1-60223-145-0 (e-book) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data O’Brien, Thomas A., 1955–  Gwich’in Athabascan implements : history, manufacture, and usage according to Reverend David Salmon / by Thomas A. O’Brien.       p. cm.  Includes bibliographical references and index.  ISBN 978-1-60223-144-3 (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-60223-145-0 (electronic book) 1.  Gwich’in Indians—Implements. 2.  Gwich’in Indians—Hunting. 3.  Gwich’in Indians—Fishing. 4.  Salmon, David, 1912–2007—Ethnological collections.  I. Title.  E99.K84O24 2011  305.8997’2—dc22                                                            2011008535 Cover design by David Alcorn, Alcorn Publication Design Cover photo of David Salmon © James H. Barker This publication was printed on acid-free paper that meets the minimum requirements for ANSI / NISO Z39.48–1992 (R2002) (Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials). Support for this publication was provided by the Terris and Katrina Moore Endowment. Printed in the United States

This book is dedicated to the memory of Reverend David Salmon; his parents, William and Alice Salmon; his grandfathers, King Salmon and John Chitleii; and all of the wonderful elders who are now gone but not forgotten.

Contents Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ix Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Author’s Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix A Brief History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx Gwich’in Athabascan Homeland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxi Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xxiv The “Tools” of Teaching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxv Working Together . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvii Chapter 1: General Information Associated with the Artifacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Rules, Taboos, and Good Luck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Raw Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Trading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Bone Spear for Grizzly Bear Hunting, Yukon Flats Style. . . . . . . . . 7 “Little Owl” Rabbit Throwing Stick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Caribou Signaling Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 Shoulder Blade for Moose Calling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Bows and Arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 General Information on Bows and Arrows . . . . . . .20 The Bow and Arrow in Use. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Bow and Arrow Training and Technique . . . . . . . .24 Making and Maintaining the Bow and Arrow . . . .30 The Boy’s Bow—For Ages Five to Ten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 The Boy’s Practice Arrow—For Ages Five to Ten . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 The Youth’s Bow—For Ages Ten to Fifteen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 The Youth’s Arrows—For Ages Ten to Fifteen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 The Man’s Bow—For Ages Fifteen to Adult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 The Man’s Arrows—For Ages Fifteen to Adult . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 Arctic Village Region Man’s Blunter Arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 vii

viii

Yukon Flats Region Man’s Blunter Arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yukon Flats Region Man’s Metal Blunter Arrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Birch Creek Region Man’s Single-Pronged Fancy Water Arrow . . Birch Creek Region Man’s Single-Pronged Water Arrow . . . . . . . Birch Creek Region Man’s Bone Two-Pronged Water Arrow . . . . Yukon Flats Region Man’s Metal Two-Pronged Water Arrow . . . Eagle Region Man’s Bone Hunting Arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arctic Village Region Man’s Notched Hunting Arrow . . . . . . . . . Crow Flats Region Man’s Hunting Arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Man’s Iron Trade Arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Man’s Leaf-Shaped Iron Trade Arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45 49 53 53 53 55 55 57 57 63 63

Chapter 3: Artifacts Associated with Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Bone Ice Chisel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Bone Hooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Mouth Hook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Throat Hook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .68 Fish Spear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 King Salmon Dip Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 Chapter 4: Artifacts Associated with General and Special Purposes . . . . . . . 79 Caribou Leg Bone Knife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 The Athabascan Staff of Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Rain Chaser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Chapter 5: Artifacts Associated with Gaming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Caribou Toe Game or “Grandpa’s Heel” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Cone-Shaped Stick Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Pulling Stick Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Chapter 6: Artifacts Associated with Manufacturing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Moose Leg Bone Skinner, Yukon Flats Style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 Tanana River–Style Skinner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Caribou Hind Leg Scraper or Beaming Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Bone Puncher/Awl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Bone Snowshoe Needle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Snowshoe Gimlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 How to Measure Snowshoe Frames. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Reflections on the Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Committing to Friendship and Partnering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Common Ground and Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Lasting Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Appendix I: Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 Appendix II: Gwich’in Nomenclature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Figures 1. Reverend David Salmon, 1912–2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .frontispiece 2. Rev. Salmon, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xiv 3. Map of the Chalkyitsik and Salmon Village region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii 4. Map of the nineteenth-century Gwich’in territory with regional bands . . . . . . xxii 5. Rev. Salmon, teaching with a fish spear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvi 6. Rev. Salmon and the author at the tools museum exhibit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvi 7. Drawing of Gwichyaa Gwich’in chief hunting grizzly bear with spear . . . . . . . . . . 8 8. Rev. Salmon with grizzly bear spear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9. Lateral view of the Yukon Flats–style grizzly bear spear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10. Superior view of the Yukon Flats–style grizzly bear spear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11. Drawing of the distal point of the Yukon Flats–style grizzly bear spear. . . . . . . 11 12. Drawing of the hafted portion of the Yukon Flats–style grizzly bear spear. . . . 12 13. Rev. Salmon demonstrating the throwing technique for the “Little Owl” . . . . . 13 14. Drawing of the “Little Owl” showing lateral and superior views . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 15. Drawing of caribou signaling tool showing lateral and superior views . . . . . . . . 16 16. Superior view of artifacts associated with caribou hunting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 17. Rev. Salmon preparing to use a moose shoulder blade as a moose call . . . . . . . . 19 18. Rev. Salmon demonstrating calling technique with moose shoulder blade . . . . 19 19. Superior view of moose shoulder blade caller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 20. Bow size comparison illustrating the three phases of advancement . . . . . . . . . . 21 21. Rev. Salmon demonstrating proper stance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 22. Comparison of archery tackle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 23. Youth’s bow with arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 24. Rev. Salmon demonstrating the Mediterranean release (posterior view) . . . . . . 26 25. Rev. Salmon demonstrating the Mediterranean release . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 26. Rev. Salmon nocking the arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 27. Rev. Salmon drawing the bow vertically . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 28. The bow lowered into the ready position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 29. Anterior view of the drawn bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 30. The left-hand grip on the bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 31. Detail of the Mediterranean release. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 32. Boy’s bow with arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 33. Author’s daughter, age four, with boy’s bow and arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 ix

x

34. Details of the distal ends of boy’s arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 35. Drawing of lateral view of boy’s practice arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 36. Author’s son, age twelve, with the youth’s bow and arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 37. Anterior view of the back of the youth’s bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 38. Lateral view detailing the string stopper crosspiece of the youth’s bow . . . . . . . 37 39. Drawing of youth’s bow at the grip portion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 40. Anterior view of the youth’s arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 41. Drawing of the youth’s arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 42. Man’s bow with arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 43. Drawing of composite view of man’s bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 44. Drawing of lateral view of a man’s bow at the grip portion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 45. Anterior view of the back of a man’s bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 46. Superior view of typical fletching and nock of the man’s arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 47. Lateral view of typical fletching and nock of the man’s arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 48. Drawing of Arctic Village region man’s blunter arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 49. Drawing of Yukon Flats region man’s blunter arrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 50. Drawing of Yukon Flats region man’s metal blunter arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 51. Comparison of the man’s blunter arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 52. Drawing of Birch Creek region man’s single-pronged fancy water arrow. . . . . . 50 53. Drawing of Birch Creek region man’s single-pronged water arrow . . . . . . . . . . . 51 54. Drawing of Birch Creek region man’s bone two-pronged water arrow . . . . . . . . 52 55. Drawing of the Yukon Flats region man’s metal two-pronged water arrow . . . . 54 56. Comparison of man’s water arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 57. Drawing of Eagle Region man’s bone hunting arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 58. Drawing of Arctic Village region man’s notched hunting arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 59. Lateral view of Crow Flats region man’s hunting arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 60. Comparison of bone- and antler-tipped man’s hunting arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 61. Drawing of Crow Flats region man’s hunting arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 62. Drawing of man’s iron trade arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 63. Drawing of man’s leaf-shaped iron trade arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 64. Comparison of man’s iron trade arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 65. Bone ice chisel displaying the outer cortex of the antler material . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 66. Drawing of the bone ice chisel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 67. Drawing of two bone fishhooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 68. Rev. Salmon holding a fully assembled fish spear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 69. The shaft handle splice of the fish spear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 70. Lateral view of the fish spear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 71. Superior view of the distal end of the fish spear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 72. Drawing of the distal point end of the fish spear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 73. Drawing of the hafted section of the fish spear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 74. Drawing of the king salmon dip net frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 75. Drawing of a Gwichyaa Gwich’in chief using a dip net to catch king salmon . . 77 76. Ventral view of a model of the king salmon dip net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 77. Drawing of the superior and lateral views of a caribou leg bone knife . . . . . . . . 80 78. Rev. Salmon with a toh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 79. Rev. Salmon demonstrating the rain chaser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 80. Drawing of the rain chaser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 81. Drawing of a “Grandpa’s Heel” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

xi

82. Author and Rev. Salmon demonstrating the correct hold of the cone-shaped stick game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 83. Drawing of the cone-shaped stick game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 84. The pulling stick game and cone stick game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 85. Assemblage of utility and manufacturing implements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 86. Drawing of the Yukon Flats–style moose leg bone skinner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 87. Drawing of the Tanana River–style skinner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 88. Drawing of caribou hind leg scraper or beaming tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 89. Drawings of bone snowshoe needle, antler puncher point, and bone puncher/awl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 90. Rev. Salmon demonstrating the proper way to hold a snowshoe gimlet . . . . . . . 98 91. Drawing of a snowshoe gimlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 92. Rev. Salmon with traditional Athabascan hunting snowshoe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 93. Drawing showing details of the Athabascan hunting snowshoe . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 94. Gwich’in body measurement: “one hand” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 95. “Hand with thumb extended” measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 96. “Two hands with thumbs extended short” measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 97. “Two hands with thumbs extended long” measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 98. “Elbow to finger” measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 99. “Elbow to finger” measurement on snowshoe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 100. “One hand” plus “elbow to finger” measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 101. “Elbow to finger” measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 102. “Elbow to finger” plus “hand with thumb extended” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 103. “One hand” measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 104. “Two hands with thumbs extended short” measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 105. “Two hands with thumbs extended long” measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 106. Rev. Salmon with bow and arrow, 1942 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 107. Rev. Salmon, author, and author’s son . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 108. Rev. Salmon and the author. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 109. Author and Rev. Salmon building Athabascan birch bark canoe . . . . . . . . . . . 114 110. Mark L. MacDonald, Rev. Frank, and Rev. Salmon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 111. Rev. Salmon documenting oral history at the author’s office . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115 112. Rev. Salmon excavating a test hole near Chalkyitsik, Alaska . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

Foreword

G

wich’in Athabascan Implements: History, Manufacture, and Usage According to Reverend David Salmon is the product of a highly unusual long-term partnership. As a youth Rev. David Salmon had intensive training in all aspects of Gwich’in traditions and survival skills. During his long career as an Episcopal priest Salmon was renowned throughout Alaska for his charismatic sermons and lectures. Tom O’Brien has had extensive experience living in isolated regions of Alaska where he developed a wide array of skills as a trapper, hunter, woodworker, and sketch artist. David and Tom developed their special rapport for this project due to their many shared interests and skills. The book presents Salmon’s personal collection of thirty-eight implements in exquisite detail through this brilliant man’s informative explanations and O’Brien’s careful descriptions, measurements, and drawings. It has been more than seventy years since a detailed material culture study has been done for an Athabascan culture. The bestknown works are for Ingalik (Deg Hit’an) in Western Alaska (Osgood, Ingalik Material Culture, 1940) and for Navajo (Kluckhohn et al., Navaho Material Culture, published in 1971 but based on work from the 1930s and 1940s). On May 31, 2007, at the ground-breaking ceremony for the Morris Thompson Cultural Center in Fairbanks, David Salmon—then ninety-four years old—gave brief remarks and an extemporaneous prayer that commanded the attention of several hundred people assembled there. One of his statements that day—which has been similarly stated by several other prominent Alaska Athabascan intellectuals— resonated with the audience. Salmon said, “Our Athabascan people have had more than ten thousand years to learn how to live on this land.” Salmon and O’Brien’s book conveys the ingenuity, context, and precise craftsmanship of this set of Gwich’in elder’s implements better than any other source on an Athabascan material culture that I have read. Thanks to this remarkable collaboration, a vital component of Athabascan life from very ancient times has been passed on to us. James Kari, Professor of Linguistics, Emeritus Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks

xiii

Figure 2: Rev. David Salmon, 1997.

Author’s Note

S

adly, my dear friend and mentor Reverend David Salmon passed on in October 2007 at the ripe old age of ninety-five. This very day, had he not departed, would have been his ninety-ninth birthday. I cannot adequately convey in words how deeply I miss him, but I proudly declare that I loved him, as he was my very dear friend and through our years of working closely together became as a father to me. I must confess that even at over three years since his passing, I find writing these words extremely difficult, but I take solace knowing that he lived a good, healthy life, outliving the majority of his contemporaries. He was respected and loved by all who knew him. He often told me how he missed the early days, his departed father, family, and friends, the old elders, and the old white trappers of his youth. He greatly missed his wife, Sarah, who preceded him in death, and yearned for the time when he would see them all again. I did not know that he had contracted cancer in the last months of his life, and his death came as a devastating shock to me. I was told afterward that he left this world with a remarkable serenity and unshaken faith in the forward course of his eternity. Knowing him as I did I was not at all surprised. As a birthday gift a few years earlier I had given him a fine Hudson’s Bay woolen blanket, white with various colored stripes. It was the same as another he had described to me that his father had swaddled him in as a newborn child upon returning from a midwinter trading venture in 1912 to Rampart House on the Porcupine River. Rev. Salmon requested that my gift blanket be his burial shroud; and so it was, by which I was extremely honored. I try to fill the void in my heart with fond memories of former times we shared together. I draw comfort in the certainty that he is now truly at peace and resting in the best of company. Thomas A. O’Brien January 14, 2011 North Pole, Alaska

xv

Acknowledgments

I

would like to sincerely thank the entire Salmon family and other friends in the village of Chalkyitsik, Alaska, those living and departed, for the many kindnesses they extended me during my years working with Rev. Salmon. You always made me welcome and treated me like family. My love and heartfelt thanks to all. Much appreciation to my old professor and friend, Dr. James M. Kari, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, University of Alaska Fairbanks, for contributing the wonderful foreword to this book. Jim, your help reviewing my draft and expediting other details and your continued support and faith in my work throughout the years have been more appreciated than you will ever know. Thank you, Jim. A special appreciation to Kathy R. Sikorski, Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks, who transcribed the Gwich’in nomenclature for this document. Special gratitude goes to Robert O. Stephenson, Fort Yukon area biologist, Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Thank you, Bob, for introducing me to Rev. Salmon and for your many years of continued support and encouragement of my work. I greatly appreciate the help from the great staff and associates of the University of Alaska Press, with special thanks to Sue Mitchell, production editor, for her wonderful work creating the layout of this book, to Kathy Cummins for her excellent copyediting, and Rachel Fudge for proofreading. Thank you, one and all! My thanks to the following for their generous use of photographs and maps: James H. Barker, a photographer in Fairbanks, Alaska; P. Ann Kaupp, head of the Anthropology Outreach Office, National Museum of Natural History; Sandra Johnston of the Alaska State Library Historical Collections; and the University of Chicago Press. Finally, to my dear wife, Lisa, and children Joshua (Jack), Katherine, and Amanda: for many years you were all a part of this entire process. Thank you for the continued love and support. My deepest love and gratitude.

xvii

Figure 3: Chalkyitsik, Salmon Village, and Grayling Fork region. From Richard K. Nelson’s Hunters of the Northern Forest: Designs for Survival among the Alaska Kutchin, published by the University of Chicago Press; © 1973, 1986 by the University of Chicago. All rights reserved.

Introduction

T

he intended purpose of this book is to document in detail the artifact collection made by Reverend David Salmon of Chalkyitsik, Alaska. His collection is an assemblage of Gwich’in Athabascan implements reflecting the precontact and early postcontact periods in Alaska’s northeastern interior and adjacent northern Yukon Territory; however, some artifact types from other regions are represented and noted. Similar indigenous technologies were developed and utilized by other Athabascan peoples throughout Alaska and adjoining northwestern Canada. Some of these artifacts bear conspicuous differences from the Gwich’in Athabascan implements, but most differ in very subtle details which would go unnoticed to the untrained eye. This collection of artifacts resulted from the concern and dedicated labor of one man—David Salmon. I have intentionally refrained from interjecting my own assumptions or citing comparative references from other sources throughout this descriptive work that could serve to either potentially concur with or bring into question the information the elder supplied. It has been my challenge to attempt to present this detailed body of knowledge solely reflecting the information as conveyed to me by Rev. Salmon regarding his personal artifact collection. I sought to accurately recontextualize his narrative and hope that I have succeeded. This approach provides an uncompromised voice to this distinguished Athabascan elder in sharing his personal artifact collection and traditional cultural knowledge with a larger audience. Although there are other elders who have similar expertise and knowledge, I know of no others who have dedicated themselves as earnestly in documenting the material culture of their people. In this introduction is a brief history of who David Salmon was and why his contributions are valid and significant. A brief summary of the Gwich’in Athabascan homeland allows the reader to appreciate the size and complexities of this vast cultural region of the far north. I then outline the process of how and under what conditions the work that resulted in the book progressed, and conclude with the text from the keynote presentation given by Rev. Salmon at the 2001 Alaska Anthropological Association annual conference, where he shared his perspectives on the importance of working together cross-culturally. xix

xx

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

A Brief History Rev. David Salmon was a distinguished Athabascan elder, highly respected in Alaska and in Canada’s Yukon Territory, as well as throughout the Native American community of North America. He was from age twenty-nine onward the traditional chief of the village of Chalkyitsik, Alaska, where he resided until his death at ninety-five years old in October 2007. He retired in 1996 from his esteemed position as the Venerable David Salmon, Archdeacon of the Episcopal Church in the interior of Alaska, having been in 1962 the first officially ordained Athabascan Episcopal priest in the interior of Alaska. For his numerous contributions to education and preservation of Alaska Native culture he was awarded an honorary doctorate in 2002 from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, and further honored in 2004 as the First Traditional Chief of the Interior of Alaska with the tribal consortium Tanana Chiefs Conference Inc., of which he was a founding member. He was considered the senior founding member of Denakkanaaga Inc., a nonprofit Native elders’ organization. Rev. Salmon was regarded as an expert in the traditional knowledge of the cultures of the Gwich’in people of interior Alaska and Canada’s neighboring Yukon Territory. Rev. Salmon was born January 14, 1912, in Salmon Village, which is located on the Salmon Fork of the Black River in eastern subarctic Alaska (Fig. 3). This small Native village was founded in 1901 by his father, William Salmon. The Salmon Fork River also bears the family’s name. Rev. Salmon spent the first twenty-nine years of his life under conditions considered extremely remote even for that frontier period of Alaska’s history. His beloved mother, Alice Salmon, died of tuberculosis in 1923. This tragic loss convinced his father that his son would stand little chance of surviving to adulthood if not isolated and reared in the most remote localities of that region far from the contagious diseases that plagued settlements such as Fort Yukon and Salmon Village. In company with his father and stepmother, he journeyed hundreds of trail miles from the nearest village to the headwaters of the Grayling Fork, Bull Creek, and Wood River country, south and east of Salmon Village along the Canadian border and adjacent to the Kandik River (Figs. 3 and 4). It was in this remote region they made their year-round trapline home. Rev. Salmon described the country as true “wilderness,” a “no-man’s land” heavily populated with various furbearers for excellent trapping and large populations of moose and caribou for successful hunting. He remembers extremely large wolf packs of fifty or more that roamed the winter landscape being regarded as particularly dangerous for lone trappers in the remote isolation of their daily work in the cold darkness of midwinter. During this period his father, William Salmon, was his primary companion and mentor. William was probably born between 1858 and 1860 in the Arctic Village region of the Chandalar River drainage. He was universally liked and respected by both Natives and whites for his many fine qualities. His life epitomized the lifestyle of the long-line Native trapper of the deep wilderness in the finest traditions of the Hudson’s Bay Company. The extent of his travels took him from Herschel Island in the northeast, to Skagway in the south, and to the Arctic Village region in the north. William Salmon was reared in the traditional Gwich’in culture.

Introduction

William’s father, King Salmon, Łuk Choo, was probably born somewhere between 1808 and 1812 in the Arctic Village region. King Salmon was a mature adult of approximately forty years old when he first made contact with white fur traders who built the remote fur trading post Fort Yukon in 1847. He was hired by the Hudson’s Bay Company and worked for them from 1850 through 1868. King Salmon was a company boatman and voyager, and his strength and tenacity for that toilsome trade became legendary in the oral tradition of the region. His travels extended from the far reaches of the headwaters of the Chandalar and Koyukuk region and deep into Canada via the Porcupine River and ascending the Mackenzie River to the Lake Athabaska region in Canada. It was there that the trader received the supply of trading goods that the Hudson’s Bay Company required to conduct another year of fur trading at its farthest northwest trading post, Fort Yukon. King Salmon made this incredible round trip numerous times during his eighteen years of company service (Fig. 4). The lives of Rev. Salmon, his father William, and his grandfather King Salmon illustrate beautifully the transition from the hunting-gathering economy of great antiquity to the classic fur-trade economy in this region of the world. Briefly outlining Rev. Salmon’s life and his family serves to illustrate why he was such a treasure and storehouse of traditional knowledge. Even as a youth he had a keen understanding of the importance of the mentoring knowledge that had been shared with him daily by his father and other elders. Rev. Salmon fondly remembered: I respect my father very much! Oh gee, he know everything about the early days and he just always talking . . . He talk and tell all the story about the early days and he teach me in this way while we work together. In tent camp or by fire he cooking or we skinning fur, he teach me all these things. There is nothing to distract . . . no TV or radio, just my father’s voice I hear. For eighteen years I hear him and I listen . . . he teach me good. Therefore, with the remote isolation of the lifestyle of his youth, Rev. Salmon had few distractions to distance him from the traditions of his elders. He paid close attention and learned and remembered the traditions entrusted to him and built upon them. That is exactly what we see in the manifestation of his artifact collection.

Gwich’in Athabascan Homeland Beginning in north-central Alaska, going eastward into the Canadian northern Yukon Territory, and continuing further east into the Northwest Territories of Canada, the traditional Gwich’in homeland is an immense subarctic landscape with several major river drainages, flat marsh lowlands, and rugged mountain regions dispersed intermittently throughout. By the nineteenth century this vast, daunting tract of northern boreal forest topography was inhabited by nine primary bands of hunters and gatherers we know as “Gwich’in” or “the people,” each with a distinct language dialect. The specific band territories remain essentially the same to this day, with few significant changes. Some of these more recent recognized group designations would be the Danzhit Hanlaih Gwich’in of Circle, Alaska, at the interface of traditional Gwichyaa and Deenduu Gwich’in territories. The Mackenzie River Delta villages of

xxi

xxii

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Aklavik and Inuvik have also recently been recognized as containing an aggregate of various Gwich’in people (the Edhiitat Gwich’in and the Nihatat Gwich’in, respectively) from different communities in the region (Fig. 4). While the Di’hąįį Gwich’in originally inhabited the piedmont region of the tributary drainages of the Coleville River to the north and the headwater drainages of the Koyukuk River to the south, in the nineteenth century the Di’hąįį occupied the extreme west of the Gwich’in homeland. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the Di’hąįį were pressured by expanding Eskimo groups to yield their highland territory and move southeastward, ultimately joining with the Neets’ąįį Gwich’in of the Chandalar drainage and other Gwich’in bands of the Yukon Flats region (Fig. 4, #9). The Neets’ąįį Gwich’in reside in the rugged piedmont region of the north side of the Yukon River in the Chandalar River and adjacent river drainages (Fig. 4, #8). The Deenduu Gwich’in live south of the Neets’ąįį in the northeastern White Mountain foothills region which forms the western border of the Yukon Flats and Birch Creek drainage region (Fig. 4, #7). The Yukon River proper is home to the Gwichyaa Gwich’in, specifically in the region of the central Yukon Flats and confluence of the Yukon and Porcupine Rivers (Fig. 4, #6). To their east lies the Dranjik Gwich’in terri-

Figure 4: Nineteenth-century Gwich’in territory with regional bands. (1) Arctic Red River; (2) Peel River; (3) Upper Porcupine River; (4) Crow Flats; (5) Black River; (6) Yukon Flats; (7) Birch Creek; (8) Chandalar; (9) Di’haii (displaced by Eskimos about 1850) (Slobodin in Helm 1981, p. 516).

Introduction

tory of the Black River and Salmon Fork River region (Fig. 4, #5). North of the Dranjik people, the Vantah Gwich’in occupy the Upper Porcupine River of Alaska along with the lakes and wetlands of the Crow Flats region of Canada’s Yukon Territory (Fig. 4, #4). In the 19th century, the Dagoo Gwich’in inhabited a middle area in the Canadian Upper Porcupine River region, but it is assumed that their population suffered severely from war and epidemics. The remaining Dagoo, however, ultimately merged with their Gwich’in neighbors to the west in the Crow Flats and eastward with the Peel River people (Fig. 4, #3). The Peel River people, also known as the Teetl’it Gwich’in of the Fort McPherson region, live further to the east of the Upper Porcupine River (Fig. 4, #2). Their name traditionally identified them as the people of the headwaters of the Peel River region in the Canadian Yukon Territory. Finally, to the extreme east boundary of the Gwich’in homeland live the Gwichyaa Gwich’in of the Tsiigehtchic (Arctic Red River) drainage region (Fig. 4, #1). Their territory extends further eastward to the Mackenzie River and Travaillant River drainages of Canada’s Northwest Territory. These nine Gwich’in bands are bordered by five other distinct arctic and subarctic native groups. The Eskimo groups, the Iñupiat of Alaska and the Inuit of Canada, inhabit the Arctic Ocean coast along the entire northern border of the Gwich’in homeland, from the Coleville region in Alaska to the Mackenzie Bay region of Yukon Territory and inland to the northern divide of the mountains of Alaska’s Brooks Range. Portions of this piedmont inland border region served as a no-man’s-land disputed by Gwich’in and Iñupiat or Inuit people with both groups using resources. The Koyukon Athabascan people occupy the land below the Eskimo territories in the west border of the Gwich’in homeland, south of the displaced Di’hąįį Gwich’in and west of the Neets’ąįį and Deenduu Gwich’in in the rugged Koyukuk River drainage north of the Yukon River. The Tanana people of the Tanana River drainage, another Athabascan group, live south of the Koyukon. The Deenduu and Gwichyaa Gwich’in people occupy their northeastern border. The Han Athabascan people live to the east of the Tanana people; their northern border is occupied by the Deenduu, Gwichyaa, and Dranjik Gwich’in in Alaska and the Dagoo and Teetl’it Gwich’in of the Yukon Territory. The northern boundary of the Hare Athabascan people of the Canadian Northwest Territories is found south of Teetl’it and the Tssigehtchic Gwich’in territories in the extreme eastern and southeastern tributaries of the Peel River, Arctic Red River regions, including the great Mackenzie River drainage proper (Slobodin in Helm, 1981; David Salmon, pers. comm.). The formalized method of relating narratives associated with the Gwich’in homeland demands an earnest pragmatism and exhaustive and deliberate details on the part of the storyteller. This in turn demands equal sincerity on the part of the listener to pay close attention, absorb, and remember the rich description relayed. Oral narratives, as passed down to Rev. Salmon from his father and other elders, intricately describe the lay of this enormous landscape, the numerous mountain and river drainage systems, and the extensive flora and fauna. Rev. Salmon was taught the social complexities of the entire region, the similarities and differences between the various Gwich’in bands as well as those of the bordering non-Gwich’in groups. These pertinent geography lessons were often woven as significant threads in the overall fabric of larger narratives and traditions, relating mythic days of old, tales of aggressive wars and raiding, extended wayfaring, as well as band migrations,

xxiii

xxiv

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

intermarriages, and regional-level trading. This regimen of storytelling provided a comprehensive education and it was these copious facts and details that filled young Rev. Salmon’s mind with appreciation, wonder, and fascination for the larger world around him: When my father, tell story . . . I can just see it. He tell me about the Di’hąįį and Neets’ąįį country, up that way [gesturing with his hand north] . . . everything about the mountains, valley and rivers and animal. The way the mountain people are . . . the way they live, everything! His story always make a [mental] picture or something like that . . . and long time later when I do church work up that way— the mountain, lake and river . . . it is there before me just like a picture and the people up that way are the same too just as he say. This is the way the old people prepare you. The story prepares you and teach you about other place and a people so you don’t make mistake . . . already . . . before you go there, you know how the land is . . . you know river, where to travel and what animal to eat. How you are to treat those people—their way is maybe different . . . so you don’t insult them . . . so to respect them and get along good with them.

Background I began working extensively with Rev. Salmon in September 1994 when I was still an undergraduate in anthropology and continued to work with him for over eleven years. Even though we each were burdened with many additional obligations, both personal and professional, we agreed for posterity’s sake to dedicate ourselves to working together toward documenting as much traditional cultural knowledge as he had time to share. Our work together encompassed a variety of subject matter: his personal life history, regional oral history, ethnohistory and ethnoarchaeological site work, the emerging village evangelical phenomenon, building a traditional Athabascan birch bark canoe, and of course documenting his collection of traditional implements. Early on it became apparent that the extensive information that he had to share would be impossible to confine to a single work. We agreed that a single study dedicated exclusively to documenting his assemblage of traditional Athabascan implements was needed. Rev. Salmon’s outstanding collection of artifacts resulted from his concern that the implements, which had once helped to assure the survival of his people, were close to being forgotten. Beginning in the summer of 1994, Rev. Salmon began to craft implements representing the precontact and early postcontact technology of the Athabascan people of Alaska’s northeastern interior and their related bands in the adjacent Canadian northern Yukon Territory (Fig. 4). During the winter of 1994–1995, he produced a significant assemblage of artifacts. He presented this collection at the annual Tanana Chiefs Conference in Fairbanks on March 14, 1995, where both he and the collection were enthusiastically received. After that time he produced additional artifacts to add to his collection. It is not only the functional and stylistic elements of the objects themselves that Rev. Salmon was so adamantly

Introduction

dedicated to preserving, but also the oral histories and traditions associated with these objects. In an attempt to accurately represent this collection, Rev. Salmon and I agreed that it was necessary to first document the specific attributes and construction details of the objects. Under field conditions an attempt was made to photograph specific details of the assemblage, with dubious results I might add. The majority of these initial tasks were accomplished during a field session at Rev. Salmon’s home in Chalkyitsik in June 1997. With the merits of my photography skills rightfully in question I chose another graphic alternative. Since my youth I had always dabbled with various mediums of art. I was taught the basics of sketching, the use of pencil and shading techniques, in a high-school art class. Rather than be dissuaded by the less-than-perfect photographic results, I incorporated the old tried-and-true method within traditional ethnographic work of sketching the objects at a one-to-one scale to provide the reader with a fuller understanding of the fascinating details of these beautiful artifacts. The remaining task was to document the stories and traditions for these artifacts and give them meaning through Rev. Salmon’s narrative. Rev. Salmon related the function and purpose of each implement within the ethnohistorical contexts. How were they made and what were they made of? When and where does one go to procure the necessary raw materials? What member of the group used a particular tool? What was the prescribed training for using specific artifacts? Questions such as these are addressed in this work, as are associated rules, rituals, taboo, and luck. We felt it was also very important for future generations to record the names of the objects and specific attributes in Rev. Salmon’s first language, the Gwichyaa dialect of Gwich’in. In a series of informal sessions at my home in North Pole, Alaska, from late June through early July 1997, I documented Rev. Salmon’s full narratives concerning his collection. At that time most oral documentation was done via audiocassette tape recorder, but I elected to use an 8-mm video camcorder, allowing not only an audio but a visual record as well. These video sessions provided the primary data for this book. Depending upon the content addressed, the video sessions could take the form of storytelling and oral histories with very little if any interruption on my part. Sometimes circumstances required more detail, necessitating that I ask specific questions to clarify particulars. Like so many old-timers, Rev. Salmon effectively used his hands and body movements to enhance his oral narrative, and the visual element of the video documentation more than proved its worth when I later began to synthesize the data.

The “Tools” of Teaching Rev. Salmon was highly respected and acknowledged by all as an outstanding teacher. He exercised care, patience, and understanding whatever the learning environment: teaching scripture to a Bible study group as a priest, or instructing a gathering of Native youth in traditional cultural knowledge. His wisdom and expertise were embraced and respected by all. He loved to share his traditional cultural knowledge

xxv

xxvi

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

at both the individual and group level, within his own culture and cross-culturally. Many people, including myself, benefited immeasurably from the fountain of knowledge within him that he so freely shared with us. After 1995 word spread fast regarding his traditional implements, and for many years Rev. Salmon was in great demand to present his artifacts in numerous places throughout Alaska. He seldom turned down an offer and eagerly accepted invitations to teach about the implements, which he always called his “tools,” as this was Figure 5: Rev. Salmon, holding a fish spear and teaching about “tools” at Tanana Chiefs Economic Development Conference in Fairbanks, November 1999.

Figure 6: Rev. Salmon and the author at the tools exhibit, University of Alaska Museum, Fairbanks, May 1998.

Introduction

a primary reason he had made them. He regarded these opportunities as a form of “mission” with the primary emphasis that the Native youth, if not introduced to this traditional knowledge, would have no opportunity to learn about these important aspects of their cultural heritage. Like everything else he did in his life, he put his whole heart into it (Fig. 5). His work ethic was unmatched by any man I have ever known. Things soon got to the point that he was presenting the collection so frequently that he chose to keep it stored safely at my home or at my university office in Fairbanks, rather than pay to freight it back via bush plane to his home village of Chalkyitsik. Thus, for years I was “keeper of the tools,” and got many impromptu phone calls from him. “Tom, the people really go for it! I need the tools,” he would say, and I would pick him up at the airstrip in Fairbanks with “tools” in hand and off we would go. With all this traveling and handling, the “tools” began to get somewhat shopworn, and ultimately we were required to refit them in the spring of 1998 at his home in Chalkyitsik, making any necessary repairs, cleaning them, and reapplying the ochre dye so they would look their best for a six-week exhibit (Athabascan Tools from the Skin House Days) presented at the University of Alaska Museum of the North in Fairbanks during May and June 1998 (Fig. 6). If he received “elders” fees for his presentation, he generally used those funds to support his village church and fund Christian revivals to spiritually benefit the people in his region. After many years of “working the tools circuit” things began to settle down on the traveling tool show. At the age of ninety, Rev. Salmon finally acknowledged that he was getting older and experiencing increased difficulty in traveling. He also expressed his desire to spend more time with his immediate family in Chalkyitsik. In 2002, he negotiated with the Native regional corporation Doyon Ltd. in Fairbanks to purchase the entire collection. The collection is currently on permanent exhibition at the Doyon Fairbanks office building for the enjoyment and benefit of all.

Working Together Rev. Salmon and I shared congruent philosophies about the importance of crosscultural partnering. We both were fascinated from our youth with other cultures and enjoyed working with people of other ethnicities. He often laughed, saying, “I am anthropologist too,” and considering his keen sense of observation and excellent manner with which he worked with people of all descriptions, I agreed. Rev. Salmon had worked effectively across cultures for his entire life within the complex ethnic mosaic that defined his region in the last days of the twentieth-century northwest fur-trade era, through the decline of the missionary era in interior Alaska, the time of Alaska Native land claims, and onward to the present. In the spring of 2001, we both were honored to be keynote speakers at the Alaska Anthropological Association’s 2001 annual conference, sponsored that year by the Tanana Chiefs Conference Inc., a regional Native consortium located in Fairbanks. We crafted our presentations to share our philosophies of working together cross-culturally and we highlighted portions of our collaborative work. We were well received by the assemblage of several hundred predominantly circumpolar anthropologists.

xxvii

xxviii

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Rev. Salmon titled his speech “A Clean History, How I Work with Other People,” meaning how he effectively worked cross-culturally, the “Other,” in his mind, being non-Natives. Included here is the text of his sincere, heartfelt presentation in which he stressed the importance he placed on his personal knowledge of interior Alaska prehistory and history and the circumstances of different peoples confronting the realities of a harsh landscape; the importance of sharing, teaching, and helping one another across boundaries of culture and ethnicity; and the necessity of continuing that same tradition in the future toward building a better Alaska for us all: Well—ah, good evening and, ah . . . in behalf of, Chief Peter John[’s] [inaudible] people, my people, and all of you people—a great people, I respect you very much in this evening’s gathering, and . . . what I gonna talk about is . . . [to] explain to you anyway [chuckles lightly]. I think I work with the people all my life, anyway since I came out of the wilderness. And this evening many of you I don’t know you. But anyway, I respect you very much. Anyway, in behalf of the Tanana Chiefs [Conference] and all my people here and at home. I respect everyone of you. Tonight, this evening, I wanna talk about how I work with other people. Everywhere, where I work I was respected since I was young. I start to work at nine year old. I went out on trapline with my father about three and a half month. We stayed out there when my mother died. That’s first time I went into the trapline and start to work since. From that time, every year I work just like a man. And in 1924 my father put me in the Episcopal boarding mission for school [in Fort Yukon]. But then, we find out that there was TB sickness in this country . . . [that] was really killing lot of peoples. And my father is the man of wisdom. He figure out. So one—one winter I stayed in the school and I never even reach—reached the first grade. Then he took me out . . . out of the school and then he even move me out of that village. And then we went way up to the Canadian border in the Black River, another two hundred mile from Salmon Village upriver. And he built a home there. And the first year and the second year, we was there, just two of us there. About ten and a half months without seeing anybody. And ever since 1926 to 1941 we stayed in the wilderness. I stay in the wilderness. I’ve no chance to go to school, I just grow up in the wilderness. My father don’t want me to [be] raised in the village and drink [water] with the people cause of TB sickness. In 1941 a medicine was invented for the TB. So my father told me, “Now you can join the people.” But way before that time when I was about seventeen year old, I start freighting in Black River . . . I start the freighting in the Black River for the people. That’s the only boat there is. And I carry seven tons to twenty [tons] every trip up that river. I start to like that way [the job of freighting] with the people when I worked with people.

Introduction

Now this is the way I was raised up . . . I never went to school and my father saved me. And I stay out in the wilderness for eighteen years and it saved my life. Anyway, and for that the reason I was here, I was survived from the TB sickness. Now back in the old life before the white people came. Before white people came the Athabascan life I understand all the Athabascan life for eighteen years my father tell me the story. We have no radio, we have no TV. Only I listen to my father. When I skin the marten, I skin the animal. He [was] the only one talking all winter long for eighteen years. And I learned all the traditional stories, traditional oral history from the earliest . . . early days, six generation ago. On both sides, my father’s side and mother’s side, six generation. My mother born in Canada and raised in Canada. My mother’s grand . . . My father’s grandfather come from Koyukuk. And I know all the migration people movements in this country in the early days. All the people living in this place here [Chena, the Fairbanks area] . . . people come from each other[’s regions, villages]. Some of these people are in Chalkyitsik right now . . . from early days. Some of the Old Crow people in Canada [are] in Tanana. This is the way the people move. Around like this [circularly moving his hands] you know, and they come from each other[’s regions, villages]. Now, from early days, way early days and the people’s lives, the Athabascan people [were] one group of people here and there. And they really depend on the leader. Because there is only one, one way that they can survive, [that] is to survive every winter. And that’s all they think about. They never work for money. They never work for work. They just thinking about the survive . . . to live! Their tool are the same too. They never change their tool. That is against the law. If anybody change the design of this little canoe over here [gesturing to a nearby model canoe], they’re gonna lose his life. That much, that much of the Indian law is very strict. So, they don’t change their tool. So they just think only one way. Because the tools and changing tools—and that . . . that makes a man thinks different. [He would] get away from the group. That’s what the Athabascan said. So they built the same thing too. And the same type clothes and everything. And they all have the same stories for survival. And they have a strong chief to survive, and they did survive. They were here in this country for ten thousand years. And they have no white man tools. But how did they survive? Because they survive through their leader. ... They survived through their leader. And that’s what you see now in every village. And even now with the Tanana Chief[s Conference]. We still depend on the leader. How do we gonna survive from here? And then . . . the Athabascan people. That’s the only tribe in the world, I think, we don’t fight with white people. We have a clean

xxix

xxx

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

history! We really have a clean history. My father’s father [personal] name [was] King Salmon, Łuk Choo. He remember when Hudson Bay came to Fort Yukon [in 1847]. That the first white people, French Canadians and Scotsman and Englishman. They came too. White people came to Fort Yukon [and] built the Hudson Bay store there. And all the people [came] all around it. The chief speaks. And he says, “These people bring you a good stuff to help you survive. They bring you blankets, and tools and guns and everything.” And when the chief look at it. “Oh that’s good to survive with, I think we can live. So don’t touch these people anyway. Take care of them.” And they take care of each other [the first Canadian and American white people]. And they love one another. Nobody got hurt, not one person got killed. We have a clean history! And ever since then, [since] my grandfather, they worked with English people. And my grandfather from Fort Yukon [went] all the way up to Mackenzie River in Canada to get freight for the Hudson Bay. He work for the Hudson Bay people to bring the freight. A bunch of them. And that’s the way they live together in the early days. And, then come the gold seeker and the trappers. Oh, I can’t forget the old people, the old white man people trappers in the Black River. I just can’t forget them. That’s my best friend there is! I know all the old people and I carry freight for them. And they talk to me. They counsel me and they teach me. Sometimes they teach me about words [in English]. Something like that. And that’s my best friend, you know. And the Indian people and the trappers, they live together. And they even sometimes the prospector in the early days they come into Indian camp, and they take care of them good. They give them clothes, they give them food. The best food they have is meat. They give them good meat. And then when the summertime they let them go and go. So that’s the way we live together. And finally, when the land claim came, and I think truly white peoples and the Native people are helping together. Some white consultant and white lawyer and Indian people, educated people. They go to Washington and settle this land claim. They work together. And finally, finally today, me too, for all my life I work with the white people. And my people, my father says, “All your life you work with the white [non-Native] people. They are the one that gonna put a little money in you pocket.” [He chuckles.] And—ah, well they did— they did anyway. And today, for all my life I work with the white people, and what the white people I work [with] they really like me anyway. I work on the steamboat, and all the crew like me. And I work at the construction and the construction like me. I work . . . I really love to work with other people. This is the way that the white people and [the Athabascans], two different people come work together in Alaska. Now where do we go from here?

Introduction

And I think soon to . . . our children . . . our young people will receive their education. I think the next generation will say that it is an education world. And I think all our grandchildren, all the young people in the next generation they can handle it, land anyway with education. And I think we have the best education in this Alaska. We have a good university. It’s a doorway to the education [and] business we have here. And I think when I live all this through here with no education. But I work with the church too for forty-four years in my ministry. And I went out for school in Michigan and Arizona for one year and Canada, Calgary. I don’t have no education. So I don’t know, why I went there? Because I work with the people, very right way. Anyway and as I did today, I think I work with the people, all the white people. White people trader too, that’s my friend. I trade with them with my fur, something like that. And I work all my life and my father said, “Don’t sit down, and just work all the time. Work! And that make you healthy. Work will make you live long time.” So I never lay down in the bed in daytime one time in my life. That’s the way I live. I just sit down in a chair. And every time I come to young people today . . . I say, “I am old.” “Oh, you are not old! Oh, you gonna live another twenty year.” That’s all I hear! Finally, today, I work with ah, Tom . . . Tom O’Brien and his wife Lisa. Oh wonderful friend we . . . I have. I learn lots from Tom and he learn from me and I think Tom knows everything about the Indian traditional life and their tools and everything. He can explain everything and I can explain everything from him. I learn lots from him too! That’s the way I learn lots from all the white people, all my life, anyway. And from the church people too, that sent me out. Even I went to New York and Connecticut, direct from the Chalkyitsik. I been all over, now I talk [and travel] about fifty-eight thousand mile with airplane with church and meeting. And here I am and I stand, and I work with Tom O’Brien. And there was the family and they take care of me good too! Oh, they just take care of me good. I like it too. Anyway so we just teach each other. You’ll see he knows all the Indian traditional stuff, oh he can explain it . . . I don’t have to explain it—Tom can explain it. And there is last summer, and we went down to Anchorage. We went down to Anchorage. And Tom knows we gonna build a birch bark canoe with us somewhere. Well we went down to the Alaska Native Heritage Center. Down there they give us some money anyway to build one. Anyway and Tom and I, we join together and that the first . . . the first time in the last ten thousand years, white man and Athabascan Indian make canoe! [Audience laughs.] [This project is briefly documented in Steinbright, Qayaqs and Canoes: Native Ways of Knowing, 2001.] That’s the way, that’s the way we should work together. If we work together like this, I think we can build the Alaska [into] the wealthy

xxxi

xxxii

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

state for our children to come. You like that? [He appeals to the crowd; applause.] Yeah, so . . . thank you. So let’s you and I to build this Alaska a better state and a wealthy state for our children to come. And put education too. And thank you for all you anthropologists. And Tom is anthropologist anyway. So know a little about anthropologist too myself [laughter]. And I think Indian too was anthropologist, you know from the early days. They study the people, they study the life of the animal, people through living things. And they know too. And I know about how I can make my living out there. I know all the animals, the way they act, the way they live and I know how to fish. I know how to trap. I know how much, how much I gonna eat in a year of the white man’s food. And some things like that. And how much I gonna save and something like that too. My father teach me this. But I know all the oral history from early days. And if I talk about this, I think I could talk with you for about a month. So I think . . . I talk about the last person I work with, Tom O’Brien, anthropologist, and his wife Lisa. And the family that take care of me good. And I work with him and he work with me perfectly. And he can tell how we make the canoe down there and he the one, the first white man to make canoe, anyway in the last ten thousand years. Thank you to all you peoples. You invite me here, and thank you again. [Applause.] —Reverend David Salmon, Keynote Speaker Alaska Anthropological Association Twenty-Eighth Annual Conference, March 23, 2001

CHAPTER 1

General Information Associated with the Artifacts

A

ll the artifacts in this collection were drawn to scale at full size and are printed in this book at one-to-one; thus the drawings can be used as a template for size and form to replicate the tools. The descriptions of technique and methods of utilizing the implements are based upon a right-handed person. I should also note that any implement in this artifact collection with an edge or a point was deliberately kept dull to add a measure of safety when displayed or shown. Rev. Salmon knew better than any of us to unstring his bows and store them relaxed. He elected, however, to keep them continually strung so as not to have to go through the bracing procedure at his advanced years. Throughout his narrative, Rev. Salmon used the term bone to describe the raw material for any implement whether it was composed of antler or bone. He used this term consistently when speaking English as well as his own language. Incorporated in this book are numerous terms and jargon associated with archery and terms that are familiar within Alaska or with Athabascans. Please see the glossary (appendix I) for clarification. In addition, the Gwich’in name for each implement has been provided throughout the text, with a complete listing and additional terms in appendix II. Chapter 2 of this book discusses implements that were used in association with hunting. This is followed by implements for fishing in chapter 3, tools of general utility and special purpose in chapter 4, and implements used for gaming in chapter 5. Chapter 6 discusses implements associated with manufacturing, including the basic technique for determining the finished size of hunting snowshoes. The conclusion serves to reaffirm the significant contribution that Rev. Salmon has made in the preservation of his traditional cultural heritage. The final section relates my perspectives regarding the collaborative work with Rev. Salmon. It is hoped that the information in this book will provide the reader with a fuller sense of the ingenuity and intricate knowledge that the Interior Athabascans used to make the harsh environment of subarctic interior Alaska their home.

1

2

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Rules, Taboos, and Good Luck There existed prescribed rules for the specific attributes and ultimate form that objects took. Rev. Salmon related that the Interior-style birch bark canoe has remained the same since its perfected origin. Other objects such as snowshoes, bows, and arrows all had prescribed forms. To attempt to break these rules could cost the deviant his or her life. According to Rev. Salmon, “If a man break the rule . . . the people will get rid of that man.” Tool making was an ongoing process and generally some small object in a state of manufacture was carried on an individual’s person to work on as time and circumstance permitted. Every opportunity was used during resting periods of travel or in social time around the fire to further craft the object. When implements were completed, such as a bow, for example, the craftsman sang a song and this was thought to bring good luck to the tool. There were always implements that were considered superior to those of their same kind. For example, in a quiver of fifteen arrows that in appearance might seem similar, perhaps one would be considered a “lucky arrow.” This meant that the user had found the arrow to exceed all expectations, and hence he had complete confidence in that particular charmed arrow and its ability to consistently perform well under all field conditions. Thus it was a prized possession. Taboos existed regarding sex, age, and gender. The bow was highly respected by the early people in this culture. A man’s bow and arrows were his personal property and not to be handled by others. This included his own children, and especially his wife, or any woman for that matter. Taboos were firm and a woman could not touch the bow, arrows, or other implements of hunting and fishing for fear of bringing “bad luck” and spoiling any chances of success with the tools. Interior Athabascans had prescribed rules for the maintenance and storage of their tool kits. Implements had assigned places within the skin house and the camp where they were kept. One did not deviate from this. Under no circumstances were implements played with or casually handled. No sharp or edged tool would ever be left lying about. They were always stored in their respective containers and cases. This applied to everything from the sharpest arrow used for warfare to the smallest bone needle for sewing. Small children reared with these rules from the earliest age would not pick up objects that did not belong to them. Strict rules such as these served to keep natural curiosity and temptation to a minimum, and assured the people of a safe, harmonious, and ordered camp.

Raw Materials The fundamental methods and techniques associated with crafting and procuring raw material for making these artifacts are very interesting. Feathers provided the fletching for arrows. There were several ways to procure them. Often people gathered bald eagle feathers that had fallen and were scattered around the ground at the base of an elevated eagle’s nest. In winter, hawks were occasionally snared unintentionally in rabbit snare lines. A particularly interesting method was used to procure bald eagle feathers. Taking a sinew snare, a person would climb the tree or craggy preci-

Chapter 1: General Information

pice to the eagle’s nest while the mother eagle was away hunting. He would then put the sinew noose around the neck of a prospective fledgling and tie it as a loose collar of sorts so as not to slip and choke the young bird. The other end was made fast to the area around the nest. The tethered noose was just long enough to allow minimal movement and deliberately collared large enough to allow for growth of the fledgling. Done correctly, the mother bird remained unconcerned and continued to feed her young, which ultimately matured and, in testing its wings, leaped from the nest only to hang itself. The dead young eagle was allowed to remain hanging and would in time decompose and dry in the open air into a light bundle of bones, skin, and feathers protected securely in its hanging state high above the ground. The eagle trapper then returned and retrieved his prize. Feathers from bald eagles and northern goshawks were highly prized, and a valuable trade commodity. A technique existed to treat both antler and bone to produce a beautiful white or ivory color. The process was simple and required much time but little labor. The antler and bone material was placed in the sunny, shallow shore water of a freshwater lake. A gravel bottom was sought and the ideal depth of the water was approximately 60 cm. The material was cached in this water depth with the sun’s rays filtering down upon it for a period of three years. During that time, any black discoloration was leached from the material and it would remain a beautiful, creamy ivory white color. Sinew from many animals, for example, caribou, moose, and even king salmon, was used. For our purposes, sinew is defined as the connective strands of ligament running along the spinal column and generally terminating at the rump on large animals such as moose. The sinew lies just beneath the surface of the skin, and a portion of meat (approximately 1 cm thick) must be removed with the ligament in order to harvest the sinew intact. The removed section is then laid on a flat surface with the meat upward. The meat is removed from the sinew by carefully scraping it with a sharp bladed implement, such as a knife. The cleaned sinew is then hung up to dry. Once dried, sinew can be separated into long strands of varying width depending on the requirements of the craftsman. The size of the animal determines the length of the sinew, so a moose, with its long spinal column, is an excellent source of raw sinew. Rev. Salmon also expounded on the merits of king salmon, which he reputed to provide a very strong sinew for construction purposes. Red ochre was also a very valuable commodity, but there were not many places within the Alaska interior in which to acquire it. One very good location, even to this day, is ten miles above the village of Chalkyitsik on the Black River at a place known as Red Bluff. The red ochre can be procured in both rock and powder form, and various hues of the pigment exist, from pink and orange to a deeper red. The technique used by Interior Athabascans was to gather chunks of the primary material and crush and grind it into a fine powder with a handheld grinding stone upon a flat rock. Applying powered ochre to dye any wooden object is straightforward and easy. The wooden object is dampened and the powdered ochre is applied with a small piece of soft, dressed moosehide or cloth. This is done by dipping the applicator, also dampened, in the powdered ochre and rubbing it into the grain of the object to be dyed. The intensity of the finished color is dictated by the preference of the craftsman and can be controlled by the number of repeated applications performed on the object’s surface. Like most dyeing processes, the more

3

4

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

applications, the darker the overall finished color. Rev. Salmon preferred a light orange “salmon” color for all his implements.

Leadership The responsibility of a well-ordered camp rested significantly on the head man or chief. Rev. Salmon maintained that given time, any band without effective leadership would surely meet with disaster. This could be in the form of starvation, massacre in warfare, or other manner. The month of August was used to prepare for the coming long winter. This is when all the implements, clothing, bedding, and so on were either fashioned or repaired to good order. It was the head man’s responsibility to hold informal inspections of the group’s paraphernalia. If items within the inventory of a household did not measure up to the established expectations, the entire group was delayed until the offender remedied the problem. This put tremendous social pressure on individuals in making and maintaining excellent equipment. Some of these chiefs, according to Rev. Salmon, truly had the status of “big men,” acquiring surplus wealth and redistributing it in a unique manner of social welfare. During periods of tribal war, and also in the pursuits of hunting and gathering, it was not uncommon to have a sizeable segment of widowed women and orphaned children. The chief would often marry these widows and adopt their children or other orphaned children. The chief’s household swelled to considerable numbers with many wives and many, many more children. The members of the band contributed food and implements to the chief’s household in the form of presents. This surplus ensured that the chief could maintain his large household and, in so doing, care for widows and orphans.

Trading Trading prior to contact took place at the regional level and was designed to ensure that all the various groups, which we term Gwich’in, would have access to the required raw materials and manufactured items to successfully live on the subarctic landscape. Each region had its own particular commodities that were sought. For example, the Han Gwich’in of the Eagle region were famous for their beautifully crafted bone hunting arrows. The Deenduu Gwich’in of the Birch Creek region, as well as the Dranjik Gwich’in of the Black River region, had a reputation for crafting excellent canoes and supplying the best rolls of harvested birch bark. The caribou people, such as the Vantah Gwich’in of the Crow Flats region, supplied excellent bundles of prepared caribou babiche. These and many more items were traded at annual trading fairs in the Fort Yukon area (Fig. 4). The Gwichyaa Gwich’in established a reputation as a trading people. When meeting for trade, each band assigned a knowledgeable elder to negotiate an established value for goods. The method worked like this: If a Han Gwich’in placed three bone arrow points on the ground, the Deenduu Gwich’in desiring the points placed his roll of harvested birch bark next to it. The assigned elders monitored the exchange, and they would determine whether the exchange was equal or

Chapter 1: General Information

had to be subtracted from or added to depending on the value of the items. Once the trade was pronounced fair with the consensus of the elders, the traders would pick up their respective article and walk away with it. Trading assured each band that the people would have suitable food and materials to conduct their lives. At the conclusion of these trading fairs, feasting and games were always a highlight. Consequently, trading also worked to strengthen an interregional sense of identity, which would thus help curtail regional tribal war.

5

CHAPTER 2

Artifacts Associated with Hunting Bone Spear for Grizzly Bear Hunting, Yukon Flats Style (tth’an tòh)

T

his spear was still in general use during the early years of Rev. Salmon’s father’s life in the 1860s and 1870s, and it is a very massive and impressive tool. Hunting grizzly bear with this spear required considerable courage and a mastered skill in the technique, which demanded not only iron nerves and strength but a keen understanding of the anatomy and habits of the grizzly bear as well. Men from the Yukon Flats ventured into the surrounding mountainous high country to search out the bear in groups of at least three good hunters who had agreed beforehand which of them would personally challenge the bear face to face with spear in hand. When a suitable grizzly bear was sighted, one of the hunters would wound it with an arrow at a distance. The grizzly would usually retreat into the thicker brush in an attempt to evade the humans. The chosen hunter then prepared himself, and his companions fell back a short distance. The lone hunter, with spear in hand, cautiously advanced on the wounded bear to obtain the proper distance. He pursued the bear slowly until it stopped and turned. At that moment, the hunter, mustering his courage, ran with all of his strength and speed straight toward the bear with his bear spear held in a forward-thrusting position. The grizzly would characteristically rear upward on its hind legs to face the oncoming assailant (Fig. 7) and in a defensive posture prepare to swat the tormentor. The hunter continued at full speed, correctly anticipating the bear’s reaction, which succeeded in exposing its ventral region to the oncoming spear. Grizzly bears are relatively thin-skinned and their brisket region is extremely vulnerable when they stand erect. The bear’s anatomy is similar to a human’s, as the heart is located close to the surface. The hunter would seize this calculated opportunity and thrust the bone spear with his full force into the bear’s exposed thoracic region. The grizzly, taking the full force of the combined thrust and charge, faltered backward and was unable to strike the hunter, who was still firmly grasping his spear. The hunter then quickly jammed the proximal end of the spear shaft to the ground and held it fast. The bear, after recovering its faculties, intent on destroying the 7

8

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Figure 7: Drawing of Gwichyaa Gwich’in chief ca. 1850 hunting grizzly bear with spear.

hunter, pushed toward the man but only succeeded in further implanting the shaft deeper in the ground and in the struggle impaled itself deeper upon the spear point until it was stopped by the swelled guard portion of the distal end of the spear shaft. The wounded bear would continue to bellow and struggle in the throes of death. The hunter manifested continued courage and concentrated totally on holding down the shaft’s proximal end, now deeply embedded in the ground by the bear’s persistent forward momentum. Due to the design of the implement—the stopper portion of the guard and the 3 m shaft length—the hunter was not within immediate danger of the dying bear’s deadly grasp. By this time, the hunter’s companions were alongside him for support and the bear was either dead or quickly dispatched. Rev. Salmon stated that a grizzly bear spear must be at least 3 m long. However, due to modern transportation difficulties (automobiles, airplanes, etc.), he elected to shorten his grizzly spear for a total length of just a little over 2 m, 207 cm to be exact (Fig. 8). The weapon is of composite construction, having a shaft of spruce wood; however, Rev. Salmon was quick to point out that the correct raw material should be solid, straight-grained birch wood. The shaft is dyed by an application of powdered ochre to its dampened surface. The point is made of moose antler and is fashioned in two components: point and base of the point. The spear has three

Figure 8: Rev. Salmon with grizzly bear spear.

Figure 9 (left): Lateral view of the Yukon Flats–style grizzly bear spear. Note: Extended portion of hafted shaft is visible under the sinew wrap. Figure 10 (right): Superior view of the Yukon Flats– style grizzly bear spear.

10

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

primary components: the shaft, point, and base of the point. The shaft is approximately 185 cm in total length with 171 cm exposed; the remaining 14-cm portion forms a v-notched socket beneath a binding of artificial sinew (Figs. 9 and 10). Rev. Salmon related that caribou babiche thong is the correct binding medium but, due to supply problems, he was unable to procure it. The shaft is 5 cm in diameter at the proximal end and continues at this width to 163 cm of length, where it flares to 7 cm, terminating at the base of the sinew binding. Rev. Salmon stated this portion of the shaft should be approximately 12 cm in width to function adequately as a guard stopper. The cross section of the shaft at this point is oblong in configuration (Figs. 11 and 12). The second component, the base of the point, is approximately 26 cm in total length, with only 5 cm exposed, the remaining 21 cm being beneath a binding wrap of artificial sinew. The proximal end forms into a heavy v-shaped tang that fits into the v-formed notch at the distal end of the shaft. The distal end of the point base component has an offset tang that conjoins with an identical tang that extends from the proximal end of the point (Figs. 11 and 12). The shaft and base of the point are hafted with a wrapped binding of artificial sinew. The point is the third and final primary component of the composite bear spear. It has a total length of approximately 16.5 cm with 10 cm exposed. There are semiparallel sides, approximately 4 cm in width for a length of 5 cm, at which point it then begins to transform into a triangular configuration that terminates into a point on the extreme distal end. The thickness of the point, at its widest portion on the profile, is approximately 3 cm (Fig. 11). At the hafted section of the antler point, it would appear that the outer cortex and inner pith of the antler have been deliberately staggered to alternately join the two components that comprise the assembled point in a manner that increases structural integrity by not placing two pithy portions together. Rev. Salmon related an interesting detail pertaining to the traditional construction regarding this tool. All the notched socket and tang portions were smeared with boiled pitch from the white spruce. Once the spear was assembled and the binding of caribou babiche secured, the hafted section was totally immersed in a birch basket filled with a glue made of mashed whitefish eggs. The tool was left to soak until it was saturated. At the time of removal, while the hafted section was still wet, the whitefish egg mixture was pressed and smoothed into the babiche binding with a light wooden spatula. The process was done repeatedly until a slick, smooth buildup covered the entire distal end of the spear. This slick, waterproofed surface aided in the spear’s ability to embed quickly in the bear’s vitals. The hunter was also assured that the waterproofed component binding point and shaft would not soften in the blood and gore of the attack and lose integrity and thus become separated during the critical phase of the bear’s death struggle. As with all of Rev. Salmon’s tools within this collection, the antler point of this spear has been left dull for a safety factor in display. Prior to a real bear hunt, the antler point would be honed on a flat stone until it was sharp and lethal. It should also be noted that although the name of this tool, tth’an tòh, means “bone spear,” its primary component is moose antler. Bone is regarded as a very beautiful material but much too brittle for this intended task.

Figure 11: Drawing of the distal point of the Yukon Flats–style grizzly bear spear and cross section of wooden shaft.

Figure 12: Drawing of hafted portion of the Yukon Flats–style grizzly bear spear. .

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

13

“Little Owl” Rabbit Throwing Stick (ch’ikiidruu) The “Little Owl” is often made from a small-diameter spruce that has a natural burl, hence, it is also named dachan ch’iłkhoo, meaning that it is made from a naturally formed stick with a ball on its end. During the months of February and March, when the snow is still soft in the wind-sheltered areas of Alaska’s interior boreal forest, the fascinating “Little Owl” was used with excellent results (Figs. 13 and 14). The winter traveler, in the course of his day-today tasks, carried this lightweight tool on his person. When rabbits were seen at a suitable distance on the surface of the powder snow, the person stopped and took the “Little Owl” by the handle and threw it over the rabbit with a deliberate movement using moderate force. For ranges under 15 m, it was lobbed about 2.5 m above the sitting rabbit. At further distances, it would be thrown much higher in an arching trajectory. The hunter threw the stick overhand with the moment of release depending upon the range of the rabbit. Once released, the “Little Owl” made a couple of full end-over-end rotations and then flew, with the heavy ball end forward, toward the intended target. The hawk feathers, affixed to the proximal tapered end of the stick handle, fluttered and produced a sound similar to a raptor flaring out of a stoop. The combination of the visual object traveling in an arched flight over the rabbit, casting its shadow on the snow, and the fluttering sound convinced the rabbit that “now the hawk has come.” The rabbit’s inclination is to dive under the surface of the powder snow, seeking escape and safety. The hunter quickly sprinted on his snowshoes to the hiding rabbit and packed the area down with the track of the snowshoes. The hunter then reached under the packed snow and found the trapped rabbit, pulled it to the surface, and killed it. Rev. Salmon related that his father told him about the early days when “some people were experts with the ‘Little Owl’ and would catch sacks full of rabbits in the month of March.” In Rev. Salmon’s youth, his father made him a “Little Owl” with which he once caught five rabbits. He also remembers using it just for enjoyment, throwing it to watch it fly and flutter. During Rev. Salmon’s early years, 1918–1925, in his home in Salmon Village, many of the older boys used the “Little Owl” to hunt for rabbits. The “Little Owl” is a wonderful tool as it is fairly easy to make and is a very effective hunting tool. It makes no loud noise, therefore it is excellent in catching rabbits while hunting larger game animals. It should be remembered that this tool works only when the snow is soft and powdery and with the aid of snowshoes. The “Little Owl” can be made from almost any small tree. Spruce is preferred, however, because it is lightweight. Birch is not typically used because it is too heavy.

Figure 13: Rev. Salmon demonstrating the throwing technique for the “Little Owl.”

Figure 14: Drawing of the “Little Owl,” showing lateral (left) and superior (right) views. Depiction shows the use of goshawk feathers following the prescribed rule.

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

Rev. Salmon noted that the shape and lines of the “Little Owl” are prescribed by tradition and must not be altered. Although the length can vary, he felt that his example was a little short in total length. At the handle portion, by prescribed rule, the feathers should be from a northern goshawk; however, Rev. Salmon had to supplement with one feather from a raven because of a shortage of hawk feathers. As with all of his tools, the “Little Owl” is dyed with powdered ochre. The overall length of the tool is 25.2 cm. The distal ball-shaped end is approximately 5.5 cm in length by 6 cm in diameter (Fig. 14). The handle portion, posterior to the ball area, is approximately 20 cm in length by 2.5 cm in width at the proximal end. The handle tapers on the top and bottom surfaces from 3 cm thick at the distal end to 7 mm thick at the proximal end. A hole is centered and perforated through the lateral sides of the handle 4.5 cm from the proximal end. In addition, two notches have been cut in the upper and lower edges of the proximal end of the handle directly above and below this perforated hole. A notch is cut at the direct center of the extreme proximal edge of the tool to facilitate the securing of the hawk feathers with a knotted line of artificial sinew, roughly 8 cm in length.

Caribou Signaling Tool (ch’ijiik’àn) Many animals produce signals to communicate among their own kind or to threaten outsiders, for example, the snorting, growling hiss produced by the grizzly bear when proclaiming its territory or the slap of beaver tails upon the surface of the water to warn their own kind that an intruder is present. According to Rev. Salmon, caribou also signal one another. They produce an audible clicking noise from the outer distal tips of their hooves as they walk. This sound can be emitted at will. During their feeding on snow-covered lichen, one bunch of caribou moves toward another feeding in the vicinity. The clicking noise reassures the feeding caribou that the movement they hear and perceive is, in fact, other caribou and therefore friendly. This unique occurrence prevents dispersed bunches of caribou from frightening one another and disrupting the feeding of the entire herd. This fascinating tool replicates the clicking sound that is emitted by a combined bunch of caribou, perhaps twenty to twenty-five in number. Sound becomes extremely important when hunting in –30° to –40° weather, when noise travels exceedingly far. Without this tool, a hunter cannot approach the caribou on snowshoes on a cold, clear, calm day. The tool is used by grasping the notched piece with the left hand and the flat blade piece with the right (Fig. 15). When approaching a caribou area, the hunter rubs the blade piece across the surface of the notched piece in a back-and-forth motion. The movement is slow, steady, and deliberate. The hunter can select the narrow, thicker portion of the blade piece or the flatter, wider portion depending on whether he prefers a louder (narrow) or softer (wider) sound. The hunter stalks the caribou by moving toward them at a steady, deliberate pace. The grating sound of the snowshoe frames on the hard surface of the wind-packed snow is offset by the reassuring, clicking staccato of the signaling tool. The caribou are assured and do not spook but remain contently feeding, somewhat indifferent to the approaching intruder. As the hunter approaches suitable shooting range, he

15

16

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Figure 15: Drawing of caribou signaling tool showing lateral (left) and superior (right) views.

17

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

makes sure to shift the blade portion to the wider, softer-sound-producing procedure so as not to be overbearing. Rev. Salmon maintained that a hunter clad in a hooded caribou hair parka using this tool can easily approach a feeding bunch of caribou in –40° weather to within good rifle-shooting range and kill three or four animals before the bunch has retreated from range. A makeshift form of this tool can easily be fashioned while in the field or on the trail. A small frozen tree, approximately 2 cm in diameter, is cut to the desired length and is quickly notched with a hatchet. The blade portion is split and worked down from the same tree. This frozen tool cannot be thawed out or it will lose much of its desired sound-resonating quality. Rev. Salmon recalled that many times, in the company of his father in the 1920s and 1930s, they made these expedient tools when encountering caribou sign on the long trail. They would not deviate from their intended path but continued snowshoeing along toward their destination. While traveling, they would work the wood components of the makeshift tool together, producing the ratcheting click similar to the caribou sound. They easily walked within rifle range of caribou, killed and gutted them, covering the carcasses with packed snow, and then continue on the trail. They would return at a later date and haul the cache of meat to trapping camp by dogsled. Rev. Salmon stressed that this tool was extremely valuable when used in the early days of his people, before the introduction of firearms, when the bow and arrow were the mainstay for hunting (Fig. 16). The caribou signal is made from untreated caribou antler. The notched piece is approximately 19.5 cm in overall length (Fig. 15). The proximal end is 2 cm in height with a perforated hole for the purpose of attaching a length of babiche line to the accompanying blade piece. The notched piece tapers from the proximal end to the distal end, terminating in a height of approximately 1.5 cm. The piece is about 1.5–2 cm thick. The second component of the tool is the blade piece, which is roughly 16 cm in length and 2.5 cm in width at the proximal end, where it is also perforated to attach

Figure 16: Superior view of artifacts associated with caribou hunting. Caribou signaling tool (top) with “Grandpa’s Heel” (bottom) displaying a fivepoint score.

18

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

the babiche line. The piece tapers from 2.5 cm wide at the proximal end to 1 cm at the distal end. The babiche line is thin, about 1 mm thick, and 60 cm in length.

Shoulder Blade for Moose Calling (ch’igèechàn) According to Rev. Salmon, this tool has been used in the interior of Alaska as far back as can be remembered. The tool is still very popular and is found in a majority of the households in the remote regions of interior Alaska. The first step in making this tool is to dry a scapula from a young cow moose for several years. The scapula from a mature bull moose will not serve the purpose as it will fail to produce the desired sound. The coracoid process of the scapula is cut off and removed. Also, the acromion lateral process is cut and removed close to the superior surface of the scapula. The proximal end of the scapula is further reduced to make a convenient, comfortable handle. A hole is bored near this proximal end to tie a lanyard of babiche to it for the purpose of hanging the tool when not in use. The shoulder blade caller is used to simulate the sound that is produced when a bull moose scrapes its antlers against small trees and brush during feeding and rutting throughout the fall season. The hunter first locates a suitable place for a calling stand and then begins the call by rubbing the distal rim of the modified scapula in a back-and-forth motion on a small tree or along brush (Fig. 17). The hunter alternates the movement with upward and downward strokes in a steady fluid motion but not overly aggressively (Fig. 18). The hunter must also take care, when stepping about on the dried autumnal brush and leaves, to take large steps so that his stride mimics the long stride of a bull moose. During this process, the hunter emits low punctuated grunts to further mimic the voice of the bull moose. Often, this sound is supplemented with the low moan of the cow moose, implying that a bull and cow intend to mate. If this technique is used in the early morning, a bull listening in the surrounding area will often bed down and rest until late afternoon and then travel directly to where it heard the calling. The oldest stories regarding this tool say that when the first people came to Alaska’s interior from the west, no suitable vegetation existed on the landscape for using this tool. There were not any large or small trees nor even willows, just grasslands. So, the old ones attempted to call moose by working the shoulder blade caller across the surface of the ground, with little success. The traditions also say that at that time the region now known as the Yukon Flats had no vegetation whatsoever, but was only silt deposits and clay. The people chose to live in the surrounding mountain country where there were at least some small trees. Rev. Salmon handled this old tool with affection and respect, saying, “Oh, this tool sure is good to have. I killed a lot of moose on my trapline using this one.” The scapula is ordinary with minor modifications as described above (Fig. 19). The tool is approximately 37 cm long by 24 cm wide at the distal end, tapering to 5 cm at the proximal end where the lanyard is secured.

Figure 17: Rev. Salmon preparing to use a moose shoulder blade as a moose call.

Figure 18: Rev. Salmon demonstrating calling technique with moose shoulder blade.

Figure 19: Superior view of moose shoulder blade caller.

20

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Bows and Arrows General Information on Bows and Arrows The bow and arrow fostered fond memories for Rev. Salmon. When handling or discussing the bow, he reflected back not only to his youth, when he used the tool himself, but also to the days of his father and grandfathers, who had used the tool exclusively as their primary hunting implement for extended periods during their lifetimes. Men kept their bows and arrows stored at the right side of the skin house door. This was done so that during an emergency the hunter could quickly grab the needed weapon. A hunter generally tried to have several bows in good order, extra bowstrings, and a large selection of arrows, at least fifteen generally, of various types. Both bows and arrows were stored within protective cases made from the dressed skins of caribou with the hair removed. A bow, when not in use, was always left relaxed so that the bow would not follow the string, thereby lessening its power and cast. When relaxed, the bowstring was wound around the limbs of the bow. Rev. Salmon stressed that all Indians in Alaska’s interior treated their bows and arrows in this manner. Bows were always carried and stored relaxed and retained their full strength by remaining straight. In warfare, the strategy was to raid an enemy’s camp in the early morning hours while the inhabitants were sleeping and kill them before the men could brace their bows for action. Rev. Salmon talked of a bow/lance combination in which a small caribou antler point was hafted to the distal end of the upper limb of the bow. Combined with the structural integrity of the birch raw material, this alteration would serve secondarily as a tolerable thrusting lance. Bracing the relaxed bow put the warrior in an extremely vulnerable position by occupying both hands. The bow/lance combination could possibly offset this disadvantage in warfare. According to Rev. Salmon, this innovation was not common, but some men did have bows fashioned in this manner. Each man’s bow and arrows were made to conform to his body size and strength. Bows, arrows, and bowstrings, as well as the leather cases for these tools, fulfilled regional and band protocols with regard to raw materials, form, and intended function. Successful designs did spread and were diffused throughout Alaska’s interior and were incorporated by groups other than the originators. The benefiting group generally acknowledged the source of the innovation. In many regions, the people were acknowledged as being either large or small in stature. Hence, discarded tools could be identified reasonably well by combining stylistic elements with the object’s size. If, for example, one discovered an arrow type on the landscape specific to a particular region, and this size of arrow conformed with the acknowledged notion of the average stature of the region’s inhabitants, it might be concluded that someone from that specific region had been traveling and lost his arrow. Important knowledge such as this could save an entire band from massacre during periods of tribal war. Rev. Salmon suggested that mountain people, such as the Di’hąįį and Neets’ąįį Gwich’in of the Chandalar region, walked everywhere. Not being canoe people, they packed their burdens over rough, mountainous terrain and were regarded as very robust. Their archery tackle, therefore, reflected this and was made strong accordingly.

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

Sinew-backed bows were used and Rev. Salmon’s father saw many of them. This type of bow was considered very valuable and was high priced if traded. It was made from a standard self bow of birch wood. However, four twisted cords of sinew were secured tautly along its entire back. A light twisted line of sinew secured the cords by being wound around the entire length of the bow limbs, spaced about one finger’s width apart. This bow was used in the coldest hunting weather (–40° to –50°) because it rendered the bow less prone to breakage and retained power, whereas a common self bow could possibly fail under those adverse weather conditions. Great care and respect was afforded to archery tackle. When traveling, bows and arrows were kept in their respective cases, covered with robes and skins on sleds or in canoes. If one traveled during the summer or fall, when rain showers arose, a large tree would be sought out and the bow and arrows would be hung or placed under the protection of the branches to wait out the storm. Every conceivable means was utilized to ensure that the bow, bowstring, and arrows were in perfect working order.

The Bow and Arrow in Use The bow and arrow were used for hunting well into the twentieth century. Rev. Salmon’s father used his bow regularly up to the year 1917. Other men still used the bow during Rev. Salmon’s childhood. In 1946, in his village of Chalkyitsik, he recalled, all of the middle-aged and younger men made bows and arrows to hunt ducks with in the spring at Jokoei Lake and they killed many ducks. With the increased availability of firearms and ammunition, the bow and arrow were ultimately laid to rest. Rev. Salmon’s generation was the last to receive any of the formal archery training that had been perfected for many millennia. The training was based on three primary phases of advancement. The phases were contingent on the age and size of the individual and his ability to function with the associated level of technology. As bows and arrows were made to individual body size, the archery tackle demonstrate levels of skill advancement as well as age and physical development (Fig. 20). In this book, we discuss these phases as boy, youth, and man. The first phase was used to acquaint boys ages five to ten with the bow and arrow. Rev. Salmon referred to this as “getting a feel for it.” The second phase was to teach youths between the ages of ten and fifteen how to hunt and use the bow under field

Figure 20: Bow size comparison illustrating the three phases of advancement: boy’s bow (top), youth’s bow (middle), and man’s bow (bottom).

21

22

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

conditions. The man’s styled archery tackle was used but scaled to the youth’s size and strength. Thus, the equipment was only suitable for small game. The final phase was when one was able to use the tackle required for killing large game animals, generally around the age of fifteen. Usually, by age eighteen a young hunter would be given a gift of a bow and a full set of arrows with respective cases from his father, who had been making them in anticipation of that day. On that proud day, a young man was pronounced a man and this was understood to mean that he had acquired the necessary knowledge to feed himself and others. Consequently, this meant he could marry. As with the acquisition of any skill, there are those who become competent and those who go beyond that and become experts. Such was the case with the use of the bow and arrow. Rev. Salmon discussed how the training was always able to produce competent hunters but certain individuals, for various reasons, were able to excel. Rev. Salmon’s paternal grandfather, King Salmon (1808?–1898), and also his father, William Salmon (1858?–1950), were both considered in their time to be competent with the use and manufacture of the bow and arrow. This meant that they could make the necessary tackle so that it performed more than adequately. This also implied that both could feed themselves and their family with the bow and arrow as a primary tool. However, some individuals went beyond this and became acknowledged experts in the crafting and use of the bow and arrow. Rev. Salmon recalled his maternal grandfather, John Chitleii (1840?–1923), as one of those acknowledged experts. Certain bands had reputations for having high numbers of experts in their population. The Deenduu Gwich’in of the Birch Creek region were regarded as being almost entirely expert archers. They were “duck people” and hunting ducks provided a significant amount of their seasonal procurement of resources. They crafted beautiful water arrows and could repeatedly hit ducks on the wing. The training from childhood to hit the small, fast targets of flying ducks no doubt contributed greatly to the majority of this band’s becoming experts by adulthood. There is an old story that Rev. Salmon’s father told of Deenduu hunters visiting the Di’hąįį in the present Arctic Village region, where they hunted sheep in the mountains with their Di’hąįį hosts. On this occasion the Deenduu more than justified their reputation as expert archers by killing many mountain sheep. One individual, in finding a large band of sheep on top of a craggy precipice, stationed himself and proceeded to kill forty to fifty sheep without missing once. Repeatedly, the sheep were struck in the heart and “the ground was just white with dead sheep, like snow.” Expert archers were recognized for their perfected skills. They could help the entire group in a variety of ways. Often when hunting sheep, the expert archer would traverse the backside of a mountain on which a band of sheep was spotted. The hunter would gain the advantage by climbing above them, secure a good position, and wait. Mountain sheep, when frightened, generally seek higher ground as protection from their natural enemies, including humans. The others in the hunting party traveled from the lower valley up toward the sheep, which continued to climb higher. Ultimately, the sheep were driven to the hunter’s blind, where the expert archer waited. At the appropriate time, the archer began to shoot the sheep moving toward him, killing as many as possible.

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

Caribou were also hunted in a similar manner and driven toward the acknowledged experts. Experts were not only great marksmen but also excellent hunters, knowing the habits of the various animals and anticipating their movements and reactions. The experts also excelled at shooting quickly. Using fluid movements, experts could shoot arrows in rapid succession as perfected through years of daily practice. Deftly reaching into the quivers that hung at their sides, they nocked the arrow, drew the bow, and released the arrow time after time until they had emptied the quiver of fifteen to twenty arrows. One technique for aiding quick follow-up shots was to hold one or two arrows on the bow back by the grip of the left hand (Fig. 21). However, Rev. Salmon’s father cautioned him against this method as the action of the bow when shooting caused the back to slap against the spare arrows. This created a rattling noise that could spook game, perhaps ruining the chance for any follow-up shots. William Salmon also mentioned that a potential stalk could be spoiled by the noise made from the rubbing of the spare arrows against the back of the bow. In the late spring and summer, moose were stalked while they were feeding in lakes. A favorite place to stalk and kill moose was along the lakeshore where the moose exited the water. The arrow shot was placed in the ribs behind the foreleg. Broadside shots were considered ideal. During the winter, moose would often be discovered browsing willows on river islands, and the better archers would take position on the far point of the island. Here they would excavate a place in the snow and pile up a semicircular wall to produce a blind to crouch behind. The other hunters stationed on the lower end of the island would begin to drive the moose toward the hunters positioned on stand. The moose would pass within meters of the archers, who would arise to kill them. It was said that if a moose had an arrow protruding from a wound, it would not break and run through brush or timber. Instead, it would move slowly while attempting to evade the pursuers. Four or five hunters, working cooperatively, had little trouble closing in and killing a wounded moose. In winter, caribou were pursued by hunters using the large hunting snowshoe. When the snow was deep, caribou would bog down, lunging in the drifts. The hunters jogged along the side of a herd and shot as many caribou as they had arrows. The distance was a few meters at most, so almost every shot brought down an animal. It was believed by many old people that a wounded caribou was the only animal that never would lie down on a protruding arrow and break it.

23

Figure 21: Rev. Salmon demonstrating proper stance. Spare arrow is held at the bow grip.

24

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Rev. Salmon received archery training until his mid-teens but was never able to complete the final phase of training. The interior of Alaska at the turn of the twentieth century was progressive in the distribution and incorporation of firearms. According to Rev. Salmon, during the early decades of the twentieth century, the latest .22-caliber repeating rifles were exceedingly popular for small game such as rabbits. Shotguns of all descriptions, including double-barrels, pumps, and automatics, were used extensively on waterfowl. Finally, powerful repeating rifles utilizing smokeless powder loadings, such as the 1894 Winchester in .30-30 caliber, 1895 Winchester in .30-40 Krag, and 7-mm bolt-action Mauser rifles, ultimately replaced the bow and arrow for big game hunting. Young men such as Rev. Salmon had no need at that time to advance to the last phase of archery (man’s bow and arrow). The comprehensive training in arrow shot placement for big game animals was also neglected, as well as the need to understand elevation and trajectory for the arrows designed to kill big game. Consequently, young men quickly learned these same procedures for the cartridge rifles instead of the bow and arrow. While the bow and arrow was still used for small game, the reliability, power, and economy of the latest .22-caliber rifles finally replaced archery in interior Alaska. The archery training in its heyday was excellent. The philosophy for training was not to produce a tolerable product in a moderate time frame. The goal was to produce skills that could assure complete competency to ensure the survival of an entire people from one generation to the next. The training philosophy was tailored for the individual and configured to address the needs of individuals. The core of the training was about truly knowing the components, understanding the animals, and developing the motor skills to combine these two bodies of knowledge. This took time. Rev. Salmon stressed that you simply cannot just make a bow and the arrows and then go to the field to hunt. “You must be raised with it and feel the bow,” he said, meaning that the tool must become so familiar that it is an extension of oneself, rather than an artificial apparatus.

Bow and Arrow Training and Technique Training began very early, usually at about five years old. This was the first phase in a lifelong relationship between human, tool, and animal. A boy was usually given a small bow and a set of arrows from his father or grandfather. These implements were crafted to suit the boy’s size and strength. The arrows were made to be used for practice only and not for any form of hunting. Young boys understood that they were not to venture outside the camp and they obeyed their parents. Small targets were set up, such as a small mound of snow with a woodchip placed on it or a twig with a lump of moss placed on its top. The distances were short, perhaps not more than 3 m. The boy was taught the correct way to handle the bow and arrows, how to hold the bow, nock the arrow, and draw and release the arrow. The emphasis was on getting acquainted with the equipment and techniques. Rev. Salmon stressed this as “feeling” the bow and arrow. When the young boy was first handed the bow, he would grip it indifferently. With steady, gentle instructions from his mentor, he would soon grasp the bow instinctively at its center, and place and nock the arrow correctly on the bowstring. The young boy kept his archery tackle at the right side of the door of the skin house along with his father’s and/or older brother’s, “for he will do this

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

all the days of his life.” The boy was fully aware of the respect and place that the bow had with his people. Therefore, it was accepted that mastering the technique was tantamount to becoming a man. All persons within the society were in harmony with this training regimen so that young persons were encompassed by a support network of encouragement and expertise. Every young boy strived for the day that he would advance to the next level, which was usually heralded by a gift of a new bow and set of arrows (Fig. 22). Rev. Salmon remembered back to his boyhood (1917–1922) in Salmon Village when he saw the older boys with their new antler-tipped arrows and larger bow styled in the fashion of the man’s bow with the string stopper crosspiece: “Oh, I really wanted someday to have that bow.” The second phase of training was the advancement to the youth’s bow and arrows. The boy had been training with his former equipment for about five years. It had not been designed to kill game nor was one allowed to try to do so. The entire tackle had been fashioned from wood only with no combination of materials in construction. This changed with the youth’s bow and the young person was generally around ten years old when making the passage. The tackle was a scaled-down version of the man’s equipment. However, only blunt antler-tipped arrows without fletching were issued; no sharp arrow points were given in this phase of training. The bow and arrows had been crafted as all previous tackle to conform to the individual’s size and strength. Rev. Salmon’s grandfather, John Chitleii, made him a beautiful bow and set of arrows in this style (Fig. 23). “Now, finally, I have the antler-tipped arrow!” he said. This second phase of training codified all the previous skills and challenged the youth to learn more. The pride of being seen with the new youth’s bow and arrows was a special time for the young archer. He was now able to go afield on short jaunts from camp and kill small game for his household. The bow and arrow felt comfortable to the youth and lessons on proper stance, draw, and release were, by this time, second nature to him. The youth now concentrated on moving through the forest and tundra, watching the animals, and perfecting techniques of hunting. Bringing small game such as grouse and rabbits to his home was the manifestation of years of consistency, discipline, and practice. The satisfaction must have been tremendous. The shooting techniques introduced in the first phase of training, and perfected in the second phase, should be examined briefly. Rev. Salmon demonstrated the correct shooting style as taught to him by both his father, William Salmon, who was a Di’hąįį Gwich’in from the Arctic Village region, and his maternal grandfather, John Chitleii, who was a Vantah Gwich’in from the Crow Flats region. Shooting was always done from a standing position. If, however, the hunter was in a canoe, then he rose to his knees and shot from an upright posture so as to clear the entire action of the bow from the obstructions of the canoe’s bow configuration and side gunnels. Rev. Salmon was taught the “Mediterranean” method of release, which uses the first three fingers of the right hand and grasps the arrow lightly between the index and second fingers (Figs. 24 and 25). The bowstring is held by the last joint of the three fingers. The arrow is automatically held in the preferred position on the bowstring by laying it parallel to the left side of the string stopper crosspiece (Fig. 25). The archer now has nocked the arrow and prepares to draw the bow (Fig. 26). The bow and nocked arrow are pivoted upward and then the bowstring is drawn downward (Fig. 27). This movement aids in drawing a powerful bow designed to kill

25

Figure 22: Comparison of archery tackle displaying the first and second phases of advancement. Youth’s bow with arrows (top) and boy’s bow with arrows (bottom).

Figure 23: Youth’s bow with arrows.

Figure 24: Rev. Salmon demonstrates the Mediterranean release (posterior view).

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

27

Figure 25: Rev. Salmon demonstrates the Mediterranean release.

large game animals at distances of approximately 100 m. The bow is then lowered in the shooting position already drawn (Fig. 28), and the hunter now calculates the moment to release the arrow. The bow is grasped by the left hand, with the wrist curved inwardly, and held at approximately a 45-degree angle (Fig. 29). The arrow rests upon the left index finger between the knuckle and the second joint, parallel with the string stopper crosspiece. The 45-degree cant of the bow aids in the arrow staying in place (Fig. 30). The right arm has drawn the bowstring backward using the Mediterranean release (Fig. 31). The pressure can be felt on the last joint of the three fingers used. The archer draws the bowstring the full length of the arrow to a point near the right breast directly below the archer’s mouth, approximately 20 cm. At no time does the archer attempt to sight down the arrow shaft nor does he bring the right hand near the face. The target is visually tracked continually and this is the focal point. The competence acquired from years of training allows the archer complete comfort in the equipment and technique as if the apparatus were an extension of the archer. In Rev. Salmon’s words, “you feel the arrow to the target.” In doing this task successfully, the archer has factored in the type and weight of the specific arrow, the wind and atmospheric conditions, trajectory of the local terrain, the distance to the target, and the speed and path of the target. All of these factors are correlated simultaneously and the necessary corrections are made instantly. The final phase of training began at about fifteen years of age. A young man had roughly ten years of daily archery training as a foundation. He was not alone in the training, for all of those around him were immersed in the process. Some would offer praise and encouragement, others shared helpful hints and advice, and still others actually demonstrated and taught the proper techniques. In this final phase, the young man was given arrows for hunting big game. His skills were already considerable, yet there were many varieties of large game animals and fowl that he must learn to hunt proficiently. By eighteen years old, the young man

Clockwise from left: Figure 26: Rev. Salmon nocking the arrow. Figure 27: He vertically draws the bow. Figure 28: The bow is lowered into the ready position. No attempt is made to sight directly on the arrow.

Figure 29: Anterior view of the drawn bow. Note the 45-degree angle of the bow and the curvature of the wrist at the left forearm.

Figure 30: The left-hand grip on the bow. Note that the arrow is parallel to the string stopper and easily lies in position due to the 45-degree angle of the stance.

Figure 31: Detail of the Mediterranean release. Note that the arrow nock is held between the index and second finger of the right hand.

30

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

had mastered the techniques in the use, care, and crafting of the entire bow and arrow assemblage. The hard-won gift of the man’s bow and arrow from his father was a key point in every young man’s life. His technique and skills would continue to be honed with acquired experience but he was now a full-fledged hunter and man.

Making and Maintaining the Bow and Arrow Perhaps the most important factor in producing quality archery tackle was in the choice of the best available tree for raw material. The self bow of the Interior Athabascan had to be made from the best white birch available. Trees that were straight, free from knots, and away from water sources were considered optimal. The bowyer removed the bark from a small portion of the trunk and picked at the grain of the tree with a sharp point. A sliver of green wood was then pulled gently upward and tested to see the length of the fibers. A good, long sliver indicated a tree with a long, straight grain. Trees that were close to any water source were not considered, as they were weak from excessive moisture. Trees on well-drained hillsides were preferred. Once a suitable tree was found and felled, the sun and shady sides of the tree were examined. The sunny or southern exposed side had a reddish grain, while the shady or northern side was white. This applied to birch for bows as well as to white spruce for arrows. The preferred material was the white, clear wood of the northern side of the tree. June is the favored month for gathering raw materials such as wood staves for bows and arrows, because the sap is up within the tree. When the wood cures, it is much stronger and more resilient than that of trees harvested during other seasons. Staves of green wood were generally cured for about one year. Birch, if harvested with the sap running, was thought to become stronger with time. All men were taught from boyhood to make their own archery tackle, although some experts worked as specialists and made bows for others and for trade. A good bowyer could produce a quality bow in about ten days’ time. Once the birch tree had been selected and felled, the bowyer carefully quartered the tree trunk using wooden wedges pounded one after another into the trunk, forming straight, deep fissures to separate and “pop” the linear quarter rounds from the remaining straight-grained trunk. The bowyer then further split the wood to the rough size of staves he desired, depending on his intended finished product. The outer bark was left on the trunk of the bow stave and this formed the back of the bow. The bark was not cut off, but instead was skillfully scraped off since the grain of the birch stave should under no circumstance be in any manner incised or cut on the back of the bow. This was the finished surface, with only scraping to smooth and debark it. A cut along the wood fibers here would eventually produce a crack and, ultimately, the bow would break along this fault. The tillering process is not easy since each bow is made to an individual’s specific body size and strength. When tillering, the bowyer is attempting to get both the upper and lower limbs of the bow to bend evenly when drawn. The power of a self bow is contingent on length, width, and thickness of the bow limbs. When the bowyer tillers the bow, he may easily get it to bend, displaying a balanced curve when drawn. However, the bow may still be much too strong for the intended user. This is the challenge, that not only must the bow be the correct dimensions in length, but also, more importantly, it must be the correct “weight,” meaning the number

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

of pounds required to draw its intended arrows fully. The bowyer then must reduce the limbs to lessen the power of the bow. If too much wood is removed, the bow may balance beautifully and be drawn perfectly yet be too weak for the user. Bows were often tested by bending them across the knee and the master bowyer could judge the weight of the bow by the feel. If the wood had slight imperfections in the grain, such as alternating rings of loose and dense grain, the bow might warp with age. This applied to arrows as well. Arrow shafts were made exclusively from the best, clear white spruce. If properly selected, staves cut from this wood would remain straight for countless years. The arrow maker split the chunk of spruce log into staves of about 2 cm square. These were worked down into the desired dimensions and a v-shaped notch was cut at the distal end in order to accept the tang of the point, which was affixed with boiled spruce pitch and hafted by a binding wrap of thin moose sinew. The nocked end was always flattened in an oblong cross section and a square nock was cut for the bowstring. The feathers were chosen with specific bird species preferred and prescribed for certain arrow types. The bald eagle feather was used on arrows intended for big game animals and warfare. The goshawk feather was used on blunt arrows used to harvest small game such as rabbits, squirrels, and birds (grouse and ptarmigan). The raven feather was used for an arrow intended for waterfowl and aquatic animals. The raven feather did not retain moisture, and for this reason was desirable. Arrows were not generally decorated with markings or paint to denote individual ownership. Occasionally, some men dyed a few dark black rings around the distal end of the arrow shaft to “make it pretty.” Feathers selected for vanes were split by first cutting the quill length in half and then gently pulling the feather apart along the spine for its length. Rev. Salmon’s father told him that some men could really split feathers well and some never did seem to master it. Generally, three vanes comprised an arrow’s fletching, but using only two was also acceptable. Rev. Salmon made his entire collection of men’s arrows using two vanes. The vanes were trimmed in a parabolic arch that requires a measure of skill to judge the width. It is crucial for the vane to lie flat to the shaft and to be bound with thin sinew. Glue was not used. If the vane is not close and flat to the shaft or is not trimmed correctly, the arrow will develop an erratic wobble in flight that impairs its accuracy and velocity. Experts in bows and arrows such as Rev. Salmon’s grandfather, John Chitleii, tested an arrow’s spine by a unique method. The assembled arrow was held with its distal point downward and then thrown quickly and deftly into the other hand and immediately caught at the mid-shaft. This was done with the hands held at the mid-body level and shoulders’ width apart. When the arrow was thrown and caught correctly in this manner, it vibrated and produced a buzzing sound. “You can hear the arrow sing to you,” Rev. Salmon said, and an expert could also feel the balance of the arrow as the proximal and distal ends quivered rapidly. If the arrow did not sound and feel just right, the arrow expert would make suitable corrections by shaving a little wood here or there along the shaft. When the arrow shaft had the correct combination of stiffness and springiness, the spine was considered just right. If arrows developed erratic flights due to the improper dimensions of the vane, the maker

31

32

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

placed a piece of wood under the length of the vane and butted it next to the shaft. He then took a sharp knife and trimmed the vane in a smaller parabolic pattern. Arrow experts could also fix warped shafts by first rubbing grease along the bent side and then holding it toward the warmth of the fire. The shaft would then be straightened with the hands and taken away from the heat to be held in the straightened position until cooled. This fix was only temporary and eventually the shaft would warp and the process had to be repeated. The ongoing warping was due to a poor selection when choosing the initial raw material for the white spruce shaft stave. The bowstring was made by the women. It was generally made of moose sinew, but babiche was also used. Long lengths of thin threads of sinew were spliced together by twisting them while dampened on the lap. This was done by rolling the sinew threads along the top of the thigh with the hand. The rotation of the threads twisted them and secured the splices. Three of these long spliced threads would then be rolled and twisted together. Finally, three of these stouter sinew strings were rolled and twisted to the diameter of the bowstring. The entire bowstring was then dampened and hung from a tree limb with a heavy rock secured for weight on the hanging end. The woman worked her hands down its length and pulled and smoothed the bowstring. Hunters could hear when a string was not working at an acceptable level due to damage, age, or dampness. The mountain people, such as the Di’hąįį and Neets’ąįį Gwich’in, made good bowstrings from caribou babiche that was cut very thin and twisted with much the same process, but it was a four-strand instead of a three-strand bowstring.

The Boy’s Bow—For Ages Five to Ten (tr’iinin k’iłtài’ tsal) The boy’s bow is a very simple affair, being a self bow of small dimensions. The bowstring was usually of sinew and made light to match the rest of the tackle. This type of bow was Rev. Salmon’s primary toy or recreation as a boy (Fig. 32). He also had a few small trinkets from the boxes of Cracker Jack he received occasionally in Fort Yukon, but it was this type of tool that all young boys grew up with. The bow had no distinctive string stopper crosspiece, nor was the grip portion bound with a wrapping of babiche or sinew. It was only a simple practice bow designed to teach the child how to handle a bow correctly (Fig. 33). The boy’s bow is 80 cm in length along its back, 2 cm wide, and 8 mm thick at the center. The distal nock ends of the limbs are 1.5 cm wide and 5 mm thick. The string nocks are 1 cm from the distal ends. There is not any support wrapping of sinew at the distal nock end. The bow has a rectangular cross section its entire length. The bowstring is made of fishnet twine. The bow remained continually strung and at the time of this writing followed the string completely. The wood has been dyed in the same hue and technique as all of the wooden objects in this collection (Fig. 32).

The Boy’s Practice Arrow—For Ages Five to Ten (dachan tàł tsal) The three arrows are examples of the size differences that existed for boys of various ages in this training phase. Hence, the larger arrows represent the later ages in the phase (Figs. 32 and 34).

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

33

Figure 32: Boy’s bow with arrows. Note the arrow sizes illustrating advancement with age.

Figure 33: Getting a feel for it: the author’s daughter, age four, with boy’s bow and arrow.

The smallest of the boy’s practice arrows was the type used at the early introductory age of about five or six years old. It is 31.7 cm in overall length with a shaft diameter of approximately 8 mm (Figs. 34 and 35). The shaft reduces slightly toward the nock and takes a flattened oblong configuration. This is a consistent attribute of all the arrows represented in this collection. The distal end terminates in a trumpet-shaped blunt tip that is 1.5 cm in diameter with eight small facets cut into the face of the tip. Three incised grooves are cut around the arrow tip for decorative purposes. The arrow is dyed with ochre and made from straight-grained white spruce. The midsize boy’s practice arrow was used by boys six to eight years old and is made in the same manner as the smaller practice arrow. It is 38.4 cm in length with a shaft diameter of 11 mm. The distal tip is 2.2 cm in diameter and has eight facets cut into its face. Two grooves are incised around the trumpet-shaped blunt end. The arrow is made from straight-grained white spruce and dyed with ochre. The largest boy’s practice arrow was used during the last phase of training by boys nine to ten years old. It is made the same as the other two boy’s arrows and is 40.2 cm in total length with a shaft diameter of 12 mm. The distal blunt tip is 2.5 cm

34

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Figure 34: Details of the distal ends of boy’s arrows.

in diameter with eight facets cut into the face. Two grooves are incised around the trumpet-shaped end. The arrow is made from straight-grained white spruce and dyed with ochre as with all the previous wooden implements.

The Youth’s Bow—For Ages Ten to Fifteen (jii chyaatsal shriit’ahtsii eenjit dinjit heelyaa gwats’ą’ k’iłtài’) The youth’s bow was a graceful and beautifully crafted tool (Figs. 22 and 23). It was made in the style of the man’s bow, but was scaled to meet the personal physical characteristics of young men ten to fifteen years old (Figs. 20 and 36). A boy who advanced to this phase of training received a physical manifestation of his progress and advancements in the form of the new bow, which was decidedly different from the previous bow style he had used for approximately five years (Fig. 22). There was always a level of prestige associated with advancement to the youth’s bow. The youth was now strong enough to use a bow with a draw weight suitable for harvesting small animals. Rev. Salmon remembered fondly when his grandfather, John Chitleii, made him an expertly crafted youth’s bow and an antler-tipped set of blunt arrows. Rev.  Salmon was able to harvest small game such as grouse, rabbits, and squirrels. He quickly learned about proper shot placement to assure killing game rapidly. Grouse, when struck in the breast at close ranges of 5–10 m, were killed instantly. Rabbits were more difficult to dispatch quickly if the shot did not strike high on the back or chest. Hits to the lower back near the hindquarters only wounded the rabbit. The heart region for any of the small game was the target for shot placement. All of the blunt-type arrows kill by concussion and by associated trauma, not by penetration producing a wound channel. The bow was made of selected straight-grained white birch with a bowstring stopper crosspiece at the grip. The youth’s bow, as with the boy’s bow, was cared for and maintained in the same manner as the man’s bow. Consistency was the hallmark of training.

Figure 35: Drawing of lateral view of boy’s practice arrows. Approximate ages are 8–10 years old (top), 6–8 years old (middle), and 5–6 years old (bottom).

36

Figure 36: The author’s son, age twelve, with the youth’s bow and arrow.

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

This example of the youth’s bow is a self bow crafted with selected straight-grained white birch that is 114 cm in total length along its back, 2.5 cm wide, and 12 mm thick at the center (Fig. 36). The bow tapers evenly toward the distal ends and terminates at 1.5 cm in width and 7 mm in thickness. Approximately 2.5 cm from the extreme distal nock ends there is an artificial sinew wrapping of 2 cm in length. The string stopper crosspiece is 9 cm in length and 2.5 cm wide at the grip (Figs. 37 and 38). The thickness of the stopper is 1.5 cm at the grip, from which it reduces gradually to the distal end and terminates at a thickness of 7 mm. The distal end of the stopper is slightly concave (Fig. 38). Artificial sinew forms a grip portion below the stopper crosspiece for about 11 cm. The stopper is secured by two holes bored through its thickness and lashed to the bow’s belly by a wrapping of artificial sinew (Fig. 39). The cross section of the bow throughout its length is rectangular with slightly rounded edges. The bowstring is of a commercial variety appearing to be black nylon. The bow has remained strung, and therefore follows the string. There is little warping or twisting, displaying the fine quality of the initial raw material. The bow is dyed with ochre, which is applied as previously discussed in chapter 1.

The Youth’s Arrows—For Ages Ten to Fifteen The youth’s arrows are all made of composite construction using moose antler and white spruce as the two primary components (Figs. 40 and 41). The arrows have no fletching, but a shaft made from selected white spruce will remain true and the arrows are still extremely accurate for the distance required for securing small game. The arrow points have been made from moose antler with v-shaped tangs that are about 3–4 mm in thickness and approximately 2 cm in length. These are held with boiled spruce pitch to a v-shaped notch at the distal end of the arrow shaft. They are hafted by winding a tight wrapping of artificial sinew around the tang insert. The shafts are fashioned with a flattening of the cross section at the proximal end, as are all the arrows in this collection. The Arctic Village region youth’s blunter arrow (tàł ch’ok) is a pointed-tip configured blunt arrow with an antler point 5 cm in total length with 2.9 cm exposed. There are eight facets carved on the distal point. A carved groove also encircles the point. The diameter of the tip is 1.8 cm at the widest point. The shaft is made of white spruce dyed with ochre, and the total length of the assembled arrow is 49.8 cm. The Yukon Flats region youth’s blunter arrow (Gwichyaa Gwich’in nąįį tàł) is a flat-faced blunt arrow with an antler tip of 4.8 cm in total length and 2.2 cm of the antler tip exposed. The tip is 1.5 cm in diameter. Eight facets are carved into the

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

37

Figure 37: Anterior view of the back of the youth’s bow.

Figure 38: Lateral view detailing the string stopper crosspiece of the youth’s bow.

flat face of the extreme distal end of the tip, and the shaft is white spruce dyed with ochre. The total length of the assembled arrow is 51.3 cm. The Arctic Village region youth’s twisted-tip blunter arrow (nitsin nahodo o tth’an tàł ), an antler-tipped arrow, has a flat face with eight spiraling facets carved into its surface. The tip is 4.8 cm in total length with about 2.5 cm exposed. The extreme distal face is roughly 1.7 cm in diameter. The overall length of the finished arrow is 49.5 cm. The shaft is made of white spruce wood and is dyed with ochre.

Figure 39: Drawing of youth’s bow at the grip portion. Posterior view of the belly of the youth bow (left); notice the method used in fastening the string stopper. Lateral view (right).

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

39

Figure 40: Anterior view of the youth’s arrows.

The Man’s Bow—For Ages Fifteen to Adult (deenaadài’ dinjii k’iłtài’) The man’s bow was the ultimate in technology for hunting in interior Alaska prior to Euro-American contact (Fig. 42). The bow was generally fitted with the bowstring stopper crosspiece firmly affixed to the belly of the bow by a lashing of babiche or sinew secured through holes bored through the proximal end of the crosspiece (Figs. 43 and 44). As discussed previously, the bow was not easy to craft. The best grade of select clear, straight-grained white birch was the preferred wood. In times of an emergency, a bow could be quickly fashioned from any wood source as a makeshift substitute until a properly constructed bow could be made. Rev. Salmon stressed that choosing the right piece of birch usually was the deciding factor in producing a quality bow. Bows, if properly cared for, would last many years. Rev. Salmon suggested that his father’s bow was probably at least twenty years old in 1917. The bows were not highly decorated but were instead practical hunting tools. The majority were plain self bows and were usually dyed a pleasant orange/reddish hue with ochre. Some men made their bows fancier by adding additional horizontal stripes of a black pigment over the ochre base color, covering the entire length of the bow. This example of a man’s bow is made from white birch and has a total length along the back of 150 cm (Fig. 42). It is 3 cm wide and 1.5 cm thick at the center grip. It reduces evenly along both the upper and lower limbs in a rectangular cross section that terminates at the distal nock ends at 2.2 cm wide and 1 cm thick. The bowstring stopper crosspiece is 13.5 cm in overall length, 3 cm wide at the grip, and 1.8 cm in thickness. It reduces slightly to 2.8 cm at the distal end and is 1.5 cm thick there (Figs. 43 and 44). The stopper piece at the distal end has a slightly concave surface and is rounded without any sharp edges, providing a solid flat surface to prevent injury or breakage of the bowstring. The bowstring is a commercial type, possibly of nylon, and is black in color (Fig. 45).

Figure 41: Drawing of youth’s arrows. The Arctic Village Region blunter (top) shows the tapered shaft at the proximal nock end from the lateral view. Also shown is the Yukon Flats Region blunter (middle) and Arctic Village Region pointed tip blunter (bottom). Notice the absence of fletching on all three.

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

The bow has been left strung for an extended period, and therefore permanently follows the string. The lower limb has warped from the bow remaining strung and thus twists outwardly. The nock ends have been reinforced with a wrapping of artificial sinew about 3.5 cm from the distal ends and for a length of 3.5 cm of wrapping. The bowstring nocks are on the lateral sides of the distal ends and approximately 1 cm from the extreme ends. They are rounded without any sharp edges. The extreme distal ends terminate in a rectangular flat edge (Fig. 43). The center grip portion has also been wrapped with artificial sinew, providing a comfortable and secure handgrip that can easily be recognized as the proper place to grasp the bow either by sight or, in the event of poor visibility, by touch. Caribou babiche or moose sinew was the desired material for this application. The bow has been dyed with ochre by the previously described method.

The Man’s Arrows—For Ages Fifteen to Adult The man’s arrows formed the necessary variation that allowed hunters to take different types of game with the bow. The basic groups are the blunter for small game, water arrows for aquatic game, and lethal bladed points for various types of big game and also for use in warfare. It was only in this final phase of advancement that this variety of assorted arrow tips was incorporated. This circumstance was primarily because from the age of fifteen years to mature adult the individual usually possessed adequate strength to use the various archery tackle that was capable of harvesting big game animals. It would only endanger a youth to give him a pointed blade-tipped arrow. To do so would no doubt entice him to attempt to secure larger game than his physical capabilities could handle. It took considerable training to draw and accurately shoot a bow that was capable of killing animals such as moose, bear, and caribou. The variety of man’s arrows that Rev. Salmon produced for this collection are from regions throughout Alaska’s interior and the northwestern region of Canada’s Yukon Territory.

41

Figure 42: Man’s bow with arrows. From the top, implements are as follows: Yukon Flats Region blunter; Arctic Village Region blunter; Birch Creek Region single-prong fancy water arrow; Birch Creek Region single-prong water arrow; Birch Creek Region bone twopronged water arrow; Yukon Flats Region metal two-pronged water arrow; man’s bow; Crow Flats Region hunting arrow; Eagle Region hunting arrow; Arctic Village Region hunting arrow; iron trade arrow; leaf-shaped iron trade arrow; and Yukon Flats Region metal blunter.

Figure 43: Drawing of composite view of man’s bow. Belly side (left) displaying the posterior view of the string stopper. Lateral view (middle) of the distal nock end. Posterior view (right) of distal nock end. Note the reinforcing with sinew wrapping.

Figure 44: Drawing of the lateral view of a man’s bow at the grip portion.

44

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Figure 45: Anterior view of the back of a man’s bow.

Figure 46: Superior view of typical fletching and nock of the man’s arrow.

Figure 47: Lateral view of typical fletching and nock of the man’s arrow. Note the reduction and taper at the distal nock end.

Rev. Salmon fashioned arrows in varying shaft lengths to provide examples of regional assumptions with regard to the average stature of the hunting populations. The shafts are all of white spruce and each of them is set with only two vanes at the proximal nock end. The wrappings are entirely of artificial sinew due to a shortage of the real material. Each shaft is hafted by using a v-shaped notch cut in the extreme distal end of the shaft. The tangs of the assorted types of points are covered with spruce pitch, inserted into the distal v-shaped notch of the shaft, and then wrapped with the binding of artificial sinew. Tang lengths vary from 2.5 cm to 3.5 cm and are about 2–4 mm in thickness. The shafts all conform to a standard pattern in reduction.

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

Generally, the arrows are 13–14 mm in diameter at the distal end and reduce slightly in a circular diameter until near the feather vanes, where they begin to have an oblong cross section continuing toward and terminating at the proximal nock end. The nock ends are rectangular in cross section with rounded edges. The nock is squared and usually about 3 mm by 3 mm. The arrow’s proximal attributes allow for a smooth release using the Mediterranean type of hold. There are no protruding swells or bulbous portions at the nock to hamper the archer’s release and, therefore, the nock end of the arrow glides easily through the index and second fingers of the right hand (Fig. 31). All of the man’s arrows represented in this collection use hawk feathers for vanes (Figs. 46 and 47). This is the correct feather for all blunters; however, this does not follow the prescribed rule of raven feathers for water arrows and eagle feathers for big game arrows as discussed earlier in the text. Rev. Salmon elected to substitute hawk feathers when eagle and raven feathers were not available. The man’s arrows in this assemblage follow general lines in basic form and standards of technique.

Arctic Village Region Man’s Blunter Arrow (tàł ch’ok) This is a composite arrow of two primary components: the spruce wood arrow shaft and the caribou antler point (Fig. 48). The total length of the arrow is 78.8 cm. The blunt point is made from water-treated (see chapter 1) caribou antler and is a beautiful ivory white color. The point is 10 cm in total length with 7 cm exposed. The remaining 3 cm is a tang 13 mm wide by 4 mm thick. The point is tapered approximately 14 mm in diameter at the proximal tang end graduating in size toward the distal end to 2.3 cm at 5.5 cm from the haft. From there it descends rapidly in diameter the last 1.5 cm to form a circular conical point terminating at the extreme distal end. The conical tip is cut with twelve facets that extend radially about 2.5 cm in length from the tip. A decorative design of a geometric diamond pattern is incised around the graduating diameter at the midpoint. Below this is another incised ring circling the diameter of the point (Fig. 48). The arrow shaft is well formed and straight. The feather vanes are cut in the traditional parabolic pattern for this region and secured in the standard manner. The shaft is dyed with ochre.

Yukon Flats Region Man’s Blunter Arrow (Gwichyaa Zheh gwik’ì’ tàł ) This is a composite arrow of two primary components: the spruce wood arrow shaft and the moose antler point (Fig. 49). The total length of the arrow is 71.2 cm. The blunt point is made from untreated moose antler and has a dull gray/white color with a black discoloration on the extreme distal face. The point has a total length of 7 cm with roughly 4 cm exposed. The remaining 3 cm forms a v-shaped tang that is about 1.5 cm wide by 3 mm thick. The point has a diameter at the extreme distal end of 2.5 cm and forms a flat face. The point gradually reduces to a diameter of 1.8 cm where it is hafted. Eight facets are carved in a radial pattern on the edge of the extreme distal end (Fig. 49). Midway on the point’s length it has two carved rings roughly 1.5 cm apart and a geometric diamond pattern is carved to encircle the diameter of the point. The spruce arrow shaft is standard and of good craftsmanship with the

45

Figure 48: Drawing of man’s Arctic Village region blunter arrow.

Figure 49: Drawing of man’s Yukon Flats region blunter arrow.

Figure 50: Drawing of man’s Yukon Flats region metal blunter arrow.

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

49

hawk feather vanes secured flat to the shaft’s proximal end. The nock is standard for this type. The shaft is dyed with ochre.

Yukon Flats Region Man’s Metal Blunter Arrow (ch’iitsii tàł) This is a composite arrow of two primary components: the spruce wood arrow shaft and the steel blunt point (Fig. 50). The total length of this arrow is 70.5 cm. The shaft is made of spruce and forms a v-shaped notch at the distal end. The point is made of steel from a trade spike and has a total length of 7 cm with 3.8 cm exposed. The remaining 3.2 cm is formed into a v-shaped tang 3 mm thick by 14 mm wide. The extreme distal end of the point is 1 cm in diameter. The distal end of the point forms a blunt flat surface on which eight facets have been filed in a radial pattern about 7 mm from the distal edge of the point; a series of two filed rings encircle the diameter of the point. They have a distance of roughly 12 mm between them in which a geometric diamond-pattern design is filed into the metal. The metal has a bright gray/silver color. The spruce wood arrow shaft is constructed to the same standards of design as the previously documented arrows. The fletching is composed of hawk feather vanes, and the shaft is dyed with ochre. In summary, the man’s blunt arrows represented in this collection display excellent workmanship and would have been used to hunt small game animals such as rabbits, porcupine, and squirrels, as well as birds such as grouse and ptarmigan (Fig. 51). The size discrepancy in the length of the arrow shafts was done purposefully to illustrate the individual sizes of archery tackle from this region. The metal spike blunt tip encroached upon the older antler tips after contact. Rev. Salmon suggested that the expedient use of spent brass cartridge casings pressed on the distal arrow shaft as blunt tips was generally for practice arrows. His father, during the early years of the 1920s, eventually emptied his quiver of hunting arrows little by little to provide Rev. Salmon with practice arrows. He removed the dangerous points and threw them away, replacing them with cartridge casings; as a youngster, Rev. Salmon had some very fine practice arrows. Rev. Salmon did not know what happened to the discarded points but he suspected his father burned them in the family stove. He also had no idea what was the fate of his father’s hunting bow.

Figure 51: Comparison of the man’s blunter arrows: Yukon Flats Region metal blunter (top), Yukon Flats Region blunter (middle), and Arctic Village Region blunter (bottom).

Figure 52: Drawing of Birch Creek region man’s single-pronged fancy water arrow.

Figure 53: Drawing of Birch Creek region man’s single-pronged water arrow.

Figure 54: Drawing of Birch Creek region man’s bone two-pronged water arrow.

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

Birch Creek Region Man’s Single-Pronged Fancy Water Arrow (shrat) This is a composite arrow of two primary components: the spruce arrow shaft and the moose antler point (Fig. 52). The total length of this arrow is 81.8 cm. The point is 19 cm in total length with 15.5 cm exposed. The antler is water treated (see chapter 1) and is a beautiful ivory white color. The point is 14 mm in diameter with a circular cross section that gradually terminates into a point at the distal end. A decorative design of carved slash marks is worked at the proximal end near the tang. The tang is 1.5 cm wide by 4 mm thick and 3.5 mm in length. The spruce wood shaft is standard in design in keeping with the previously discussed pattern of construction. The arrow is fletched using two hawk feather vanes. This arrow should have raven feather vanes according to traditional construction. This type was favored by the expert Deenduu Gwich’in for hunting waterfowl in the spring and fall. It was with arrows such as these that they were reputed to be able to unerringly shoot ducks repeatedly from the sky.

Birch Creek Region Man’s Single-Pronged Water Arrow (shrat ts’idiit’ya‘) This is a composite arrow of two primary components: the spruce wood arrow shaft and the moose antler point. This style is the common form of duck arrow used in the Yukon Flats and Birch Creek regions (Fig. 53). The total length of the arrow is 81.3 cm. The point is approximately 14.5 cm in length and has 11.5 cm exposed with the remaining 3 cm comprising a tang 3 mm thick by 12 mm in width. The point graduates to a sharp distal end and has an elliptical cross section. The shaft is of standard construction and design. The arrow is fletched with two hawk feather vanes secured to the proximal nock end. By traditional rules, these should be from the raven. This arrow was used to harvest waterfowl in the spring and fall.

Birch Creek Region Man’s Bone Two-Pronged Water Arrow (tth’an gòł) This is a composite arrow of three primary components: the spruce wood shaft and two antler prongs (Fig. 54). The total length of this arrow is 80.2 cm. The antler prongs are 13 cm each in length and 7 mm in diameter at their widest. The distal ends of the prongs terminate in a gradual circular point. The squared proximal ends of the prongs fit into cut channels at the lateral sides of the distal end of the shaft. The prongs’ squared configuration is spread with spruce pitch then placed in the channels where a tightly wrapped artificial sinew thread is wound around to bind it to the channels. The arrow is typical in configuration from the proximal nock to about 11 cm short of the distal end, where it is broadened and flattened in an oblong configuration that forms the haft for the antler prongs. This arrow traditionally should have raven feather vanes instead of the hawk feather vanes used here. This type of arrow was used for waterfowl and other aquatic animals. This arrow is dyed with ochre.

53

Figure 55: Drawing of the Yukon Flats Region man’s metal two-pronged water arrow.

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

55

Yukon Flats Region Man’s Metal Two-Pronged Water Arrow (ch’iitsii gòł) This is a composite arrow of three primary components: the spruce wood arrow shaft and the two metal prongs (Fig. 55). The total length of this water arrow is 77.5 cm. It is constructed identically to the previously described bone two-pronged arrow. The metal prongs are fashioned from large nails. They are 13 cm in total length with 10.5 cm exposed. As with all other water arrows in the collection this arrow also should have raven feathers instead of hawk feathers. This form of two-pronged arrow ultimately replaced the earlier antler form of arrow. In summary, the water arrows discussed in the collection were used throughout the entire Yukon Flats and surrounding area (Fig. 56). Water arrows are interesting in that not only must the shafts be constructed to conform to the individual’s anatomical characteristics, but they also had to be balanced to float once they were shot. The shafts of water arrows are generally a little larger in diameter than other arrows, at least 14 cm. The weight of the point was balanced with the shaft so that when floating freely in the water at least 9 cm of the nock end were exposed. Two-pronged water arrows were never shot in grass or weeds because of the increased chance of being tangled in the growth. Also, the arrow would come to an abrupt halt and perhaps become damaged should it strike a stout stick in between the prongs. In conditions such as along the shores of lakes where rushes and water plants flourish, the singlepronged water arrow was always selected.

Eagle Region Man’s Bone Hunting Arrow (Han Gwich’in [kiit’òodląįį] gwatth’an k’i’) This is a composite arrow of two primary components: the spruce wood arrow shaft and the bone point (Fig. 57). The arrow’s total length is 79.7 cm. The point is made from a blank of moose leg bone and is 16.7 cm in length, 2.3 cm at its widest point, and 5 mm thick at the haft. The tang is 3 cm long, leaving 13.7 cm of point exposed. The point is beautifully crafted and reflects the styling and workmanship that had made the Han Gwich’in arrow makers famous in their day. This style of arrow was used for both hunting and warfare. It was used on big game ranging from grizzly bear and bull moose to caribou and sheep. It is leaf-shaped in blade configuration and is barbed at the proximal end and at the midsection. Arrows such as this were highly prized and valuable trade items in the indigenous trading network prior to

Figure 56: Comparison of man’s water arrows. From the top: Yukon Flats metal two-pronged; Birch Creek Region bone two-pronged; Birch Creek Region fancy single-pronged; and Birch Creek Region bone single-pronged water arrow.

Figure 57: Drawing of the Eagle region man’s bone hunting arrow.

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

Euro-American contact. The arrow shaft is constructed with the standard design elements and techniques. Two hawk feathers have been used as vanes, although eagle feathers are correct for this type of arrow. The arrow shaft is dyed with ochre as described previously.

Arctic Village Region Man’s Notched Hunting Arrow (Neets’ąįį Gwich’in tth’an k’ì’) This is a composite arrow of two primary components: the spruce wood shaft and the caribou antler tip (Fig. 58). This notched type of arrow was very popular in the skin house days. Rev. Salmon’s father spoke highly of it and said it was the “fastest arrow” in flight. The arrow made a distinctive whistle when shot. It was described as not being visible due to its speed. The example is 85.5 cm in total length. The point is approximately 16 cm in total length by 1 cm thick at its widest point. The tang is roughly 3 cm in length and 4 mm thick, and 13 cm of the point is exposed. Six notches with seven spines are on the dorsal surface of the point. The arrow was used in both warfare and hunting. All species of big game animals could be taken with this style. The spruce wood shaft is crafted to the standard in design and construction. Two vanes of hawk feathers provide the fletching. These should be eagle feathers to conform to the prescribed rule. The shaft is dyed with ochre.

Crow Flats Region Man’s Hunting Arrow (tth’an k’iin‘ąįį k‘ì) (Vantah Gwich’in nąįį k’ì’) This is a composite arrow constructed with three primary components: (1) the spruce wood shaft, which is footed at the distal end with (2) a foreshaft of caribou antler, plus (3) the removable caribou antler point (Figs. 59 and 60). The total length when completely assembled is approximately 78 cm. The arrow is fletched with two hawk feather vanes, although eagle feathers were the preferred and correct choice. The shaft is dyed with ochre. The antler point base is 10.5 cm in total length with 7.5 cm exposed. The tang comprises the remaining 3 cm and is about 4 mm thick and 13 mm wide. The design incorporates a bulbous portion that acts as a stop and is about 25 cm in width (Fig. 61). The extreme distal end terminates in a carved antler peg that is 1 cm in length and about 3 mm in diameter. This peg fits into a bored socket at the base of the removable point. There are two types of points provided with this arrow. The first is approximately 6 cm in length and 4 cm in width at its widest portion. It is triangular in configuration with a series of three stepped barbs that run laterally along each margin. The cross section is diamond shaped. The other type of removable point is made smooth without barbs in a circular conical configuration that reduces to the extreme distal end, forming a round point similar to a large rifle bullet. It is 3.7 cm in total length and approximately 1.5 cm in diameter at its widest cross section. It fits identically to the peg at the point base just as the triangular point does (Fig. 61). This arrow was initially designed to hunt caribou and originated in the Crow Flats region in the Yukon territory. John Chitleii, Rev. Salmon’s grandfather, held

57

Figure 58: Drawing of the Arctic Village region man’s notched hunting arrow.

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

59

Figure 59: Lateral view of the Crow Flats region man’s hunting arrow showing the barbed point in place. The cylindrical conical point is pictured just above.

this arrow in the highest esteem. The triangular point was treated with a special technique to make the arrow such an effective hunting tool. The point was soaked in water until it became extremely soft. A small, sharp, hard antler needle was then used to press and lift the minute fibers of the antler grain. Once that task was accomplished the point was set aside to dry hard and the grain remained lifted in that position. Consequently, this produced a surface of hundreds of minute barbs and, in effect, worked similar to a gigantic porcupine quill. This point was considered deadly for any living creature shot with it. The embedded point moved with the muscular action of the animal and traveled deeper into the vitals with each successive stride. This arrow was extremely deadly when used in warfare. If one was wounded, the only recourse was to remain motionless until a comrade could, if possible, cut the point from the flesh. The solid bullet-shaped point did not have this same method of treatment. It functioned only as a projectile point and produced a circular wound channel. The arrow was designed to be shot at caribou and when the arrow struck the hide, the bulbous portion on the distal end caused the shaft to bounce out and away from the struck caribou. The now-separated point would be driven in from the velocity of the arrow, unencumbered by the shaft and binding. Hunters could pick up the spent shafts and fit other points to them that were kept in a small hide sack on the belt. The arrow was also known as “the flying arrow.” Feathers were used along the entire length of the arrow shaft in continuous vanes. This supposedly produced a remarkably flat trajectory with very little drop in elevation, and was favored in warfare. In summary, Rev. Salmon related that these three composite arrows were used well before contact and displayed tremendous ingenuity on the part of their innovators (Fig. 60). Innovations such as these diffused throughout the Interior

Figure 60: Comparison of bone- and antler-tipped man’s hunting arrows. Crow Flats region hunting arrow (top), Arctic Village region hunting arrow (middle) and Eagle region hunting arrow (bottom).

Figure 61: Drawing of the Crow Flats region man’s hunting arrow. The removable points are shown in the upper left corner: the conical projectile point (top) and the barbed point (bottom).

Figure 62: Drawing of the man’s iron trade arrow.

Figure 63: Drawing of the man’s leaf-shaped iron trade arrow.

Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting

63

region. The arrow from the Crow Flats was considered so effective against caribou that it was said starvation times no longer occurred as severely after its adoption. Rev. Salmon remembered his grandfather saying “that was the best arrow ever.”

Man’s Iron Trade Arrow (ch’iitsii k’ì’) This arrow is a composite consisting of the spruce arrow shaft and the steel point (Fig. 62). The total length for the arrow is 86.3 cm. The point is 16 cm in total length, about 2.2 cm at its widest portion, and approximately 2 mm thick at the tang. The point is triangular in configuration and gradually slopes from the proximal end to the distal point. Barbs are fashioned on the lateral edges at the base, terminating at the tang with 13 cm of the point exposed. The spruce wood shaft is standard in design and configuration and is dyed with ochre. Two hawk feather vanes provide for the arrow’s fletching, although eagle feathers are the correct material. Rev. Salmon contended that this type of trade arrow point possibly came from the Kuskokwim River region and filtered across the landscape in the trade network. Rev. Salmon believes that it is of Russian origin (Fig. 3).

Man’s Leaf-Shaped Iron Trade Arrow (ch’iitsii k’ì’ ch’at’àn) This composite arrow is constructed of a spruce wood arrow shaft and iron point (Fig. 63). The arrow’s total length is 80 cm. The point is 17 cm total with 3.5 cm forming the tang, and 13.5 cm of the point is exposed. The configuration is a true leaf-style pattern with a diamond cross section. Two barbs are arranged evenly on each lateral side. Rev. Salmon considered this particular arrow to be made too heavy and he had intentions of filing down the blade surfaces in an attempt to reduce the arrow’s forward weight. The spruce wood shaft is standard in design and construction and is dyed with ochre. As with all the big game arrows represented in this collection, this arrow also has two vanes of hawk feathers, although eagle feathers are the correct raw material. In summary, Rev. Salmon related that both of these iron trade arrow types are believed to have come from the Kuskokwim and lower Tanana regions (Fig. 64). They created quite a sensation in the interior of Alaska in their day, which resulted in longrange raiding parties attempting to gain these precious items. These stories were told by many elders in Rev. Salmon’s youth, including his father, William Salmon. The two arrow types were used in both warfare and hunting. Any big game species in interior Alaska could be taken using either of these two types. Figure 64: Comparison of the man’s iron trade arrows. Iron trade arrow (top), leaf-shaped iron trade arrow (middle), and Yukon Flats Region metal blunter arrow (bottom).

CHAPTER THREE

Artifacts Associated with Fishing Bone Ice Chisel (tth’an łuu dzyàh)

R

ev. Salmon described this tool as having ancient origins and entering Alaska’s interior with the first inhabitants. The importance of this tool was immeasurable in a land where winter lasts eight months. The primary purpose of this tool was to cut holes in the ice for ice fishing during the long winters. This chisel was used quite differently than is its modern iron counterpart. The handle is much shorter, since it is not intended to be used with two hands, and certainly not with force as with the modern steel ice chisel. In the chosen location, a caribou hair robe was spread upon the ice. The user kneeled on the robe and began lightly to pick at the ice surface in a circular pattern of roughly 25–30 cm in diameter. The chiseling was done at a steady rate using a one-handed hold and the entire surface of the hole’s diameter was chipped with the chisel. The ice hole was excavated at an even rate, producing perpendicular sides in relation to the flat bottom. The accumulated chips of ice were periodically removed, and the hole was increased in depth slowly over time, exercising the user’s skill and patience. Eventually, the hole was cylindrical almost through the entire thickness of the ice with only a remaining thin plate of ice at the bottom. This careful technique kept the worker not only from breaking the tip of the ice chisel, but also from punching a small hole too quickly through the ice and flooding the entire hole with water. An unfinished flooded ice hole would impede the process and soak the worker, causing a potentially dangerous situation for the hole maker. Finally, when the chipping was finished the thin plate of ice remaining at the bottom of the hole was then easily knocked out. The water now flooded the hole and the task was completed. Not every person could do this job. In fact, it required such an extreme measure of patience and skill that Rev. Salmon was told by his parents and maternal grandfather, John Chitleii, that maybe one person out of one hundred was suited to performing this task. Very often, women excelled at this activity, and this person would be called on by the others to assist them when necessary. The band sought out suitable fishing spots throughout the landscape. These generally were at the mouths of feeder creeks on the larger rivers. It was here that fish 65

66

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

such as large pike would gather. Once a good fishing spot was discovered or returned to, the band would make camp near it and fish until they exhausted the supply and then move on. As many as ten holes might be cut through the ice. The nutritious fish swimming just below the barrier of the river ice might be the only food resource available in the immediate vicinity. Under these conditions, it is very easy to appreciate just how important one tool and one skilled person can be to a group. Rev. Salmon never saw a bone ice chisel used, although in his youth, the elders still talked with respect for the tool and the person with the skill and knowledge of its use. The iron ice chisel, due to its durability, quickly and totally replaced this ancient tool soon after contact in the mid-nineteenth century. Rev. Salmon chose to make this tool in a shape similar to that of an iron ice chisel with a rectangular cross section (Figs. 65 and 66). He stressed that this is not necessary and that the old ones were generally made from antler and left natural; some were even slightly crooked. It was only at the distal cutting edge that a bevel was ground. Care was taken to make sure that the outer cortex of the antler forms the cutting edge of the tool (Fig. 65). The tool produced by Rev. Salmon is a composite of two primary components: the moose antler blade and the hafted birch shaft handle (Fig. 66). The tool’s entire length is 90 cm. The blade is a total of 20 cm in length with 15 cm left exposed and the remaining 5 cm forming an offset tang that mates with an identical portion formed on the distal end of the birch shaft. This is covered with a binding of wrapped babiche. The shaft handle is approximately 3 cm in diameter for its length. A small incised ring is cut into the proximal end of the shaft handle roughly 4 cm from the end. A hole has been perforated through this area for the purpose of attaching a line of babiche or hide that was secured to the worker in order to ensure that the tool would not become lost under the ice. The blade is about 3 cm by 2 cm in a rectangular cross section for its length, until it bevels in a downward angle 5 cm from the distal edge of the blade. At the edge, the blade is approximately 2.5 cm in width. The shaft handle has been dyed the same as all of the wooden portions of the tools in the collection. The color is a light orange/pink cast produced from powdered ochre rubbed on the dampened wood surface.

Figure 65: The bone ice chisel displaying the outer cortex of the antler material at the distal cutting edge.

Chapter 3: Artifacts Associated with Fishing

67

Figure 66: Drawing of the bone ice chisel. Full view of the hafted ice chisel is on the left.

68

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Bone Hooks (tth’an jàł) Once a hole was cut through the ice, a slender willow rod was thrust to the bottom to check the depth of the water. Usually several options existed for the people regarding what form of fishing technique they would incorporate. One of these techniques was to fish through the ice with a bone hook using a jigging method. The sounding taken with the willow rod helped the fisherman to determine the length of line required to use the bone hook.

Mouth Hook This hook was designed to catch large pike by the mouth when jigging (Fig. 67). Jigging required that the fisherman position himself comfortably at the ice hole’s edge, generally in a sitting or kneeling position. A short wooden fishing rod was grasped with the right hand, and a baited bone hook lowered down into the dark water. The line was premeasured so that the hook did not touch on the bottom of the river or lake. Then the fisherman rhythmically jerked the rod up and down, causing the baited hook to dance in the water, slightly above the bottom. This style of hook had been tied together with babiche in two primary components and deliberately allowed to remain limber so that its movement was a graceful twisting in the water that enticed the pike to strike it. Once grabbed, the steady jigging motion generally set the hook. This fishing tool is made of caribou antler and comprises three primary components (Fig. 67): the barb, the primary shank, and the secondary shank. The overall length is 12.5 cm when fully assembled. The barbed hook piece is 5 cm in length and 5 mm in diameter at its proximal end. This circular cross section reduces to a point at the distal end. Five chevron-shaped cuts are incised along the top portion, possibly serving to secure the bait. All components are soaked in water for an extended period to render them soft and allow the boring of the holes necessary for construction. The boring tool was usually a small splinter of caribou leg bone worked in a rotating fashion with light pressure. The primary shank is approximately 8 cm in length and roughly 4 cm thick. The secondary shank component is about 2.8 cm in length and tapers from 8 mm at the distal end to 5 mm at the proximal end. Note on the drawing that the method of the construction with babiche provides flexibility between the two shank components. Also note the joint of the hook barb with the distal end of the primary shank where both pieces are flattened and securely bound with babiche. Rev. Salmon stated that if one used this hook, the point would be honed very sharp on a smooth, flat stone.

Throat Hook This style of hook was owned by Rev. Salmon’s mother when he was a young boy. She was born in the Crow Flats region of Canada and this hook originates there. It is considered a “lucky hook,” meaning that one is sure to catch fish with it. Rev. Salmon proclaimed it “the best hook ever.” The hook is designed to be secured to a length of line and used as a lure in moving water in the summer. The stylistic attributes cause it to meander gracefully along in moving water and its size is suitable for moderate-sized pike. It is designed to be swallowed completely by the pike.

Chapter 3: Artifacts Associated with Fishing

The plug portion of the lure is made of a treated antler bleached white and carved in a rounded oblong style (Fig. 67). It is about 3.5 cm in length and 2.3 cm wide by about 1 cm in thickness at the center. The barb was originally made from the clavicle of a duck, chosen because of its flexibility. Lacking this desired component, Rev. Salmon approximated the shape in antler. A hole has been perforated on the proximal end to fasten the fishing line and two holes are also bored at the distal end to tie knotted lengths of sinew to each, resembling dangling legs. The claviclestyled barb is secured in a bored hole toward the distal end of the lure’s body. Two small circular incisements at the proximal end on the rounded side resemble eyes. The entire effect gives the impression of some form of large aquatic bug, or perhaps a swimming frog.

Figure 67: Drawing of two bone fish hooks. From the left: lateral view of mouth hook; ventral view of mouth hook; ventral view of throat hook above superior view of the same; and lateral view of the throat hook.

69

70

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Fish Spear (ch’eedąįį) This style of fishing tool represents the type once used in large numbers throughout the Yukon Flats as well as other timbered regions of the Interior. The handle is sectioned in two pieces to aid in transporting its long length by sled on the twisting forest trails. In open piedmont regions, such as the Chandalar country of the southern Brooks Range, for example, this form of handle is not needed. Therefore, those people fashioned their handles from a single piece of birch. The technique used to harvest fish with this tool is truly fascinating. First, a hole was cut using the bone ice chisel, roughly 30 cm in diameter, perhaps through a thickness of ice of about 1 m. The preferred fishing site was at the junction of the mouth of a feeder creek and a larger river, where the large pike gather. The size of this fish spear is designed specifically for this type of fish. Once the hole is opened, a stick is thrust down to the bottom and the silty sediment is vigorously stirred up to be washed away with the current, leaving a gravel or rocky bottom directly below the ice fishing hole. Under winter conditions, the bottom cannot be easily seen to a depth of 1–2 m. In peering down the hole, one sees only darkness with no chance of spotting the dark shape of a large pike, let alone striking it with the spear. The solution for this problem displays human ingenuity at its best. In each camp, the people were very careful to keep and cache the discarded meat bones of past meals and butchering. The weather bleached the bones a grayish white. The bones were gathered up and dropped through the ice hole to the prepared gravel bed and arranged to produce a white background against the darkness of the winter water. The fisherman laid a warm, insulating robe of a dressed caribou skin on the ice next to the hole and laid down fully extended on it. Lying on his side, the fisherman lowered the fish spear into the hole with his right hand. Next, he covered his upper body and the entire ice hole with an additional caribou robe. Thus situated, the fisherman peered into the hole and could now easily see the shadowy figures of the large pike as they swam over the white background provided by the bleached bone. With this advantage, the fisherman gently guided the spear above the dorsal region of the nearest pike and, when in position, he struck with a quick thrust. The outer prongs of the spear extended outward and this flexibility allowed the prongs to slide down on the sides of the fish as the centered spike prong impaled it. The side prongs became embedded in the fish’s side when the fish struggled and the fisherman jerked the spear upward. The spear was brought up and both fish and spear were removed from the hole. The fish was often cut into two parts to facilitate removal from the pronged fork tines of the spear. This was done to avoid breaking portions of the spearhead in cold weather. The entire band of people would usually stay in a fishing location as long as there remained fish to catch. Once the supply was exhausted, they would move on and seek other food resources. Rev. Salmon made and used many fishing tools of this type during the course of his lifetime. He fondly remembered this type of fishing as an enjoyable task that was, as a rule, done by the men only. This is a composite tool consisting of seven components: a two-piece birch shaft handle, two moose antler fork tines, two spike prongs of moose antler, and one

Chapter 3: Artifacts Associated with Fishing

71

moose antler center spike prong (Fig. 68). The antler pieces have been water treated and bleached white, but Rev. Salmon said that this was not generally done in the early days for this tool. The overall length of the tool when fully assembled is 284.5 cm. The handle is composed of two pieces with a total length of approximately 266.5 cm when assembled. At the handle proximal end the tool is about 2.7 cm in diameter and it maintains this diameter for about 236 cm, at which point it then increases slightly to 3 cm and fans into a flattened configuration at the distal region, 5.5 cm wide and about 2  cm in thickness. In the center of the distal end, the wood forms a cone-shaped protrusion that is bored to hold the center spike prong. The side portions of this area have been notched to haft the antler fork tines to them. A small tear-shaped hole is bored through this area to keep the binding from slipping when hafting the antler fork tines to the shaft handle. The two-piece handle is spliced midway down with an angle cut that is serrated on the flat surfaces to prevent slippage (Fig. 69). A long line of babiche is secured there to wind around the splice and make this joint secure, yet it is easy enough to unfasten when the fishing task is over. The antler components comprise five pieces total. The two fork tines are fashioned from the rim cortex of a large moose antler, having a square cross section of

Figure 68 (left): Rev. Salmon holding a fully assembled fish spear. Figure 69 (below): The shaft handle splice of the fish spear. Note serrations on angled portions.

72

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

roughly 1 cm in width (Figs. 70–73). They each have a total length of approximately 29 cm with 24.5 cm exposed and the remaining 4.5 cm hafted with boiled spruce pitch to the sides of the distal portions of the handle and bound with a wrapping of fishing twine. Rev. Salmon noted that this should be wrapped with babiche; however, due to supply difficulties, he chose twine as a tolerable substitute. The fork tines each have a slight bend on the profile, reflecting the original shape of the moose antler (Fig. 70). At the distal end of each fork tine, a hole is bored; here a pointed antler prong is passed through each fork tine and secured with a binding of babiche to further strengthen the pronged tines against being dislodged. A small hole 2 mm in diameter is bored through the proximal end of each prong. The babiche wrapping is passed through these small perforations and tightly wrapped near the distal end of each fork tine (Figs. 70, 71, and 72). The center spike prong is circular in cross section and is roughly 13 cm in total length, with the proximal end driven into the piloted hole on the cone-shaped protrusion of the distal end of the handle. The hole is filled with spruce pitch and this entire section is wound tightly with a binding of babiche, allowing only 10 cm of the center spike prong to be visible. The tined side prongs and the center spike prong are deliberately left dull. However, if this tool were to be used for its intended purpose, they all would be honed to a very sharp point, using a flat, smooth rock. Also, the distal portion of the fish spear would be soaked in water prior to fishing in order to provide additional flexibility to the components. The birch wood handle is dyed with the same ochre hue as the other tools in this collection. Figure 70: Lateral view of the fish spear. Note upturn in tines.

Figure 71: Superior view of the distal end of the fish spear.

Chapter 3: Artifacts Associated with Fishing

73

Figure 72: Drawing of the distal point end of the fish spear.

74

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Figure 73: Drawing of the hafted section of the fish spear.

Chapter 3: Artifacts Associated with Fishing

King Salmon Dip Net (łuk choo dèetł’yàa) The dip net method of salmon fishing, according to Rev. Salmon, is very old and was practiced throughout Alaska’s interior into the contact period. It was ultimately replaced by the use of the twine gill net and the fish wheel after the turn of the twentieth century. Rev. Salmon’s father, William Salmon, last remembered seeing the dip net used earnestly around 1923. Rev. Salmon may have been one of the last elders to have utilized this unique form of fish harvesting. He often heard his parents discussing this old method of fishing. In 1935, Rev. Salmon was stimulated by the sight of an old dip net, grayed and aged, among his father-in-law’s (Enoch Henry) belongings in Salmon Village (Fig. 74). His father-in-law made Rev. Salmon a new dip net frame. At that time, there was only one woman alive in the village who knew how to make the netted babiche sack that attached to the frame. Rev. Salmon hired her to make him one of twine to fit his new dip net frame. The price was some extra twine and a portion of any fish caught. His trapping partner, Paul Henry, was older than Rev. Salmon, who was twenty-three years old at the time. Henry was an expert in the use of this old tool as he had used it extensively as a younger man. Both Rev. Salmon and Paul Henry were soon fitted out with dip nets and took their small wood and canvas hunting canoes up the Yukon, where they fished, enjoying the thrill and satisfaction of doing it the “old way.” In the early days, a band of people first located a suitable fishing spot; use of the dip net demanded a long gravel bar and a smooth rock bottom. The people would further prepare the intended fishing area by dragging the river bottom for any obstructions that were not apparent by a casual observation of the water’s surface. A stout stick about 1.5 m in length was weighted at each end by securely tying a rock to it. In the middle of the stick, a stout line was attached. This apparatus was dragged along the length of the entire area proposed for fishing. The ideal water depth needed for this fishing technique was a little over 1 m. During the warm summer month of July, the people gathered at their fish camps and worked communally to build fish racks, prepare the river’s bottom, and fish, as well as clean and dry the catch. The annual migration of the king salmon was, and still is, a special event for interior Alaska Athabascans. A trained eye was required to spot the fish coming upriver. The day had to be still and calm so that the surface of the water could be read. The people eagerly looked for the fish, which to the untrained person could not easily be seen. However, a small v-shaped swell in the water denoted the subsurface, upstream track of a king salmon. The fishermen’s slender birch bark hunting canoes were beached on the upstream end of the gravel bar intended for fishing. Someone would shout, “I see them. They are there,” and point. The fishermen ventured into the current with their long-handled dip nets balanced on the foredeck in front of them and the handle trailing back past their right side and over the right rear gunnel of the craft. A fisherman, almost in the midsection of his canoe, would then see the water swell from the fish way downriver along the gravel bar. He had to judge the current and the path of the approaching quarry, then strategically position himself to make the catch. As he drifted downstream, the fish advanced upstream, closing quickly as the fisherman stowed his paddle in the forward of his canoe. Taking the dip net by the handle with both hands, he

75

76

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Figure 74: Drawing of the King Salmon dip net frame showing both superior view (left) and lateral view (right).

Chapter 3: Artifacts Associated with Fishing

77

cast it off in a swinging motion to the left and rearward toward the stern of his craft. The net sank to the bottom and the fisherman lifted it by “feeling” about 10–20 cm above the bottom. He now had the net in place and held the handle in a similar fashion to a steering stroke of the paddle (Fig. 75). With hard-won expertise, he guided the canoe and net so that the salmon swam directly into the scoop-shaped rim of the dip net. This is when the struggle began. The fisherman immediately, with all his strength, brought the dip net in a forward motion toward the bow. The net was held midship by both hands and was thrust out at a right angle to the left of the craft. By this time, the canoe was careening, in a cartwheel fashion, down the river with the king salmon in full fight. The handle turned and rotated in the grasp of the fisherman. However, at no time could he allow the netted salmon to dive beneath the craft, as it would surely capsize; king salmon are strong enough to pull a fisherman and his craft broadside to the current. Once the salmon ceased to struggle and was tired, the fisherman brought the net in hand over hand to bring the netted fish alongside the canoe. A fish club was used to strike and kill the fish, and then it was removed from the net, to be stowed in the forward of the canoe. The fisherman then turned around and worked his way back up the river, reset, and repeated the process. There would be merriment and laughter as those on shore called out encouragement to those fishing and as the fishermen enjoyed the thrill of the catch. All persons were secure with the knowledge that hunger was now far away, as the fish racks were sagging beneath their burden, and life was good. Rev. Salmon made a model of the framework for the old-style dip net (Fig. 76). The dimensions of a full-scale net include a handle of a little over 3 m in total length and a net rim of about 180 cm long by 20 cm wide (Fig. 74). The netted bag was made

Figure 75: Drawing of a Gwichyaa Gwich’in chief ca. 1850 using a dip net to catch king salmon swimming upstream.

78

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Figure 76: Ventral view of a model of the King Salmon dip net.

from babiche woven with a 5-cm mesh and roughly 140 cm in length, securely fastened to the rim of the dip net frame. The preferred wood for this tool is gray willow, found inland from any source of water. Red willow, found along a body of water, will not answer the purpose as it is too weak and does not have the required amount of flexibility. If the handle is not a suitable thickness of about 6 cm, supplementary pieces of gray willow can be fastened to each side and bound with a wrapping of babiche. This produces a strong, limber form of handle. The rimmed frame of the net is spliced in the center portion on the lower rim (Fig. 74). A hole is bored through the entire handle on the lateral margin toward the distal end to facilitate a support piece of wood that traverses the hole and is bent and securely fastened on the outer rim sides of the net. The handle is curved to facilitate the needed position for fishing with this technique (Fig. 75). The handle is deliberately strengthened by increasing the girth in the distal curved portion where the net is secured.

CHAPTER FOUR

Artifacts Associated with General and Special Purposes Caribou Leg Bone Knife (tth’an shrii )

W

hile the bone knife is now rare in interior Alaska, it was once a common item of daily use for everyone except the smallest children. The bone knife was a personal-use tool that was kept with the cooking gear in camp. Its intended purpose was to cut meat in bite-size amounts. Each person possessed and used his or her own bone knife for this purpose. Rev. Salmon stressed that this was not a knife carried on a person for butchering and processing game animals. Stone knives were used for that purpose and were kept in a case hung around the neck at the sternum level. Rev. Salmon’s father used the bone knife exclusively as a young boy during the 1860s. The stone knife was also used considerably at this period. Both types were ultimately replaced by the introduction of the steel butcher trading knife as supplied by the fur traders. Rev. Salmon chose to make his example in the shape of a steel trading knife. However, at contact and prior to it, the bone knife was made from any suitable splinter of leg bone that fractured when extracting the marrow. A person selected a sharp bone splinter and rubbed it smooth on a flat rock to further sharpen it to a keen edge. Rev. Salmon, while completing his example, honed the edge quickly with a file and sliced his meat for the evening supper with ease. Very often, such knives were also fashioned from the rib bones of caribou, and the full name of the tool, in Rev. Salmon’s language, implies “bone rib knife.” The knife is made from the leg bone of a caribou with the marrow channel clearly visible on one side of the blade (Fig. 77). The overall length is 20.5 cm. The knife has a full tang with 9.5 cm of the blade visible. The blade portion is about 2 cm wide and 2 mm thick at the edge. The back of the blade is about 5 mm thick. The blade configuration is based upon a trade butcher knife pattern and has a gradual sweeping edge, terminating at the clipped distal point. The slab grips are made of spruce wood and cover the solid tang portion for 11 cm. They are affixed to the bone tang with boiled spruce pitch and further strengthened by a tightly wrapped binding of dressed moosehide. The dressed moosehide has a pleasant golden brown color from the smoking process during the dressing. The blade portion is a light ivory/white color. 79

80

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Figure 77: Drawing of the superior (left) and lateral (right) views of a caribou leg bone knife.

Chapter 4: Artifacts Associated with General and Special Purposes

The Athabascan Staff of Life (toh) The toh is not a complicated or fancy tool (Fig. 78). However, it played an extremely significant role in the interior of Alaska. The toh was used on a daily basis by all adults, young and old. Even the children used a form of toh by grabbing up any dry stick and imitating the manner they saw the toh used in the adult world. The toh’s primary role was as a walking staff to aid people in negotiating terrain. The technique was to utilize your arms as much as your legs. When traversing up and down hilly or mountainous country, the toh was used to support one’s footing, literally being leaned on. The toh was also used by the traveler to test the trail. During winter, travel over rivers and lakes was difficult if not impossible because overflow is often hidden beneath the snow’s surface. The toh was also used to test for dangerous ice conditions along rivers by thumping the end of the toh on the ice to check its solidity. When flurries of snow left the timber and brush heavy with burden, the traveler used the toh to brush the snow from the branches ahead of the intended path. This kept the traveler dry, an important factor for survival since, if snow fell on the body and collected there, it would begin to melt due to the body’s heat and soon the traveler would be soaked and freezing. When individuals stopped on the trail to discuss the best possible route ahead, the toh was used to point out advantageous passes, ridges, or the distant shelter of timber. The toh was also used to draw maps of the landscape in the snow or dirt, depending on the season. In the warmer seasons, the toh helped people travel in marshes and bogs or was used to test the ground around lakes for solid footing. The toh was extremely valuable when crossing rivers and was needed to steady the traveler against the current. In the old days, the elders were often led from camp to camp holding the toh on one end while a strong youngster grabbed the other end, pulling the elder gently along. Rev. Salmon remembered his parents using the toh: “they always had toh with them.” He could still envision the elders of his youth resting on the strength of the toh as they stood by the riverbank and gazed downstream. Toh was the people’s helper and friend. The necessity for the toh diminished, and eventually it was displaced when villages became more settled and permanent. Many elders shifted from the true full-scaled toh as a hiking or walking staff to the shorter small cane or walking stick. Rev. Salmon truly respected the toh. He knew how important it was to the people and said, “You can’t go without it.” The toh is primarily a walking staff that came to the top of the user’s shoulder (Fig. 78). The toh, as illustrated, is 137.5 cm in length, 2.1 cm in diameter at the proximal end of the handgrip, and tapers gradually to 1.7 cm in diameter at the extreme distal end. There are six incised rings that encircle the toh’s diameter at the handgrip portion. These serve to provide a more secure grip. On the last incised ring farthest from the proximal end, there Figure 78: Rev. Salmon with a toh.

81

82

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

is a hanging fetish of four beads that terminates with three strings of moosehide secured to the toh by a string of artificial sinew. The staff itself is dyed with ochre. For strength and resiliency the toh should only be made from a length of selected straight-grained white birch split into a rough stave and carved and smoothed to the preferred size.

Rain Chaser (zhee zhrįh) The rain chaser is made from clear white spruce chosen for its lightness. The tool comprises two primary components: the stick handle and the blade. The blade is elliptical in configuration and notched along the length of both lateral edges. It is fastened to a small, light stick with a length of babiche or twine. This tool was used frequently in the early days. Its purpose is to chase away foul weather and clear the skies of squalls. Rev. Salmon’s parents always kept a rain chaser in their camp and, when traveling, the tool was very important. The tool was utilized extensively during the annual treks to Fort Yukon to resupply with provisions. Calm weather is needed to trackline canoes and boats upriver. The rain chaser was used to intimidate any threatening squall that would impede the progress of travelers. Several rituals and rules existed in regard to the prescribed use. The tool was never used for fun but only operated for the purpose of producing good weather. If the tool was worked during a period of good weather, it was believed that storms would inevitably come. Successful use of the rain chaser to gain the desired result demanded that all those within the camp or group believe in the power of the tool. To use the rain chaser a person first selects open surroundings. Next a piece of charcoal is taken from the fireside and a series of alternating stripes at 45-degree angles are marked on each side of the blade. The person then takes the tool by the handle and extends the arm outwardly, twirling the handle three or four times in a Figure 79: Rev. Salmon demonstrating the rain chaser.

Chapter 4: Artifacts Associated with General and Special Purposes

clockwise rotation. This movement is then alternated to a counterclockwise rotation. The process is repeated several times (Fig. 79). The centrifugal action on the blade caused by the rotations extends the babiche line tautly and the blade spins as the line twists. The notched surfaces of the spinning blade produce a distinctive buzzing noise. If the notches are configured in another pattern, the sound produced will be altered. Rev. Salmon noted that some rain chasers sound like barking dogs. This rain chaser is made from white spruce (Fig. 80). The stick handle is 66.5 cm in length and 1.7 cm in diameter. The blade is elliptical in configuration and has a total length of 29.5 cm. It is 5 cm wide at the center and tapers to a point at each distal end. The blade is elliptical in cross section and is approximately 3 mm thick at the center, tapering to 1 mm at the lateral edges. The blade’s lateral edges are cut with a series of rounded notches to a depth of about 2 mm each. There is a perforated hole 2 cm from the proximal end of the blade. This is used to attach the blade to the stick handle by a length of babiche line that is 49 cm in total length. The wood components of the tool have been dyed with ochre in the same manner as other tools in this collection. The blade, in addition, has alternating stripes at 45-degree angles on both surfaces produced by black charcoal.

83

84

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Figure 80: Drawing of the rain chaser. Full-length view is at right.

CHAPTER FIVE

Artifacts Associated with Gaming Caribou Toe Game or “Grandpa’s Heel” (ditsii kwaihtàl)

T

his game was found throughout Alaska’s interior and the Crow Flats of Canada among people who hunted caribou. To call it a game might imply that it was only for amusement. To the contrary, the game was seriously played by caribou hunters as a ritual prior to a caribou hunt. Rev. Salmon stressed it was a “good luck game,” meaning that the success of the hunt was predicted by the outcome of the gameplaying interaction. The game pieces are made primarily from the extreme distal phalanges of the caribou’s hoof. The proximal and distal joints were cut off and the surfaces ground smooth. The toe bones were then boiled and cleaned and scraped with a sharp pointed tool often made from a splinter of a bone. Their marrow cavities were smoothed and enlarged as the bones were polished. Seven toe bones were cleaned in this manner and strung on a length of babiche line and tied onto a light, pointed stick. Many times a perforated tab of dressed caribou skin was secured to the extreme distal end of the babiche line. Rev. Salmon chose to make his example with tear-shaped beads instead of the leather tab (Fig. 81). The primary move and strategy in the game was to pierce the hollow toe bones with the pointed stick. This is a task that is easier said than done. The stick is held by the proximal end near the babiche line. The player then swings the line strung with the assorted toe bones in a back-and-forth motion. The babiche line and beads move in a pendulum effect; when it feels right, the player swings the toe bones slightly higher, and before the line swings back toward the player, he thrusts at them. If any bones are speared on the stick, points are awarded. The individual bones had different values. The first bone at the extreme proximal end was valued at one point, as were the second and third bones. The fourth bone, however, had a value of two points; the fifth, three points; the sixth, four points; and the seventh, five points. If one’s game had the perforated caribou skin tab, the holes on the tab tallied to additional points with a total value of ten possible points (Fig. 16). When caribou were located, the hunt was organized by a certain hunter with a demonstrated aptitude for coordinating this effort. He knew the territory well and was 85

86

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

a master of caribou habits and behavior. The hunters would meet to discuss the most appropriate strategy given the herd site, terrain, and season of the year. The evening before the hunt, the hunters would gather at the home of one of the hunters. A small dry willow was gathered and broken into match-sized sticks that were used as tallies. The hunters crowded within the skin house and formed a circle. They began to play with a good-natured camaraderie. Each player was allowed two attempts and then the game was passed to the next player. Some hunters were outstanding players and the atmosphere in the skin house was joyous and intense. Each point gained a tally stick for the player. After all of the hunters had played, the leader called for the sticks to be counted. Each player’s accumulated tally was counted and the sticks, hopefully, formed a large bundle on the ground. The total number of won sticks was tallied and this number represented the expected amount of caribou the hunting group would harvest. The total number of skin houses within the camp was then divided against the tallied number of anticipated caribou. This was the number of caribou each household might expect from the hunt. A hunter’s tally acquired by his skill in the game did not represent his personal harvest of the caribou. The game was played by individuals but was perceived as a cooperative effort. This was the same philosophy for the actual hunt itself. If the stick count was high, the hunters retired feeling joyous about the coming hunt. Their “luck” would be good. During the same time that the hunters were playing this game, the young boys were also gathered in a skin house mimicking the gaming atmosphere of the adult hunters. The boys took their respective turns and received the tally sticks for points won. The boys’ tally sticks represented the number of freshly butchered caribou leg bones they would be given. The extracted marrow was the “best food” in the camp and would be mixed with their meat. Each boy was allowed to keep his tally for himself and many had trouble sleeping in anticipation of the tasty marrow. After the hunt had been concluded and the women and children had either come to haul the meat to camp or moved the camp to the butchering site, the boys crowded around the hunters. The hunters would then inquire, “How many bones did you get?” A boy answered truthfully, “I got three,” and the hunter would then give that boy three leg bones. The boy scampered off with his treasure to enjoy his good fortune. When “good luck” was with the hunt, the camp was filled with happiness. Rev. Salmon was taught this story by his parents and maternal grandfather, who were all from caribou country. Rev. Salmon suggested that the game’s name implied that the boys, in anticipation, followed at their “Grandpa’s heel” to get their caribou leg bone marrow. The game’s primary component is the prepared distal phalanges of the caribou. There are six caribou phalanges and one moose phalanx at the extreme distal end, just posterior to the teardrop beads (Fig. 81). These beads are blue. The individual bones are about 1.5 cm at the larger proximal end and taper in a conical shape to roughly 7 mm at the distal ends. The length averages about 1.5 cm each. The distal moose phalanx is approximately 2 cm in length by 1.7 cm at the proximal end, tapering to 12 mm at the distal end. This bone was substituted because of a lack of caribou bones. All the bones have a warm yellowish ivory color. The line is made of artificial sinew and is 48 cm in length. The tapering stick is roughly 27 cm in length by 7 mm in diameter at the proximal end and tapers to a blunt point at the distal end. The line is secured in an incised ring around the diameter of the stick 7 cm from the proximal end. The stick is dyed with ochre to a light orange hue.

Chapter 5: Artifacts Associated with Gaming

Figure 81: Drawing of a “Grandpa’s heel.”

87

88

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Cone-Shaped Stick Game (nilèerok) This game was played as an annual event at regional trading places such as the site of present Fort Yukon. It also was used in a house-to-house competition in individual camps. The game was played by two opponents and was competitive. The two players sat upon the ground and faced one another with their legs flexed slightly and the soles of their feet pressed against each other’s. The left arm was held behind the back and the right arm and hand were extended. The cone stick was grasped by each player and held firmly (Fig. 82). This stick generally was positioned halfway between the two players near their toes. A player’s hand or fingers could not go past the center line incised on the cone stick. Each player held tightly and attempted to pull the stick out of his opponent’s grasp. The player who was able to pull the stick won the round. When regional bands met to trade, they usually had only their champion players play this game, and the competition was intense. A series of rounds was played and players were eliminated from the competition. Finally, the last round was played by the two finalists. The winner took the game stick with his band when the trading was over. This game stick was kept in the home of the head man of the band. There was considerable group pride in securing the cone stick for the band. Each band vowed that they would win the prize in the coming trading season. Throughout the course of the year, all the regional bands knew who possessed the cone stick and “their minds were strong to win back the stick when they came to trade.” Rev. Salmon stated that the game was no longer played at the regional level when he was a young boy (1915–1920). Within each camp, there was also a cone stick that was used in a good-natured competition between households. The winner kept the game stick in his home and accepted challenges from those neighbors who wanted the chance to win it for their households. This was the form of playing that Rev. Salmon witnessed as a young child in Salmon Village. A cone-shaped stick is made by cutting a chunk of a suitable tree and removing the bark (Fig. 83). The diameter of the tree is reduced in a conical form with an ax, working at opposite directions from the center. It is further smoothed by carving the Figure 82: Author and Rev. Salmon demonstrating the correct hold used when playing the cone stick game.

Chapter 5: Artifacts Associated with Gaming

89

Figure 83: Drawing of the cone-shaped stick game with a cross section of cone stick at the lower left.

90

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

desired shape with a crooked knife. In the early days, it was smoothed by polishing stones. Files and sandpaper are now used. The cone stick in Rev. Salmon’s assemblage is approximately 19.5 cm in overall length and 6.5 cm in diameter at its center (Figs. 83 and 84). A groove has been incised at the center that is 2 mm wide and encircles the diameter. A length of artificial sinew is tied around the groove and holds six large beads of alternating colors of blue and white. At the extreme distal end of the beaded decoration is tied the tip of an eagle feather that is black in color. The cone stick has been dyed with ochre.

Pulling Stick Game (dachan vàa nihk’yàa tr’ahìindak) This game was also played at the trading place. Two players faced one another either in a standing or a sitting position. When standing, the players faced each other and held the stick horizontally with both hands, and the stick was raised above their heads. Each player twisted the stick in a forward rotation, trying to break the grasp of the other. As this was done, the arms lowered toward mid-body height. The player retaining his grasp won the round. The other method was to sit with the legs flexed as in the cone stick game. Each player leaned forward and grasped the stick horizontally with both hands. The players then tried to pull the stick from the opponent with their feet firmly pressed against each other’s. A strong player can literally lift his opponent from the ground and throw him to one side. This game is still enjoyed throughout Alaska. Rev. Salmon remembered playing the game as a young man with a sawed-off section of a broomstick. The pull stick is made from a section of a small tree, preferably birch, and is debarked and smoothed. Often the two distal ends have decorative fringe and hanging beads, in addition to beads and a feather secured at the stick’s center. This example is 49 cm in length by 3 cm in diameter (Fig. 84). An incised groove is cut 5 cm from each distal end. At the center, an incised groove is cut and dyed black. At each distal end, a common screw of about 5 mm in diameter is inserted, which once secured decorative fringe. At the center incisement there was once a decoration of beads and an eagle feather. These decorations have been torn from the stick during competition and have not been replaced to date. The stick is dyed with ochre.

Figure 84: The pulling stick game (top) and cone stick game (bottom).

CHAPTER SIX

Artifacts Associated with Manufacturing Moose Leg Bone Skinner, Yukon Flats Style (nehtthaa) This tool is well represented in the contemporary tool kits of Interior Athabascans as it is favored for its ease of use. The tool is a handy size and is intended to be used primarily on fatty animals such as beaver, mink, and muskrat. However, other furbearers, such as fox and lynx, are often processed using this tool. This tool is made from the leg bone of the moose and is somewhat brittle. The tool is grasped by the rounded handle portion and held with the flat side of the blade toward the skin, which is held taut by the other hand. A person experienced in the use of this tool can skin a furbearing animal quickly, with the resulting pelt being completely clean and white, free from fat, and ready to dry on a fur stretcher. The pressure applied to the skin in the forward motion squeezes the fat and oil from the fresh pelt. Periodically during use, the beveled edge of the tooth blade is cleaned of layers of accumulated oil and fat. In the days before contact, this tool was made by a long process of repeated incising with a sharp flaked stone burin to produce fracture lines. The incised bone segment is struck and broken off in a controlled manner. The rough tool form was then ground and polished with a series of abrasive stones graduating from coarse to smooth surfaces. Now, however, a hacksaw is used to remove the unwanted portion of the bone to produce the stylistic attributes of this tool. Modern files and sandpaper make short work of the project. The tool is made from the lower leg bone of the moose and is not water treated as described in chapter 1, as it is generally made while the bone is still fairly fresh (Figs. 85 and 86). The overall length is 18.2 cm by approximately 4 cm wide; the height of the handle piece is about 3 cm. The thickness of the blade portion is roughly 7 mm at the proximal end, tapering to about 4 mm at the distal end and terminating into the bevel for the toothed edge. The toothed edge on the extreme distal end is semiparabolic, having eight small teeth delineated by lightly incised lines at right angles to the edge (Fig. 86).

91

92

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Figure 85: Assemblage of utility and manufacturing implements. Clockwise from the top: caribou leg bone scraper; bundle of babiche; bone puncher; caribou leg bone knife; Tanana River–style skinner; and Yukon Flats–style moose leg bone skinner.

Tanana River–Style Skinner (Tanan Gwinjik gwinèhtthaa) Rev. Salmon received the components for this skinner as a gift from Mr. Ralph Perdue of Fairbanks around 1994. He was not previously acquainted with this style of skinner as it is from the Minto region of the Tanana River. He had never had the occasion to examine one of this type and felt it was an excellent overall design. He took the components and assembled them into a finished tool and dyed the wooden piece with ochre, as was his custom. This beautiful little tool is worked in the same manner as the Yukon style of skinner. However, the blade portion is narrower, making this tool highly desirable for skinning smaller animals such as muskrats. Note in Fig. 85 the difference between the two styles. The tool is a composite of two primary components, one of bone and the other of birch wood; the tool is hafted with artificial sinew (Fig. 87). The blade component is made from a fragment of bone and measures 6.5 cm in total length by 2.8 cm in width. It is about 2 mm thick and has a semiparabolic arch on the extreme distal end with a beveled edge sectioned into six small teeth, delineated by lightly incised lines at right angles to the distal end. The bone is a pleasant, clean ivory color that contrasts nicely with Rev. Salmon’s favorite orange hue obtained through the application of ochre. The handle portion is styled to easily fit the hand and to ease fatigue (Fig. 87). It is roughly 13 cm in total length by 3 cm in diameter at the proximal end. The cross section remains circular throughout the handle. The total length of the tool is 15 cm.

Caribou Hind Leg Scraper or Beaming Tool (ch’ik’yàa) The scraper was a frequently used women’s tool designed for the purpose of removing the outer epidermis at the root of the hair on hides, such as those of moose and caribou, which were dressed into the leather that fashioned the moccasins, mitts, shirts, and dresses of the people in the early days. The natural process of dressing

Chapter 6: Artifacts Associated with Manufacturing

93

Figure 86: Drawing of the Yukon Flats–style moose leg bone skinner. Superior view (left), lateral view (middle), and cross section of the proximal end (right).

hides to produce leather demands that the outer epidermis be removed, creating a napped texture that facilitates the breaking-down process necessary in order to produce soft dressed leather suitable for garments. To scrape a hide or skin with this tool, one must first shave the hair off near the root with a sharp-bladed knife, leaving only a short stubble. The flesh side must be cleaned and free from any fat or debris. The hide is draped, hair side out, over a debarked and smoothed birch log called a beaming log. This beaming log is leaned against a tree. The hide worker grips the tool with both hands and the scraper is drawn downward, applying a measured pressure

94

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Figure 87: Drawing of the Tanana River–style skinner. Lateral view (top) and superior view (bottom).

against the hide and the hard surface of the beaming log, with the rounded edge of the tool upward and the concave surface facing the hide and beaming log (Fig. 88). The hide is scraped clean in linear swatches and is continually rotated on the log to provide a new unworked surface. This tool was replaced by the introduction of the trading butcher knife. A common butcher knife would have a set of slab grips affixed to the pointed distal end, thus providing a two-handed scraper. This was a marked improvement over the older bone tool, but not for the working of caribou hide due to the thin nature of the hide. The worker had to use the butcher knife with care to prevent cutting the hide when pressed against the birch beaming log. The bone scraper was considered somewhat fragile and was prone to breakage because of the brittle nature of bone, the tool’s length, the slender design, and the rigorous task for which it was intended. The tool is a composite of bone and spruce wood (Figs. 85 and 88). The blade is made from the hind leg of the caribou. In former times, a caribou leg bone was incised to the desired size of the tool blank with a stone burin repeatedly worked to cut through the thickness of the bone. Once the blank was removed, it was then ground smooth and flat on the surface of a flat stone. The wooden slab grips are affixed to both distal ends by first applying boiled spruce pitch to the bone blank, then placing the spruce wood grips in position and binding the grips permanently with a tight wrapping of dressed moosehide. The tool has a total length of 42.2 cm and is 3 cm wide at the blade’s center. The flat scraping edge is about 5 mm thick and the curved upper edge is roughly 2 mm thick. The assembled grip portions are approximately 11 cm each in length and provide a comfortable and convenient handhold that alleviates discomfort from the tedious task of removing hair from hides.

Chapter 6: Artifacts Associated with Manufacturing

Figure 88: Drawing of caribou hind leg scraper or beaming tool.

95

96

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Bone Puncher/Awl (tth’an tthah) The bone puncher or awl was considered indispensable to a person in the boreal forest. It was generally carried on the person (Fig. 85). Women kept it within a small hide case along with a bone needle, sinew, and a snowshoe needle. The tool functioned primarily to punch perforated holes in dressed leather, raw skins, hides, or birch bark. The need to continually make and repair numerous items kept women always busy. The tool was replaced gradually with the introduction of the steel trade awl, which performed the same duties. Rev. Salmon remembered his mother, in the years before 1923, still having this old tool, which he replicated from memory. To make the puncher, a person begins by roughing out a block of wood about 10 cm square. Then a small pilot hole is bored in the center of the block and filled with boiled spruce pitch. Next, the point is made from caribou antler; it has a circular tapered cross section up to the lower proximal end, where there is a flattened side for about 2 cm in length (Fig. 89). The point is driven into the pilot hole and will not rotate due to the tight fit, the spruce pitch, and the flattened side. Once this is secure the square block is trimmed with a hatchet and a crooked knife to the desired shape. A small incised ring is placed near the distal hafted portion of the handle and wrapped with a sinew or babiche line. This keeps the wood from splitting. Sometimes the same procedure is done to the proximal butt end of the handle as well. When this tool was used, the point was kept extremely sharp and was honed with a flat stone. The bone puncher is about 14 cm in total length. The spruce wood handle is 6.5 cm in length by 3 cm in diameter at the extreme proximal end. The handle tapers in a circular cross section to approximately 1.5 cm at the distal end. The point is made from caribou antler and is about 10 cm in total length with 7 cm exposed. At the proximal hafted end, the diameter is about 5 mm and tapers in a circular cross section to the distal point. Rev. Salmon chose to dye the spruce wood handle in the same manner as his other tools within this collection with ochre applied to the dampened wood.

Bone Snowshoe Needle (tth’an aih val) The snowshoe needle looks so small and simple that it might be regarded as having little importance (Fig. 89). However, nothing could be further from the truth. This small tool was usually made from moose or caribou antler. It is only about the length of four fingers held together. The tool was used to aid in weaving the babiche webbing of the snowshoe. The babiche line is extremely long and is threaded through the center hole perforated in the needle. The needle is pointed at both ends to add to its versatility while performing its function. Rev. Salmon remembered his mother still having a very old bone needle such as this one before 1923. The trading companies quickly saw an opportunity to mass produce this style of tool in iron. The needle was generally kept on the person during travel for field repairs on snowshoes, which saw considerable use in a land of eight months of winter. The bone snowshoe needle is made out of moose antler and has a total length of 9 cm. It is pointed at both distal ends, with an elliptical cross section. The needle

97

Chapter 6: Artifacts Associated with Manufacturing

Figure 89: Drawings of (A) cross section of wood puncher handle, (B) complete puncher, (C) separated antler puncher point, and (D) lateral view of the bone snowshoe needle

D

C

A

B

is roughly 11 mm in width at the center, where there also exists a perforated hole of 2 mm in diameter. The color is a gray/white (Fig. 89).

Snowshoe Gimlet (ts’ii ghò’) This tool is specific to snowshoe crafting in the early days before contact. The bit portion was made of a fragment of moose or caribou leg bone. The tool uses the natural form of the antler from a young caribou to form the unique handle and grip (Fig. 90). The tool is used to bore the small holes in the birch wood frame of the snowshoe in which the babiche webbing is woven. The natural configuration of the antler provides a solid, comfortable grip that facilitates the application of the procedure. This hand tool is rotated in a back-and-forth motion, applying a steady pressure in order to work the blade tip against the wood surface. The hole is bored with the alternating rotations from the tip. This tool is still used throughout the interior of Alaska by snowshoe makers, although there are not many who still craft the snowshoes that Interior Athabascans

98

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Figure 90: Rev. Salmon demonstrating the proper way to hold a snowshoe gimlet. Also pictured to the left is the bone snowshoe needle.

are famous for. The small “Yankee” drill, as purchased in any hardware store, has mostly replaced this original tool. The tool comprises two components (Fig. 91), the first being the proximal end of a young caribou’s antler and the other, a small steel rectangular bit. The handle is roughly 13 cm in length by 9 cm in diameter at its widest point. The cross section is elliptical and about 2 cm at the widest point. The steel bit is approximately 5 cm long by 3 mm in thickness for its length, terminating, however, at a triangular point on the extreme distal cutting edge. The bit is driven into the pithy center of the antler grip. It is gray/cream in color, which is common for weathered antler.

How to Measure Snowshoe Frames According to Rev. Salmon the traditional large Athabascan hunting snowshoe was a crucial adaptive apparatus of great antiquity. The oral traditions relayed to him from his father, maternal grandfather, and other very old elders in the early 1920s spoke of the snowshoe as being brought from the west into the Alaska interior by the earliest Athabascan people ten thousand years ago. Due to strict prescribed rules dictating form and function, it was considered to have remained unchanged from the ancient past to the pre–World War II era. This type of snowshoe was indispensable for traveling and hunting in the exceedingly cold, powdered snow conditions of interior Alaska winters. The importance of the hunting snowshoe could not be stressed enough: “You can’t go without it . . . it the main tool that help you live.” Rev. Salmon regarded snowshoes as one of the most essential adaptations in the entire hunting kit. The device allowed his people to traverse an extremely challenging landscape and harvest resources throughout the long harsh eight months of winter. Rev. Salmon had made many pairs of traditional Athabascan hunting snowshoes during his years of subsistence living and had intended to make a pair to add to his

Chapter 6: Artifacts Associated with Manufacturing

Figure 91: Drawing of a snowshoe gimlet showing steel bit inset (top left), lateral view (bottom left), cross section of distal end (top center), and superior view (right). artifact collection, with the entire process documented. Regrettably, like so many best intentions, we did not get the chance. However, he did relay the basic snowshoe construction methods and a very important aspect of the snowshoe-making process, the body part measuring system. That is our focus here. Hence, the purpose of this section is not to describe in detail how to make snowshoes per se, but to relate for the reader how one uses one’s own body measurements to craft a pair of snowshoes that will accommodate that person’s body size to properly displace his or her weight on the surface of the snow. Therefore, to make the measuring system relevant, a brief summary of snowshoe making is provided. Traditional Interior Athabascan hunting snowshoes are indeed impressive. The basic steps to making a pair of snowshoes appear more complicated when written

99

100

Figure 92: Rev. Salmon posing with a traditional Athabascan hunting snowshoe, University of Alaska Museum of the North, 1998.

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

than they actually are. However, it takes considerable expertise to produce a well-crafted matching pair of snowshoes that are strong, lightweight, and balanced. Snowshoes are carefully crafted from start to finish as an identical pair, demanding that each finished snowshoe match the other in quality of chosen raw materials, size, shape, weight, and balance. They are made up of two primary materials: wood and rawhide (Fig. 92). The best material for making the frames is straightgrained white birch. The birch wood is procured in the same manner as noted in chapter 2 for harvesting staves of suitable birch wood for bow making; however, the wood is not cured and is worked while still green. Strong but light caribou babiche is preferred for the rawhide webbing in widths of both thin (3 mm) and thick (6 mm) configurations for separate applications. Each individual snowshoe wooden frame is composed of five separate pieces, two long frame pieces and three crossbar pieces. The frame pieces are carefully fashioned from rough square staves, approximately 5 cm wide, that are carved into long separate pieces worked smoothly down to a flattish oblong form configuration with rounded edges. At their widest cross section at the middle portion these are approximately 3.5  cm wide, tapering toward each end of the frame piece to approximately 2 cm at the toe end and 2.5 cm at the tail end. The length and thickness of each frame piece is calculated by using body measurements (Fig. 93B). The crossbar pieces are made by splitting rough blanks of straight-grained birch, approximately 4.5 cm wide by 15 mm thick, and then carving and working these into the finished size. The individual size and length of each of these three crossbar pieces are also predetermined by body measurements. The predetermined lengths of the three crossbar pieces dictate the finished width, size, and shape of the snowshoe by serving to join them together, producing four separated sections. The crossbars act as spreaders when mortised into the spliced, two-piece framework. In addition, the crossbar pieces provide stabilizing strength at high stress points, as well as delineate where the different applications of thin and thick babiche webbing panels are applied in four sections: toe, center, heel, and tail sections of the finished snowshoe frame (Fig. 93D.2, 3, 4, and A.3). The maker precalculates the placement of the mortise inlets to accommodate the three crossbar pieces, using his body measuring method, and cuts the mortises accordingly (Fig. 93B.2, 3, 4). The front toe portion of each frame piece is gently worked under the instep of the maker’s foot to begin curving the thinner wood at the extreme toe end to facilitate the rounded toe design of the finished snowshoe. Ultimately, the extreme front “toe” portions of each frame piece are spliced together forming a lap joint, using babiche wrapping to bind together equal, overlapping sections of wood,

Figure 93: Details of the Athabascan hunting snowshoe. (A) detail of frame, lateral view; (B) lateral view of snowshoe frame piece; (C) lateral view of assembled snowshoe; (D) superior view of snowshoe.

102

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

each with a notched inset to accept the adjoining piece (Fig. 93B.1, C.1, and D.1). The two long frame pieces are bent carefully backward toward the tail section to gradually form the distinctive rounded toe. The two larger crossbar pieces are placed into the mortised inlets cut into the frames near the center section of the overall snowshoe frame, near the toe and heel of the intended user’s actual foot placement on the finished babiche webbing (Fig. 93A.3, B.2, 3, and D.2, 3). The additional small stabilizing crossbar piece is mortised at the rear tail section near the joining of the tapered ends that form the tail piece of the finished snowshoe (Fig. 93B.4, D.4). The two long, identical frame pieces, when joined at the bent, rounded toe, now comprise the primary structural framework, forming the recognizable outline of the rounded-toe hunting snowshoe. The predetermined lengths of birch crossbar pieces when placed in the mortised rectangular inlets dictate the proper overall width of the finished snowshoe. The spliced and joined rounded frame pieces are brought together at the tail with all three of the crossbar pieces pre-placed in their respective adjoining mortised inlets. On each side of the finished frame the lines of the design go nearly straight back from the rounded toe portion to the front crossbar piece, and then begin to taper very gradually through the center portion of the finished frame to the second heel crossbar piece at the rear of the foot area. From there the frame continues to taper to the third and final tail-section crossbar piece. The two spliced frame pieces, together with their properly placed crossbar pieces, are then bound together with babiche at the extreme rear end of the frame, forming the tail of the snowshoe (Fig. 93D. 5). The rear tail-piece binding is never wrapped fully around with babiche as with the front toe lap joint. Instead, holes are bored through the mid-portion of the tail section and the babiche is threaded through and drawn tight, thus binding the pieces together on the top of the tail piece only (some makers prefer to use two holes for additional strength). These binding methods keep the bottom sole of the tail piece smooth and prevent the tail binding from becoming worn from usage or acting as a drag and impairing forward motion of the snowshoe, as would be the case were it wrapped fully around with babiche. This small construction detail minimizes friction and allows for the desirable smooth gliding movement of the snowshoes when used on hardpacked snow surfaces (Fig. 93A.5, B.5, C.3, and D.5). Ideally, the two finished frames are completely matched and identical in all aspects of form and construction. The maker then places the finished matching frames back to back and carefully binds them together temporarily with strips of split green willow wood intermittently placed around the superimposed frames. No split green willow binding is used past the front toe portion from about 10 cm to 15 cm in front of the toe crossbar piece to the end of the spliced, rounded toe. These portions of the frames are deliberately left unbound so the maker can later spread the frames to form the correct upturned toe. To form the distinctive upturned toe feature of the traditional hunting snowshoe is simple (Fig. 93C.1). The maker first carves a small piece of wood to work as a spreader (some makers use two spreader pieces). The spreader is notched at each end to accommodate the diameter of the finished center toe portion of each babichewrapped spliced and rounded snowshoe frame. The maker takes the bound-together frames and gently spreads the remaining unbound toe sections of the frames apart

Chapter 6: Artifacts Associated with Manufacturing

and places the notched spreader between the two frames at the center of the rounded toe of each frame to act as a prop. The tension of the spread-apart wooden frames keeps the spreader piece firmly in place. The cut length of the spreader piece is determined by the particular suppleness of the birch frame wood. In order to prevent undue stress or damage to the intended upturned section, several spreaders of successively longer lengths may be required to gradually gain the desired upturn. The finished toes should be about 15 cm from the snowshoe frame’s outer “sole” when placed on the ground to the tip of the elevated toe (Fig. 93C.1). Once the final spreader is in place, the bound pair of frames is set aside to dry and cure for at least a week. A hunter in a remote camp using only the traditional body measuring method could easily determine the proper length and width to make his own snowshoes that would correspond perfectly to his specific body size. There are eight primary body measurements used to craft snowshoes and other tools. These are as follows: 1. “one finger” (approx. 2.5 cm), the width of the single index finger; 2. “two fingers” (approx. 5 cm), the combined width of the index and second fingers; 3. “three fingers” (approx. 7 cm), the combined width of the index and second and third fingers; 4. “one hand” (approx. 9 cm), the width of the entire hand at the finger knuckles (Fig. 94); 5. “hand with thumb extended” (approx. 17 cm), the width of the hand with the addition of the thumb extended outward perpendicular to the hand (Fig. 95); 6. “two hands with thumbs extended short” (approx. 26 cm), the two hands placed together with the thumbs extended perpendicularly but tucked in, just touching one another (Fig. 96); 7. “two hands with thumbs extended long” (approx. 34 cm), two hands with the thumbs fully extended perpendicularly with the thumbs just touching one another (Fig. 97); and

Figure 96: Gwich’in body measurement: “two hands with thumbs extended short” (approx. 26 cm).

103

Figure 94: Gwich’in body measurement: “one hand” (approx. 9 cm).

Figure 95: Gwich’in body measurement: “hand with thumb extended” (approx. 17 cm).

Figure 97: Gwich’in body measurement: “two hands with thumbs extended long” (approx. 34 cm).

104

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

8. “elbow to finger” (approx. 48 cm), the span from the farthest point of the second finger of the hand to the extreme point of the elbow (Fig. 98). In 1998, Rev. Salmon and I examined snowshoes from the collections of the University of Alaska Museum of the North in Fairbanks. A pair of large traditional Interior Athabascan–type snowshoes was found that conveniently almost matched Rev. Salmon’s body measurements (Fig. 92). The following photographs show Rev. Salmon demonstrating the basic measurements required to make snowshoes (Figs. 99–105). The depicted scenario is misleading, because he is imposing the various body measurements on an already-made snowshoe. The measuring system is, rather, designed to determine the proper size of the birch wood raw materials and to dictate the length and placement of the two spliced side frames and the three mortised and tenon crossbar pieces comprising a single snowshoe’s wooden frame prior to assembly. The following descriptions are written from the perspective of a superior view of the material and finished product. The length of one finished frame piece prior to binding the lap joint at the toe is the combined body measurements of “one hand” plus “elbow to finger” plus “two hands with thumbs extended long” plus another “elbow to finger” plus “hand with thumb extended” plus another “one hand” (Fig. 93B). The center of the cut inlet mortise for the front toe crossbar piece is positioned at a distance of “one hand” plus “elbow to finger” (Fig. 100), measured from the extreme Figure 98: Gwich’in body measurement: “elbow to finger” (approx. 48 cm).

Figure 99: Gwich’in body measurement “elbow to finger” demonstrated on the front toe section of the snowshoe to determine the length of toe section frame above front crossbar mortise.

Figure 100 (top left): “One hand” plus “elbow to finger” demonstrated on the front toe section of the snowshoe, showing combined measurements to determine length of the toe section of frame above the front crossbar mortise. Figure 101 (top right): “Elbow to finger” demonstrated on the rear heel section of the snowshoe to determine the length of the heel section frame below the rear crossbar mortise. Figure 102 (middle left): “Elbow to finger” plus “hand with thumb extended” demonstrated on the heel section of the snowshoe, showing combined measurements to determine the length of the rear heel section frame below the rear crossbar mortise. Figure 103 (middle right): “One hand” demonstrated on the remaining tail piece section to be added to existing measurements of the heel section. Figure 104 (bottom left): “Two hands with thumbs extended short” demonstrated on the center section of the snowshoe determining proper width of the snowshoe at the front crossbar. Figure 105 (bottom right): “Two hands with thumbs extended long” demonstrated on the center section of the snowshoe lateral frame determining the spacing between front crossbar and rear crossbar pieces.

106

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

front toe end of the single frame piece. The cut mortise inlet for the second crossbar piece in the rear of the foot area is positioned at a distance of “two hands with thumbs extended long” (Fig. 105) from the center of the front cut mortise inlet. The mortise for the third small tail-section crossbar piece is positioned at “two hands with thumbs extended long” from the center of the cut inlet mortise of the second rear heel crossbar piece. The finished snowshoe width at the front toe crossbar piece is “two hands with thumbs extended short” (Fig. 104). The finished snowshoe width at the second crossbar piece is “one hand with thumb extended plus three fingers.” The finished snowshoe at the third tail-section crossbar piece is “one hand” wide plus another “one hand.” Rev. Salmon noted that he preferred a shorter snowshoe tail piece of “one hand” compared to the one depicted on our example snowshoe, stating that the shorter “one hand” tail piece helps the overall balance of the snowshoe (Fig. 103). The three finished crossbar pieces must have lengths that are slightly shorter than the prescribed total finished width measurements. This is because of the necessity to mortise and tenon the crossbar pieces into the inside frame of the snowshoe. The mortise slots are inletted only halfway into the sides of the frame pieces (Fig. 93A.1, 3). The crossbar pieces’ overall lengths are therefore determined by the depth of their respective mortise. Each crossbar piece functions as a tenon and is trimmed to tightly insert into each inletted mortise. The finished lengths of the trimmed crossbars are directly related to establishing the finished width of the snowshoe as dictated by the predetermined correct body measure. For example, therefore, for finished snowshoes that are required to be at the front crossbar “two hands with thumbs extended short” (approx. 26 cm), the actual length of the finished front crossbar to account for the inletted mortise and tenon would be approximately 23.5 cm, and the same circumstances apply respectively for the remaining two crossbars. Once the snowshoe frames are cured with the proper amount of upturn, via the spreader, the split green willow wood bindings are removed and the two individual snowshoes separated and examined for any inconsistencies. The holes are then bored into the inside snowshoe frame with the snowshoe gimlet to prepare them for the toe, heel, and tail babiche webbing panels (Fig. 93A.4 and B.7). The holes are bored in a V configuration and go no more than halfway through the frame wood (Fig. 93A.2). At this point, if desired, the maker can choose to dye the frames with red ochre, using the standard application method described earlier. The primary steps in snowshoe making are gender specific. The man harvests the wood materials and makes the entire frame as described above. The woman generally prepares all babiche. The man then threads a strong babiche thong through the holes bored in the perimeter of the frame’s toe, heel, and tail sections, creating a secure selvage for the woman to weave the intricate, thin babiche in and out, thus creating the distinctive fine diamond-pattern webbing. The woman finishes weaving the front toe, heel, and rear tail panel sections with the thinly prepared babiche (Fig. 93D.7, 8, and 9). The man next weaves the more robust center panel of the webbing, where the user’s foot rests, using the thicker babiche (Fig. 93D.6). In the center section of the snowshoe frame the holes are bored entirely through the sides of the frames to accommodate the thicker babiche thong back and forth completely through the frame (Fig. 93B.6 and C.2). The thicker babiche weave pattern in the center panel is

Chapter 6: Artifacts Associated with Manufacturing

linear and rectangular, differing significantly from the fine diamond pattern of the toe, heel, and tail panels. The front toe crossbar piece is sometimes split or has a small piece of wood added to act as a buffer to protect the thin babiche toe panel webbing from being exposed and getting worn by pivoting movement of the moccasin-clad toe of the snowshoe user at the front of the woven toe hole (Figs. 92 and 93D.10). Rev. Salmon also noted that sometimes as a final touch, the maker painted a line of ochre dots down the center of the front webbing of the snowshoe, from the extreme toe to the front crossbar, “to make the snowshoe pretty.” The design of the traditional Athabascan hunting snowshoe is practically flawless for traversing and negotiating the powdered snow conditions of the northern boreal forest. The snowshoes are bound on the user’s feet across the instep and around the heel with thongs of dressed moosehide secured at the top sides of the open toe hole, creating the balanced pivot point for each snowshoe. Here an intentionally open portion is woven into the babiche webbing design of the center panel, which allows the toe portion of the user’s bound moccasin-clad foot to dip downward when raising the snowshoe and allows a pivoting action for each stride (Fig. 93D.10). When the snowshoes are made correctly, the rear tail section is balanced in proportion to the front toe section, so that when the snowshoe user raises his leg, the snowshoe dips at the tail section and thus comes easily forward and elevates at a slight upward angle at the snowshoe’s front toe, and then, at the maximum height of the user’s stride, the snowshoe slightly levels just prior to immediately coming downward, parallel with the snow surface. This provides the optimal displacement of the snowshoe user’s weight upon the snow’s surface. Because of the well-conceived design, including incorporation of the extended upturned toe, with each stride made by the snowshoe user the snowshoe does not tip downward and dip into the snow, thereby potentially tripping the user. These design elements were essential for chasing down snow-mired large animals, such as moose and caribou, while armed with a hunting bow and arrows, and provided a distinct advantage to the snowshoe-clad hunter.

107

Figure 106: David Salmon with bow and arrow, Chalkyitsik, Alaska, 1942. Photo courtesy of Alaska State Library, Butler/Dale Photograph Collection, item P306-0156.

Conclusion

T

he goal of this book has been to accurately document Reverend David Salmon’s collection of implements in a comprehensive framework, revealing their histories, manufacture, and usage according to the man who made them. The result serves to further understanding of the intimate relationships between human, animal, and habitat that fostered the ancient, adaptive problem solving revealed in the form and function of these traditional artifact types. Rev. Salmon’s contribution demonstrates not just the extensive knowledge possessed by this remarkable Native elder, but also his personal commitment to keeping his cultural heritage alive. The majority of these implements have not survived in general use into this century. At the present time we find very few of them within the tool kits of Interior Athabascan households. Fortunately, Rev. Salmon had retained vital information that breathes life into many of these artifacts and gives us a glimpse of the life of his youth and the days of his ancestors. With the passing of Rev. Salmon and his generation of Interior Athabascans, we will have said our last farewell to those who with an indigenous perspective were witness to survival strategies of great antiquity and the processes of acculturation and the cultural transitions in the later contact period in Alaska’s interior. With this sad farewell comes the dawning realization that a truly significant event has occurred. Those who retained elements of knowledge in the ways that provided survival in this harsh portion of the New World will no longer be able to directly speak their wisdom to us. Nor will we have their personal perspectives on the dynamics of the transitions resulting from Euro-American contact. Will we remember their stories? Have we paid attention? Have we used this precious time wisely? Rev. Salmon was not haunted by questions such as these. The formalized methods of relating and remembering narratives and traditions as introduced to him by his father and other elders assured that this vital knowledge would not be taken lightly nor forgotten. Rev. Salmon continued throughout his entire life to fulfill his obligation to his forefathers. His implement collection, his teaching of his traditional cultural heritage, and this book are proof of his fidelity. Rev. Salmon often said, “I come from long life people,” meaning that in the course of the lifetimes of three men—his grandfather, his father, and himself—narratives 109

110

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

and traditions of significant antiquity effectively transcended time. If we correlate these men’s approximate birth dates to significant historic events in the larger collective framework of American history, we have Rev. Salmon’s grandfather, King Salmon (1808?–1898), born just a few years after the return of the Lewis and Clark expedition from the Pacific coast to St. Louis, and a couple of years before the American and British War of 1812. His father, William Salmon (1858?–1950), was born at a time of mounting national turmoil in a republic divided, just a few years before the American Civil War erupted. Finally, Rev. Salmon (1912–2007) was born the year the great ocean liner Titanic sank and two years before World War I, the “war to end all wars,” began. Surely we must give pause to understand the significance of this: Rev. Salmon spoke with authority regarding knowledge of considerable time depth. This book was conceived with the idea of giving voice to one specific Native elder regarding his own created artifacts: this has been done. As stated in the Introduction, I intentionally refrained from any comparative framework. This is not to say that such an agenda would not have proved beneficial—it most certainly could have. But within that framework of referencing and cross-referencing facts and assumptions, the competing information could serve to diminish the voice of David Salmon, the artist and craftsman, placing his specific knowledge of cultural particulars regarding his own created artifacts into a vast sea of diverse opinions. It was not Rev. Salmon’s wish to have this story told in that manner, nor was it mine. Rev. Salmon related that many wonderful and knowledgeable old Native elders and their “good stories” were lost during the tragic epidemics in the mid-1920s in Alaska’s interior. He further contends that, due to the loss of these many orthodox Native elders, the processes of acculturation proceeded swiftly in the 1930s. His world was vastly different by the coming of World War II. Had his father not had the foresight to remove him from the village lifestyle to the isolation of a remote trapline home, Rev. Salmon probably would not have survived and, if he had, the distractions of the village life and time consumed with wage labor would have distanced him from his father’s mentoring and much precious knowledge would have been lost. I am certain that in this twenty-first century, it will become increasingly apparent that Rev. Salmon’s efforts have made significant contributions for us all (Fig. 106). Rev. Salmon said, “I knew that if I didn’t make the tools that they would just stay back there to be forgotten. Elders talk about tools and the old ways, but what is in their hand when they speak? How can the young people learn without seeing the tool? The Athabascan way is to teach by showing you, then when you see you will learn. That is why when I speak about a tool it must be in my hand. That is how it always was; that is how it should be.”

Reflections on the Partnership

M

any social scientists caution against fieldworkers attaching themselves too closely to their subject of study. I have through the years had several high-profile cultural anthropologists, with the best intentions, advise me about the pitfalls of doing so. I accept that in many circumstances maintaining the proper ethnographic “distance” is the logical option and certainly it is the time-proven method in a vast majority of fieldwork scenarios, but not all. The way that David Salmon and I worked together as close friends and partners worked for us. This approach may not work for everybody, and certainly is not being proposed as a “one size fits all” model, but it worked well for us. This book was intended from its conception to be both particular and descriptive. Therefore, as noted in the introduction and conclusion, my task was not to try to second-guess Rev. Salmon or attempt to determine whether he was correct or incorrect on any given piece of information he shared. Verifying what he had to say was never the issue. My challenge was to make sure I totally understood him so that I could accurately relay what he told me. The information documented was from his perspective. For me to do that effectively, it was essential that I know him extremely well. Even though Rev. Salmon “informed” me on a multitude of things, I never regarded him as an “informant”; he was much more than that to me. David was my friend, partner, and mentor. After many years of working together, he told me that I probably knew him as well as anybody ever had. He confided many things to me about his life and the oral history of his region of Alaska, some of which he had never shared before with another person, and it was an honor to be his trusted friend and confidant. Each of us had many obligations and took on too many responsibilities, which often encumbered our opportunities to work together. I am convinced that without the strong friendship we developed, the workloads and related stress that each of us bore would have ultimately derailed our collaborative documentary process despite our best intentions.

111

112

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

The following section briefly outlines some of the key factors that significantly contributed toward building our friendship and attempts to give the reader some understanding of the intentions of the partners and our dedication to our mutual endeavor.

Committing to Friendship and Partnering

Figure 107: Rev. Salmon (left), author (center), and author’s son Jack (right) camping on a gravel beach of Black River, below Salmon Fork River, June 2001.

At the very onset of our working together, I was deeply impressed with Rev. Salmon, not only as an obvious expert in the traditional cultural knowledge of his region but also as a person. We found out quickly that we both wanted the same thing—to document and preserve his contributions. For these reasons I not only committed myself to documenting Rev. Salmon’s cultural knowledge, but also sought to become his friend and assist him personally in any manner I could. Rev. Salmon was eightytwo years old when we began our relationship, with English as his second language and his home in a rural village far from the urban center. I realized that I could be of assistance to him whenever he came to the city, and so I offered my services to him unconditionally as I would my own father. Throughout the years it generally went very well; of course, sometimes situations were impromptu or things got hectic, but we managed to make it work and I never regretted my determination to commit to that extent in our relationship. Thus, in the more than eleven years that we actively worked together and the many hundreds of hours we shared, perhaps only thirty percent of our time together was actually related to our documentary work. The remainder was sharing time together as friends and engaging in the often-mundane chores and burdens of daily living. When Rev. Salmon came to town important things unrelated to our work demanded our time and effort, such as medical checkups, grocery shopping, churchrelated work, holiday shopping, or getting his taxes done. Despite our individual schedules, we always tried to set aside time to come together for work. Sometimes we could schedule a week or two, with either him coming to Fairbanks or me going out to Chalkyitsik, but more often we might only have two or three days or maybe even just a few hours. The important thing was that we connected. The longer periods spent together always proved to be the best, when Rev. Salmon spent time with my family in our home, and it was always special. The whole family, including my wife and three children, loved him (Fig. 107).

Common Ground and Partnership Rev. Salmon and I had a fortythree-year age difference. We were reared in completely different eras

Reflections on the Partnership

and vastly different cultures, yet we hit it off right from the start. We quickly found we shared a variety of mutual interests and commonalities at many levels. Through the years, many people commented on the unique nature of our relationship. I contend that it was the common ground we shared, both personal and professional, that was the catalyst for the development of a close friendship and successful, long-term cross-cultural collaboration. In short, we were a good match (Fig. 108). That is not to say we did not occasionally have disagreements or differ in work expectations or outcomes; we did, but considering the many years we closely worked together, these incidences were extremely rare. Some key elements or common ground that helped to build our friendship and strengthen our working relationship came from similarities in life experiences and compatible intellectual interests. To begin with, we had both been wilderness trappers with a love for history and the northern woodsman’s tradition. As a youth, Rev. Salmon had no choice but to pursue a subsistence-based lifestyle, becoming a consummate trapper and woodsman, and he did so in the early twentieth century when trapping was still the mainstay economy within his region. He was taught the trade in the old traditions of the north by one of the best, his father. Old-timers such as Rev. Salmon and his father forgot more about living off the land than most of us could ever learn in two lifetimes. On the other hand, I was stimulated at an early age with ideas of trapping and subsistence living when hearing stories told by my paternal grandfather, who had trapped fur and hunted wild game for the market in the late 1890s in the northern Midwest, and by reading histories of the North American fur-trade era. I ultimately sought out those same traditions and chose to live for thirteen years as a subsistence hunter and trapper. I was self-taught through trial and error, using for the most part my own handcrafted equipment, clothing, and nonmechanized modes of transportation such as canoe, work dogs, horses, pack board, and snowshoe. Although Rev. Salmon and I never met in my trapping days during the 1970s and 1980s, I did live and work the year-round in remote portions of the traditional Gwich’in homeland, not too far removed from Rev. Salmon’s village residence and old trapping grounds. Thus, I garnered a reasonable knowledge of the landscape, plants, animals, and Native people of that portion of the interior of Alaska. Later, when seeking my degree in anthropology, it was natural that I would specialize in the ethnohistory of the interior region and most specifically the Gwich’in people. By the time I met Rev. Salmon, I had acquired an adequate knowledge of his region and the history of the nineteenth- and early twentieth-century fur-trade economy of the Porcupine River drainage. Rev. Salmon valued my life experiences and the focus of my academic orientation.

113

Figure 108: Rev. Salmon and the author enjoying some sunshine in Rev. Salmon’s front yard in Chalkyitsik, Alaska, June 2001.

114

Figure 109: Author and Rev. Salmon building a traditional Athabascan birch bark canoe at Alaska Native Heritage Center, July 2000.

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

He and I both agreed that urban living paled in comparison with the secluded trapper’s life in the deep woods, despite the many dangers and spartan realities, primarily because of the peace and serenity the vigorous wilderness lifestyle yields to one’s body and soul. He often referred to the isolation of the deep woods as the “healing place.” We both enjoyed working with our hands crafting traditional items for use and beauty, and agreed on the importance of the safe use of tools and the proper selection of materials. We had different orientations, so often we preferred different styles and techniques. We would discuss the merits and failings of given designs of such things as winter clothing, snowshoes, toboggan sleds, dog harnesses, or trapping and fur-handling methods. I freely confess that his traditional methods and designs were generally the most practical and overall the most functional. One could say that he and his ancestors had worked all the bugs out in the past ten thousand years (Fig. 109). Rev. Salmon dedicated the majority of his life to serving God, and his interest in the history and development of Christianity meshed nicely with my own. Being a man of the cloth, his personal faith and devotions were paramount to him. Rev. Salmon did not just preach religion according to Episcopal doctrine, but lived his faith daily, demonstrating to all who knew him the earnestness of his calling (Fig. 110). I had been reared a Roman Catholic and was confirmed in that faith. As a young boy I was devout and had even fancied notions of becoming a Franciscan monk or Jesuit. Ultimately, I had many questions regarding the rigid structure of formalized religion and I quit practicing Catholicism or interacting within the structure of a formal church and congregation around sixteen years of age. However, I retained a keen interest in the history and development of the Christian church. During my subsistence-based years in the mountains and woods, I evolved a personal form of Christian-based worship that suited me and my family in that isolated life. Rev. Salmon and I understood one another and agreed that the stark realities of working in a natural landscape combined with the serenity of solitude allow one to continually contemplate throughout one’s daily toil, without undue stress and distractions, and lend themselves to soul searching. Arguably, it is less difficult in the solitude of the wilderness to attribute your daily subsistence, safety, and health as being direct blessings from a generous God than to draw those same conclusions in the complexities of an urban environment detached from nature and the challenges of basic subsistence living. I had few books at my trapping home, but one of them was always a Bible and so I read the Bible many times and became adequately versed in Judeo-Christian doctrine. Later, as a scholar I developed a decent collection of works on the study of Christianity and comparative world religions. When I taught introductory

Figure 110: Mark L. MacDonald, bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Alaska (left), Rev. Frank (center), and Rev. Salmon (right) at the service of the anniversary of his ordination in St. Timothy’s church, Chalkyitsik, Alaska, June 2001.

Figure 111: Rev. Salmon documenting oral history at the author’s university office, 2002.

116

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

anthropology courses at the University of Alaska Fairbanks I generally scheduled several weeks of lecture per semester to explore comparative religion (Fig. 111). Our similar interests in religion provided for more common ground. We often discussed the various interpretations of biblical scripture and their historical impacts and outcomes, as well as discussed aspects of the world’s various religions in a comparative framework. Rev. Salmon had in his home a good personal library of theology and was very well informed in the history and development of Christianity. Although not having had opportunity in his youth for adequate primary schooling, he later overcame this obstacle at home with his wife, Sarah, teaching him to read and write in English. Remarkably, in the course of his obtaining Episcopal priesthood he attended out-of-state seminary training despite his lack of formal education. This is another indication of the extraordinary qualities others recognized in this man. Rev. Salmon could sometimes be stubborn, and his firm religious convictions were the compass that guided his course in life. He did not waver from his course and when his mind was made up, it was generally final. After many years of working closely together, he told me that he would like to adopt me into his family in the traditional Athabascan way. However, this was contingent on my being “born again,” meaning the requirement of a reaffirmation on my part to embrace Christianity in the evangelical mode. I was deeply honored, but also saddened by his unyielding stance on this precondition to the honor he had offered me, as it conflicted with my personal beliefs regarding the role of baptism and evoking of the mysteries of the sacred spirit of God. In retrospect, I guess we both could be stubborn to a fault. Rev. Salmon was firm in his convictions, but he was anything but narrow-minded. To the contrary, he was fascinated with natural phenomena and stimulated by scientific inquiry in the style of classical liberalism and the Enlightenment. He was an extremely intelligent man with a keen turn of mind that effectively digested complex information, sorting and grasping the essence of the topic at hand. Quite simply, he loved to challenge his mind and entertain and learn new things, even though they might conflict with his own core beliefs. In the fall of 1994, when I first began working with Rev. Salmon, we were doing archaeological survey fieldwork in the meadows near his home. I can still see him like it was yesterday with a rucksack on his back, high-power bolt-action rifle slung at his shoulder, and using the long-handle spade as a toh, or walking staff. At eighty-two years old, there he was with his crumpled black cap set at a jaunty angle on his head, trudging through tussocks,and stepping over burned black spruce slash digging test holes! After hours of walking and digging he paused, leaning on his shovel, and stated, “You know, as young boy I went to mission school in Fort Yukon. I first learn of dinosaur there . . . at the mission school I look at the book and see the picture of dinosaur . . . I really like it. I tell my father about them but he won’t believe it. I would like to find old bone . . . dinosaur or something like that.” Then he chuckled. We took a break, made a small fire, and between coffee and snacks we discussed the prevailing schools of thought pertaining to the end of the Cretaceous period, around sixty-five million years ago, the demise of dinosaurs, and the emergence of mammals. After thoughtful consideration, he looked directly at me most earnestly with a hint of a smile in his eyes and speculated, “Maybe God use something like that as tool in his creation of all things. We do not know how He do it . . . much of God’s work is mystery. Maybe

Reflections on the Partnership

117

how we think about ‘time’ is not the same for God as man? Tom, what you think?” I nodded at his insights and admitted that I suspected he might be right, and we earnestly discussed the topic throughout the remainder of the day. We had been looking for some physical evidence of human occupation within a specific area to potentially correlate field findings with his oral history. I noted occasional depressions in the ground here and there, which looked like old test holes, and I asked him about them (Fig. 112). “Oh those are old hole I dig over twenty year ago looking for bone, same as you and me do today,” he said. He laughed softly, threw another spade of dirt, and raised his voice loudly, proclaiming, “Oh glory to God . . . it is good to live!” That was the type of wonderful man he was.

Lasting Commitments Rev. Salmon and I were partners. It will always be a source of sorrow for me that he did not live to see this book in print or any future publications from the work we did together. I know he was greatly disappointed that our work remained unpublished. He said he understood the reasons why and he accepted the circumstances, but it couldn’t have been easy for him. We had an agreement of understanding regarding the use of all materials resulting from our collaborations, but we never made contracts formally addressing how any proceeds from future publications would be allocated. We did, however, shake hands, and that was enough. There generally is not much money ultimately garnered from this form of social science–related publication, but there will be some. Now that my dear friend has passed on, it is important that I honor his memory with action and not just word. I contacted his family in Chalkyitsik and informed them that as Rev. Salmon and I were partners in life, so shall it be in death, and that fifty percent of all profits, after taxes, from this work or any of my “David Salmon” related research that I may publish in the future will be annually given to his family as long as profits are generated. Thus, his family and mine will continue to be partners and share together a small part of the product of the friendship and partnership we had.

Figure 112: Rev. Salmon excavating a test hole near Chalkyitsik, Alaska, 1994.

APPENDIX I

Glossary

Artificial sinew

A strong waxed nylon thread having the appearance of actual sinew. Sold in craft supply stores.

Babiche

A thong cut from an undressed dehaired animal hide in a circular pattern producing one long, continuous thong.

Back

The outer side of the bow surface, which is held away from the archer.

Backed bow

A bow strengthened by the addition of a strong, resilient substance adhered to the back.

Belly

The inner side of the bow’s surface, which is held toward the archer.

Bowyer

A person who makes bows.

Bracing

The action of stringing a bow.

Cast

The determined resiliency of a bow; the maximum distance it will throw an arrow.

Crooked knife

A wood-carving knife generally made with a straight steel blade curved tightly upward at the extreme distal tip. A handle of wood or antler is secured at an oblique angle to the blade. It is generally held in the right hand, palm upward, and the carver pulls the knife blade toward himself. The angle of the handle allows the blade to be drawn back comfortably with good control, shaving off fine strips of material. It essentially acts as a singlehanded draw knife/spoke shave etc. for shaping a variety of wooden objects.

Draw

The optimal length on a given bow to draw the arrow.

Dressed skin or hide A skin or hide that has been processed into soft leather; sometimes referred to as “smoked-tanned.” Flaked stone burin A pointed tool of flint or stone made by removing from a preformed blank one or more flakes of material creating a transverse (chisel type) cutting edge. Used for incising or engraving hard surfaces of antler, bone, and ivory. Fletching

The feathering of an arrow.

Follow the string

The condition in which a bow retains a partial or full strung position when relaxed.

Footed arrow

An arrow having a foreshaft.

Foreshaft

A hard material secured to the distal end of an arrow shaft to form a permanent composite shaft.

Limbs

The two flexing arm portions of a bow on both sides of the grip; see lower limb, upper limb. 119

120

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Long-line

Referring to a very remote and extensive wilderness trapline (see Trapline).

Lower limb

The lower arm that forms the lower portion of a bow.

Mortise

A hole or slot cut into wood to accept the projecting tenon to be inserted tightly to form a joint.

Nock

The notches cut at the distal end of each limb of a bow to secure the string. In addition, the notch cut at the proximal end of an arrow shaft to hold the bowstring.

Nocking

Placing the arrow nock on the bowstring.

Relaxed

The condition of a bow that is unstrung and not ready for its intended use.

Release

The manner in which an arrow is held while drawing. In addition, to release the bowstring and arrow.

Self bow

A bow fashioned from one piece of material, generally wood.

Shaft

The linear body of an arrow.

Skin house

The dome-shaped moose or caribou hide tent traditionally used by Interior Athabascans.

Spine

The perceived combination of stiffness and limberness of a specific arrow.

Stave

A long, narrow piece of wood often used as a preform for an object intended to be carved.

Tackle

All paraphernalia used by an archer.

Tenon

The protruding portion of a piece of wood or other material that is inserted into a cut mortise hole or slot to form a tight joint.

Tillering

The technique of balancing the limbs of a bow to produce a uniform bend.

Trackline

To haul a canoe or boat upriver against the current with a length of rope or line.

Trapline

The physical territory of a specific trapper. Also, a single or series of routes, a path, trail, or specific watercourse etc. where a trapper sets traps for catching furbearing animals.

Upper limb

The upper arm that forms the upper portion of the bow.

Vane

An individual split feather; a segment of the material comprising the fletching of an arrow.

Weight

The number of pounds of force it takes on a given bow to draw an arrow its full length.

This glossary was compiled partially using subject matter from Laubin and Laubin, American Indian Archery, 1980, pp. 169–170, and from Reichart and Keasey, Archery, 1936, pp. 16–23.

APPENDIX II

Gwich’in Nomenclature Chapter 1: General Information Associated with the Artifacts Antler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ch’ijì’ Babiche . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tł’il Birch bark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k’ii Bone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tth’an Feather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tsuh Ochre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tsaih Sinew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .k’ih Chapter 2: Artifacts Associated with Hunting Tanned (dressed) skin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ch’adhah inghii Bone spear for grizzly bear, Yukon Flats style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tth’an tòh “Little Owl” rabbit throwing stick . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ch’ikiidruu or dachan ch’iłkhoo Birch wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .aat’oo tak Spruce pitch/gum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dzìh Whitefish eggs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .łuk daagąįį k’yų’ Caribou signaling tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ch’ijiik’àn Notches on the caribou signaling tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vanàn dîilt’uu, ch’ijiitł’uu Shoulder blade for moose calling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ch’igèechàn The boy’s bow (5–10 years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tr’iinin k’iłtài’ tsal Without bowstring stopper crosspiece . . . . . . . . . . . .vintł’ee gooch’aa’ąįį kwàa Practice bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k’iłtài’ tł’yaa ts’ik giyaa googwaa’èe The boy’s practice arrow (5–10 years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . dachan tàł tsal The youth’s bow (10–15 years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .jii chyaatsal shriit’ahtsii eenjit dinjii heelyaa gwats’ą’ k’iłtài’ Bowstring stopper crosspiece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .chyaatsal k’iłtài’ Bowstring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . geegooch’aa’ąįį k’iłtài’ tł’yàa The youth’s arrows (10–15 years) Arctic Village region youth’s blunter arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .tàł ch’ok Yukon Flats region youth’s blunter arrow . . . . tth’an tàł tsàl or tr’iinin nąįį tàł or Gwichyaa Gwich’in nąįį tàł Arctic Village region youth’s twisted-tip blunter arrow . . . . . . .nitsin nahodoo tth’an tàł The man’s bow (15 years–adult) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . deenaadài’ dinjii k’iłtài’ 121

122

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Bowstring stopper crosspiece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vingeegooch’aa’ąįį Bowstring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k’iłtài’ tł’yàa Back of the bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .k’iłtài’ t’įį Belly of the bow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k’iłtài’ vat Nock of the bow (for bowstring) k’iłtài’ tsii or k’iłtài’ tsal or k’iłtài’ tł’yaa ts’ik The man’s arrows Arrow nock (where bowstring goes) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k’iłtài’ vintł’eegoo Arrow vanes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . jii t’eh Eagle feather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ch’izhìn t’èe Hawk feather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .shrii choo t’èe or chii chan t’èe Raven feather . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . deetryą’ t’èe Any completed arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k’ì’ Arrow shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k’ì’ Distal end (point) of arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . k’iłtài’ tsii Hafted portion of arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .k’iłtài’ tał dàatł’ìi Black dye for wooden objects, e.g., striped designs on bows and arrows . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tsaih azhrąįį Arctic Village region man’s blunter arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .tàł ch’ok Yukon Flats region man’s blunter arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gwichyaa Zheh tàł or Gwichyaa Zheh gootàł or Gwichyaa Zheh gwik’ì’ tàł Yukon Flats region man’s metal blunter arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ch’iitsii tàł Birch Creek region man’s single-pronged fancy water arrow . . . . shrat or chųų k’ì’ Birch Creek region man’s single-pronged water arrow . . . . . . . . . . .shrat ts’idiit’ya’ Birch Creek region man’s bone two-pronged water arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . .tth’an gòł Yukon Flats region man’s metal two-pronged water arrow . . . . . . . . . . . ch’iitsii gòł Eagle region man’s bone hunting arrow. . Han Gwich’in (Kiit’òodląįį) gwatth’an k’ì’ Arctic Village region man’s notched hunting arrow Neets’ąįį Gwich’in tth’an k’ì’ Crow Flats region man’s hunting arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tth’an k’iin’ąįį k’ì’ (Vantah Gwich’in nąįį k’ì’) Man’s iron trade arrow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ch’iitsii k’ì’ Man’s leaf-shaped iron trade arrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ch’iitsii k’ì’ Leaf-shaped pattern. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ch’at’àn Barbs on arrow point edge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vatł’ąįį Chapter 3: Artifacts Associated with Fishing Bone ice chisel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tth’an łuu dzyàh Bone hooks Mouth hook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tth’an jàł Throat hook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tth’an jàł Fish hole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . jàł k’ it Fish spear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ch’eedąįį Center spike prong. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ch’eedąįį zhit ch’iitsii ch’ok Tine prongs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ch’eedąįį tth’an vìltł’ii Wide flat area on the distal hafted end of the shaft handle . . . . . . ch’eedąįį tài’ Angled serrated splice in the two-piece handle . . . . . . . . . . . tth’an ch’ee ehdąįį King salmon dip net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . łuk choo dèetł’yàa

Appendix II: Gwich’in Nomenclature

Chapter 4: Artifacts Associated with General and Special Purposes Caribou leg bone knife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tth’an shrii The Athabascan staff of life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . toh Rain chaser . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .zhee zhrįh Chapter 5: Artifacts Associated with Gaming Caribou toe game or “Grandpa’s Heel” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ditsii kwaihtàl Perforated leather tab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ch’itrìn chyaa Caribou toe bones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vadzaih kwaiits’àt Cone-shaped stick game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . nilèerok Pulling stick game. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .dachan vàa nihk’yàa tr’ahìindak Chapter 6: Artifacts Associated with Manufacturing Moose leg bone skinner Yukon Flats style . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . nehtthaa The tooth edge of the skinner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . gwanàn dîilt’uu veek’ì’ Handle portion of the skinner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vatr’oontà’ deek’ìt Tanana River style skinner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tanan Gwinjik gwinèhtthaa Caribou hind leg scraper or beaming tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ch’ik’yàa Flaked/stone burin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tł’yah Bone puncher/awl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tth’an tthah Snowshoe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aih Bone snowshoe needle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tth’an aih val Snowshoe gimlet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ts’ii ghò’ Cross-piece . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ch’antah Snowshoe frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aih shin Webbing holes bored in frame . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . shał k’it Fine webbing, toe and heel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . aih ghat Broad center webbing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kwaih łąįį Sleevage babiche along inner frame. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . tl’il ts’ik Thong foot strap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ch’yah Measuring with the hands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . danlì’ hàa yach’oohaadrì’

Note: Nomenclature for chapters 1–6 transcribed by Kathy R. Sikorski. Additional snowshoe terms in chapter 6 courtesy of James M. Kari and Simon Francis.

123

Bibliography Blackmore, Howard L. 1971 Hunting Weapons. Barrie and Jenkins, London. Cantwell, J. C. 1902 Report of the Operations of the U.S. Revenue Steamer Nunivak on the Yukon River Station, Alaska, 1899–1901. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Coon, Carleton S. 1971 The Hunting Peoples. Little, Brown and Company, Boston. Culin, Stewart 1975 Games of the North American Indians. Dover, New York. Dall, William H. 1870 Alaska and Its Resources. Lee and Shepard, Boston. Damas, David, ed. 1984 Arctic. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 5. W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Davidson, Daniel Sutherland 1937 Snowshoes. Memoirs of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 6. Lancaster Press, Lancaster, PA. Duncan, Kate C., and Eunice Carney 1988 A Special Gift: The Kutchin Beadwork Tradition. University of Washington Press, Seattle. Fitzhugh, William W., and Aron Crowell 1988 Crossroads of Continents: Cultures of Siberia and Alaska. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, DC. Hadleigh-West, F. 1963 The Netsi Kutchin: An Essay in Human Ecology. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Louisiana State University. 125

126

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Hardisty, William L. 1867 The Loucheux Indians. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Helm, June, ed. 1981 Subarctic. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 6. W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Jones, Strachan 1867 The Kutchin Tribes. Annual Report for 1866. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Kirby, W. W. 1872 A Journey to the Youcan, Russian America. Annual Report for 1864. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Kluckhohn, Clyde, W. W. Hill, and Lucy Wales Kluckhohn 1971 Navaho Material Culture. Belknap, Cambridge, MA. Krech, Shepard, III 1981 Indians, Animals and the Fur Trade: A Critique of Keepers of the Game. University of Georgia Press, Athens. Laubin, Reginald, and Gladys Laubin 1980 American Indian Archery. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman. Lee, Richard B., Irven DeVore, and Jill Nash 1968 Man the Hunter. Aldine, Chicago. Mails, Thomas E. 1972 The Mystic Warriors of the Plains. Doubleday, New York. McKennan, Robert A. 1959 The Upper Tanana Indians. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, no. 55. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, CT. 1965 The Chandalar Kutchin. Technical Paper, no. 17. Arctic Institute of North America, Montreal. Miles, Charles 1986 Indian and Eskimo Artifacts of North America. American Legacy Press, New York. (Orig. pub. 1963.) Mishler, Craig, ed. 1995 Neerihiinjik: We Traveled from Place to Place. Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Morse, Edward S. 1922 Additional Notes on Arrow Release. Peabody Museum, Salem, MA. Mueller, Richard, and Lillian Garnett 1994 Western Gwich’in Topical Dictionary, Project Draft. Alaska Native Language Center and Summer Institute of Linguistics, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Bibliography

Murray, Alexander Hunter 1910 Journal of the Yukon, 1847–48. Publications of the Canadian Archives, no. 4. Ottawa. Nelson, Richard K. 1973 Hunters of the Northern Forest: Designs for Survival among the Alaskan Kutchin. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1983 The Athabaskans: People of the Boreal Forest. Graphic Services, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Ogilvie, William 1889 Exploratory Survey: Of Part of the Lewes, Tat-on-Duc, Porcupine, Bell, Trout, Peel, and Mackenzie Rivers. Department of the Interior, Ottawa, Canada. Osgood, Cornelius 1936 Contributions to the Ethnography of the Kutchin. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, no. 14. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 1940 Ingalik Material Culture. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, no. 22. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. 1971 The Han Indians: A Compilation of Ethnographic and Historical Data on the Alaska-Yukon Boundary Area. Yale University Publications in Anthropology, no. 74. Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, CT. Oxendine, Joseph B. 1988 American Indian Sports Heritage. Human Kinetics Books, Champaign, IL. Peter, Katherine 2001 Khehkwaii Zheh Gwiich’i’, Living in the Chief’s House. Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 1992 Living in the Chandalar Country. Alaska Native Language Center, University of Alaska Fairbanks. 1979 Dinjii Zhuh Ginjik Nagwan Tr’iłtsąįį, Gwich’in Junior Dictionary. National Bilingual Materials Development Center, Anchorage. Pitts, Roger S. 1972 The Changing Settlement Patterns and Housing Types of the Upper Tanana Indians. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Raboff, Adeline Peter 2001 Iñuksuk: Northern Koyukon, Gwich’in and Lower Tanana, 1800–1901. Alaska Native Knowledge Network, Fairbanks, Alaska. Raymond, Charles W. 1871 Report of a Reconnaissance of the Yukon River, Alaska Territory July to September 1869. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Reichart, Natalie, and Gilman Keasey 1936 Archery. A. S. Barnes, New York.

127

128

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

Schmitter, Ferdinand 1910 Upper Yukon Native Customs and Folklore. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, vol. 56, no. 4. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. Semenov, S. A. 1964 Prehistoric Technology: An Experimental Study of the Oldest Tools and Artefacts from Traces of Manufacture and Wear. Cory, Adams and Mackay, London. Simeone, William E. 1982 A History of Alaskan Athapaskans: A History of Alaskan Athapaskans Including a Description of Athapaskan Culture and a Historical Narrative, 1785–1971. Alaska Historical Commission, Anchorage. Simeone, William E., and James W. VanStone 1986 “And He Was Beautiful”: Contemporary Athapaskan Material Culture in the Collections of Field Museum of Natural History. Fieldiana: Anthropology n.s., 10. Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago. Slobodin, Richard 1962 Band Organization of the Peel River Kutchin. National Museum of Canada Bulletin no. 179, Anthropological Series no. 55. Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, Ottawa. Steinbright, Jan 2001 Qayaqs and Canoes: Native Ways of Knowing. Alaska Native Heritage Center, Anchorage. Thompson, Judy 1972 Preliminary Study of Traditional Kutchin Clothing in Museums. National Museum of Man Mercury Series Papers, no. 1. Ethnology Division, National Museums of Canada, Ottawa. 1994 From the Land: Two Hundred Years of Dene Clothing. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Quebec. Turner, J. Henry 1893 The Boundary North of Fort Yukon. The National Geographic Magazine 4(1892):189–197. The National Geographic Society, Washington, DC. VanStone, James W. 1974 Athapaskan Adaptations: Hunters and Fishermen of the Subarctic Forests. Aldine, Chicago. Vitt, Ramon B. 1971 Hunting Practices of the Upper Tanana Athapaskans. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of Alaska Fairbanks. Whymper, Frederick 1869 Travel and Adventure in the Territory of Alaska. Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York.

Index A acculturation, 109, 110 Alaska Anthropological Association, xix, xxvii Alaska Native Heritage Center, xxxi antler puncher points, 97 antlers, 1, 3, 8, 10, 17, 18, 20, 25, 34, 36, 37, 45, 48, 53, 55, 57, 59, 66, 68–72, 96–98 aquatic animals, 31, 41, 53 archery. See bows and arrows Arctic Red River, xxii Arctic Village region, xx–xxi, 22, 25, 36–37, 45, 57 Man’s Blunter Arrow (tàł ch’ok), 40, 41, 45, 46, 49 Man’s Notched Hunting Arrow (Neets’ąįį Gwich’in tth’an k’ì’), 57, 58, 59 arrows. See bows and arrows Athabascan Staff of Life (toh), 81–82, 116 Athabascan Tools from the Skin House Days exhibit, xxvii

B babiche, 4, 10, 17–18, 32, 39, 41, 66, 68, 71–72, 75, 78, 82, 83, 85, 92, 96, 97, 100, 102, 106–107 beaming tools, 93–95 Bible, 114 big game animals, 26–27, 30, 41, 55, 57, 59. See also caribou; grizzly bears; moose bindings, 10, 31, 45, 59, 66, 71–72, 79, 94, 102, 104, 106 birch, 8, 20–21, 66, 70, 72, 90, 92–94, 97, 102–104 bark, xxiv, xxxi, 2, 4, 30, 75, 96, 114 white birch, 30, 35, 39, 82, 100

Birch Creek region, xxii Deenduu Gwich’in of the, xxi–xxiii, 4, 22, 53 Man’s Bone Two-Pronged Water Arrow (tth’an gòł), 52, 53, 55 Man’s Single-Pronged Fancy Water Arrow (shrat), 41, 50, 53, 55 Man’s Single-Pronged Water Arrow (shrat ts’idiit’ya’), 41, 51, 53 birds, 21, 48, 53 Black River region, xxii Dranjik Gwich’in of the, xxii–xxiii, 4 body part measuring system, 98–107, 103–105 bone, 1–4, 7, 10, 53, 55, 65, 66, 68, 70, 79, 85–86, 91, 92, 94, 96, 97, 116, 117 bone hooks (tth’an jàł), 68–69 Bone Ice Chisel (tth’an łuu dzyàh), 65–67, 70 Bone Puncher/Awl (tth’an tthah), 96, 97 Bone Snowshoe Needle (tth’an aih val), 96–97 Bone Spear for Grizzly Bear Hunting, Yukon Flats Style (tth’an tòh), 7–12 boreal forests, 96 boring tools, 68 bows and arrows archery training, 21–22, 24–25, 27, 32–34, 41 blunter arrows, 36–37, 40–41, 45, 46–48, 49, 63 boy’s bow and arrow, 21, 24–26, 32, 33–35 David Salmon with, 108 drawing the bow, 28, 29 general information on, 20–21 grip of the bow, 29 hunting arrows, 56, 58–60 129

130

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

iron trade arrow, 61–63 lowering the bow, 28 man’s bow and arrow, 21, 30, 39, 41–46, 48, 49, 53–63 “Mediterranean” method of release, 25, 26–27, 29 nocking the arrow, 28 practice arrows, 35 production and maintenance of, 30–32 proper stance, 23 targets for, 24 training and technique, 24–25, 27, 30, 36 in use, 21–24 water arrows, 50–52, 54, 55 youth’s bow and arrow, 21, 25, 26, 27, 36–40 bowyers, 30–31 Boy’s Bow—For Ages Five to Ten (tr’iinin k’iłtài’tsal), 32 Boy’s Practice Arrow—For Ages Five to Ten (dachan tàł tsal), 32–34 butcher knives, 94

C canoes, xxxi, xxxii, 2, 25, 75, 77, 114 caribou, xx, 15, 17–18, 20, 23, 41, 55, 57, 59, 63, 85– 86, 92, 94, 107 caribou hair robes, 65, 70 Caribou Hind Leg Scraper or Beaming Tool (ch’ikyàa), 92–95 caribou hunting, 16, 17 Caribou Leg Bone Knife (tth’an shrii), 79–80 Caribou Signaling Tool (ch’ijiik’àn), 15, 16, 17–18 Caribou Toe Game or “Grandpa’s Heel” (ditsii kwaihtàl), 85–87 Catholicism, 114 Chalkyitsik region, xiii, xviii, xix, xx, xxv, xxvii, xxix, xxxi, 3, 21, 108, 113, 115, 117 Chandalar, xxii charcoal, 82 ch’eedąįį (Fish Spear), xxvi, 70–74 ch’igèechàn (Shoulder Blade for Moose Calling), 18 ch’iitsii gòł (Man’s Metal Two-Pronged Water Arrow, Yukon Flats region), 41, 54, 55 ch’iitsii tàł (Man’s Metal Blunter Arrow, Yukon Flats region), 41, 48–49, 63 ch’ijiik’àn (Caribou Signaling Tool), 15, 16, 17–18

ch’ikiidruu (“Little Owl” Rabbit Throwing Stick), 13–15, 14 ch’ikyàa (Caribou Hind Leg Scraper or Beaming Tool), 92–95 children, xxxii, 4, 86 chisels. See Bone Ice Chisel (tth’an łuu dzyàh) Chitleii, John, 22, 25, 31, 57, 59, 65 Christianity, 114, 116 “A Clean History, How I work with Other People” (Salmon), xxviii competition, 88, 90 Cone-Shaped Stick Game (nilèerok), 88–90 cross-cultural communication, xxvii–xxviii Crow Flats region, xxii Man’s Hunting Arrow (tth’an k’iin’ąįį k’i) (Vantah Gwich’in nąįį k’i’), 41, 57, 59, 60 Vantah Gwich’in of the, xxiii, xxix, 4, 25, 41, 57–63, 59, 60, 68, 85 cultural transitions, 109

D dachan vàa nihk’yàa tr’ahìindak (Pulling Stick Game), 90 Danzhit Hanlaih Gwich’in, xxi–xxii Deenduu Gwich’in of the Birch Creek region, xxi– xxiii, 4, 22, 53 Di’haii, xxii Di’haii Gwich’in, xxii–xxiv, 20, 22, 25, 32 ditsii kwaihtàl (Caribou Toe Game or “Grandpa’s Heel”), 85–87 Dranjik Gwich’in of the Black River region, xxii– xxiii, 4 ducks, 21–22, 53 dyes. See ochre dye

E Eagle region Han Gwich’in of the, xxiii, 4, 55–57 Man’s Bone Hunting Arrow (Han Gwich’in [kiit’òodląįį] gwatth’ank’ì’), 55, 56, 57, 59 education, xxxi

F feathers, 2–3, 13, 14, 15, 31, 45, 48–49, 53–59, 63, 90 firearms and ammunition, 17, 21, 24

Index

fish, 3, 65–66, 68, 70, 75, 77 Fish Spear (ch’eedąįį), xxvi, 70–74 fishhooks. See bone hooks Fort Yukon, xxi, xxx Frank, Reverend, 115 fur stretchers, 91 fur traders, xxi, 79, 113 furbearing animals, xx, 91

131

M

jigging, 68 jii chyaatsal shriit’ahtsii eenjit dinjit heelyaa gwats’ą’k’iłtai’ (Youth’s Bow—For Ages Ten to Fifteen), 34, 36–38

MacDonald, Mark L., 115 Man’s Arrows—For Ages Fifteen to Adult, 41, 44–45 Man’s Blunter Arrow, Yukon Flats region (Gwichyaa Zheh gwik’i’tàł), 40–41, 45–47, 49 Man’s Blunter Arrow (tàł ch’ok), 40, 41, 45, 46, 49 Man’s Bone Hunting Arrow, Eagle region (Han Gwich’in [kiit’òodląįį] gwatth’ank’ì’), 55, 56, 57, 59 Eagle region, 55, 56, 57, 59 Man’s Bone Two-Pronged Water Arrow (tth’an gòł), 52, 53, 55 Man’s Bow—For Ages Fifteen to Adult (deenaadài’ dinjii k’ił tài’), 39, 41–44 Man’s Hunting Arrow, Crow Flats region (tth’an k’iin’ąįį k’i) (Vantah Gwich’in nąįį k’i’) Crow Flats region, 41, 57, 59, 60 Man’s Iron Trade Arrow (ch’iitsii k’ì’), 61, 63 Man’s Leaf-Shaped Iron Trade Arrow (ch’iitsii k’i’ ch’at’àn), 62, 63 Man’s Metal Blunter Arrow, Yukon Flats region (ch’iitsii tàł), 41, 48–49, 63 Man’s Metal Two-Pronged Water Arrow, Yukon Flats region (ch’iitsii gòł), 41, 54, 55 Man’s Notched Hunting Arrow (Neets’ąįį Gwich’in tth’an k’ì’), 57, 58, 59 Man’s Single-Pronged Fancy Water Arrow (shrat), 41, 50, 53, 55 marksmen, 23 marriage, 22 meat cutting, 79 modern transportation, 8 moose, xx, 3, 18, 23, 41, 55, 92, 107. See also hides Moose Leg Bone Skinner, Yukon Flats Style (nehtthaa), 91–92

K

N

G games, 85–90 “Grandpa’s Heel,” 85–87 Grayling Fork region, xviii, xx grizzly bears, 7–8, 10, 15, 41, 55 Gwichyaa Gwich’in, xxi, xxiii, xxv, 4, 8, 37, 45, 48, 77 Gwichyaa Zheh gwik’i’tàł (Man’s Blunter Arrow, Yukon Flats region), 40–41, 45–47, 49

H Han Gwich’in of the Eagle region, xxiii, 4, 55–57, 59 Henry, Enoch, 75 Henry, Paul, 75 hides, 79, 82, 92, 94, 96, 107 Hudson’s Bay Company, xxi, xxx hunters and gatherers, xxi, 23

I isolation, 114

J

King Salmon Dip Net (łuk choo dèetł’yàa), 75, 76–78 king salmon (fish), 3, 75, 77

L leadership, 4 leather, 92–93, 96 “Little Owl” Rabbit Throwing Stick (ch’ikiidruu), 13–15, 14

Neets’ąįį Gwich’in tth’an k’ì’ (Man’s Notched Hunting Arrow), 57, 58, 59 Neets’aii Gwich’in, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, 20, 32, 57 nehtthaa (Moose Leg Bone Skinner, Yukon Flats Style), 91–92 nets. See King Salmon Dip Net (łuk choo dèetł’yàa); twine gill net nilèerok (Cone-Shaped Stick Game), 88–90

132

Gwich’in Athabascan Implements

O O’Brien, Thomas, 88, 113, 114 ochre dye, xxvii, 3, 8, 15, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 41, 45, 49, 53, 57, 63, 66, 72, 82, 83, 86, 90, 92, 96, 106, 107 oral history, xxv, xxix, xxxii, 111, 115. See also storytelling orphans, 4

P Peel River, xxii Perdue, Ralph, 93 porcupine. See small game animals Porcupine River, xxi, xxii, xxiii, 113 Pulling Stick Game (dachan vàa nihk’yàa tr’ahìindak), 90

R rabbits, 13, 15, 34. See also small game animals raiding parties, 63 Rain Chaser (zhee zhrįh), 82–84 raw materials. See specific materials religion, 114, 116 rituals, 82

S Salmon, Alice, xx, 68, 96 Salmon, David, frontispiece, xiv, xxvi, 109–110, 112–115 with archery tackle, 108 drawing the bow, 28 Mediterranean release, 26–27 nocking the arrow, 28 proper stance, 23 with bone spear, 9 with a cone-shaped stick game, 88 documenting oral history, 115 early years of, xx–xxi, 13, 20, 25, 32, 90 excavating a test hole, 115 holding a snowshoe gimlet, 98 “Little Owl,” 13 with moose call, 19 with rain chaser, 82 with a toh, 81 at the tools museum exhibit, xxvi with traditional Athabascan hunting snowshoe, 100

Salmon, King (Łuk Choo), xxi, xxx, 22, 109–110 Salmon, William, xx, xxviii, 7, 21, 22, 25, 48, 63, 75, 109–110 Salmon Fork River, xx Salmon Village region, xiii, xviii, xx, 13, 25, 75, 88 scrapers. See Caribou Hind Leg Scraper or Beaming Tool (ch’ikyàa) sheep, 22, 55 Shoulder Blade for Moose Calling (ch’igèechàn), 18 sinew, 2–3, 9, 21, 31, 32, 39, 42, 69, 96 artificial, 10, 15, 36, 41, 44–45, 53, 82, 86, 90, 92 skin houses, 86 skinners. See Moose Leg Bone Skinner, Yukon Flats Style (nehtthaa); Tanana River-Style Skinner (Tanana River gwinèhtthaa) small game animals, 31, 34, 48, 93 Snowshoe Gimlet (ts’ii ghò’), 97–99 snowshoes, 23, 96–107, 100, 101 songs, 2 spreaders, 102–103 spruce, 8, 13, 45, 48, 53, 55, 57, 63, 72, 79, 94, 96 white spruce, 10, 30–34, 36–37, 39, 44, 82–83 squirrels. See small game animals stone knives, 79 storytelling, xxiv, xxv. See also oral history survival, xxix

T tàł ch’ok (Man’s Blunter Arrow), 40, 41, 45, 46, 49 Tanana Chiefs Conference, xxiv–xxviii Tanana River-Style Skinner (Tanan Gwinjik gwinèhtthaa), 92 tillering, 30–31 toh (Athabascan Staff of Life), 81–82, 116 trading, 4–5 trappers, xx, xxx, 3, 113–114 traveling, 21 tribal wars, 20 ts’ii ghò’(Snowshoe Gimlet), 97–99 tth’an aih val (Bone Snowshoe Needle), 96–97 tth’an gòł (Man’s Bone Two-Pronged Water Arrow), 52, 53, 55 tth’an jàł (bone hooks), 68–69 tth’an k’iin’ąįį k’i Vantah Gwich’in nąįį k’i’ (Man’s Hunting Arrow, Crow Flats region), 41, 57, 59, 60

Index

tth’an shrii (Caribou Leg Bone Knife), 79–80 tth’an tòh (Bone Spear for Grizzly Bear Hunting, Yukon Flats Style), 7–12 tth’an tthah (Bone Puncher/Awl), 96, 97 tth’an łuu dzyàh (Bone Ice Chisel), 65–67, 70 tuberculosis, xx, xxviii–xxix twine gill net, 75

U łuk choo dèetł’yàa (King Salmon Dip Net), 75, 76–78 (Łuk Choo) King Salmon, xxi, xxx, 22, 109–110 University of Alaska Fairbanks, 116 University of Alaska Museum of the North, xxvii, 104

V Vantah Gwich’in of the Crow Flats region, xxiii, xxix, 4, 25, 41, 57–63, 59, 60, 68, 85

W walking, 20 walking sticks, 81–82, 116 warfare, 55, 57, 63 waterfowl, 24, 31, 53. See also ducks waterproofing, 10 weather, 82 weaving, 96

133

white people, xxi, xxix, xxx widows, 4 willow, 68, 78, 86, 102, 106 winter, xxix, 4, 23, 65, 70, 81, 98 winter travelers, 13 women, 4, 32, 65, 86, 92, 96, 106

Y Youth’s Arrows—For Ages Ten to Fifteen, 36, 37, 39–40 Youth’s Bow—For Ages Ten to Fifteen (jii chyaatsal shriit’ahtsii eenjit dinjit heelyaa gwats’ą’k’iłtai’), 34, 36–38 Yukon Flats region, xxii Bone Spear for Grizzly Bear Hunting, Yukon Flats Style (tth’an tòh), 7–12 Man’s Blunter Arrow (Gwichyaa Zheh gwik’i’tàł), 40–41, 45–47, 49 Man’s Metal Blunter Arrow (ch’iitsii tàł), 41, 48–49, 63 Man’s Metal Two-Pronged Water Arrow (ch’iitsii gòł), 41, 54, 55 Moose Leg Bone Skinner, Yukon Flats Style (nehtthaa), 91–92

Z zhee zhrįh (Rain Chaser), 82–84