SUBARCTIC SOCIETIES 

INTRODUCTION

I begin discussion of Subarctic culture area with a brief summary of region and its environmental setting

Lecture then focuses on Eastern half, describing Naskapi (Innu) culture in some detail, and examining debate over hunting territory system found in most parts of Eastern Subarctic

(To compensate, assigned readings include several ethnographic sources on Western Subarctic, by Brody, Ridington, & Snyder)

Subarctic stretches all the way across North America, just below Arctic: from Gulf of St. Lawrence to Central/W. Alaska

Largest NNA culture area, but also was (and still is) the most thinly populated

Major subdivisions: west = Athapaskan Indians; east = Algonkians

This distinction is primarily linguistic (Ath. & Alg. = unrelated language families), however, and cultural similarities across Subarctic are certainly great enough to justify defining it as a single culture area

This cultural similarity across clear linguistic boundary suggests that ecological factors have encouraged peoples with different cultural origins to develop similar ways of life

Subarctic culture area maps rather closely onto boreal forest region, characterized by spruce/birch forest, muskeg (boggy open areas), and taiga (parkland with scattered clumps of trees) in north

Throughout, main food resources = large & small game (caribou, moose, fish, and snowshoe hare); edible plants are scarce (but berries & greens = important sources of vitamins, traditional medicines)

Extremely cold in winter -- even colder than arctic; despite this, traditional clothing not nearly as warm as that of Inuit (instead, travel fast and use fires!)

EASTERN SUBARCTIC

Eastern half of Subarctic inhabited by various groups speaking closely-related Algonkian languages (which are also found in E. Woodlands & Plains)

Major ethnolinguistic divisions = Cree; Montagnais-Naskapi; and Ojibwa

Cree speakers found over much of what is now Ontario, Manitoba, & No. Saskatchewan

Ojibwa found in No. Great Lakes Region (aka Chippewa to the south)

Montagnais-Naskapi inhabit forested portions of Labrador Peninsula

All of these peoples traditionally organized at band level (no political unity beyond local group)

Relatively fluid residential arrangements: summer aggregation at fishing sites, or spring & fall for caribou drives, brings whole band together

Winter often brings dispersal into "lodge-groups" of 2-3 families who travel, camp, and hunt together

Aboriginal technology included snowshoes, toboggans (traditionally hand-pulled, no dog teams), birch-bark canoes, cured moose hides, stone & bone tools, conical skin lodges, domed sweatlodges

Religious concerns focus on respect for animal spirits and quest for animistic power (visions, dreaming, etc. -- see reading)

NASKAPI (Innu)

Want to focus on Naskapi as representative of No. Algonkian peoples (also have film on Mistassini Cree, living SE of Naskapi in somewhat different ecological setting)

Naskapi (whose term of self-reference is Innu -- not to be confused with Inuit!) inhabited area of >100,000 sq. miles of taiga and barren grounds = interior plateau of Labrador

Traditionally numbered about 2000 people (very rough est.) divided into ~40 bands (therefore about ~50 people/band)

Bands consisted of bilaterally-related families, who could affiliate with different bands wherever they had relatives (similar to Shoshone & Inuit)

Each family covered hundreds of miles in annual circuit; did not necessarily follow same route each year or return to same spot

Winter travel = snowshoe & hand-pulled toboggan; summer = canoe & portage

Naskapi lived in conical caribou-skin tents, heated by wood fires; because of high mobility, did not build wooden cabins or wigwams found elsewhere in E. Subarctic

Large gatherings mainly occurred in spring & fall, when caribou intercepted at river crossing & speared from canoes

In good years, several bands might gather together for big caribou drive and stay together for month or more, exchanging news, arranging marriages, and engaging in ceremonial feasting (mokoshan ritual -- see below)

At other times, indiv. families might split off & travel alone for weeks on end, esp. when caribou scarce and had to rely on fishing

Thus, annual cycle characterized by ebb & flow of social groupings, from large aggregations of several bands to single bands or 1 or 2 nuclear families

Let's consider relation between hunting economy and social life in more detail, focusing first on sharing & prestige, then on leadership and autonomy, and finally on religious beliefs & practices connected to hunting

Sharing Economy

For Naskapi men, prestige comes from successful hunting -- but only when product of hunt is shared; fair to say entire Naskapi economy built around moral and practical imperative of sharing

Various rules govern sharing of different prey animals:

In caribou hunting, person who kills animal "owns" it, but if he kills a quantity of caribou, he is expected to give most of his catch away (often by telling each recipient household where to find a slain animal)

Animals taken in traps (e.g. foxes) or nets (fish) belong to owner of gear, but if harvest is abundant, catch has to be shared at communal meal in hunter's tent (whole camp invited)

Porcupine given to first woman a hunter encounters on returning to camp, who cooks it & then distributes highly prized meat & broth to each household (though the hunter gets the porcupine's head)

A powerful ethic of sharing pervades Naskapi culture: it is agreed that if some people are hungry, they must be given meat, and if they have no moccasins, they must be given skins; can ask anyone for a share of any food item they have (even trade foods & tobacco), they cannot refuse

Is this because Naskapi are different than us ) more altruistic, not subject to self-interest?  Some reasons to doubt this:

People do not always want to share, and many keep a secret bag of special supplies hidden; but in intimate setting of hunting camp, little can be hidden

More importantly, there are strong sanctions against hoarding or failing to share any significant quantity of resources: malicious gossip, taunting, pointedly not sharing in return, and ostracism (or even abandonment)

Thus, among Naskapi it is impossible for individuals to accumulate significant amount of wealth that would put them above their peers; sharing is enforced by a graduated set of sanctions, and is not just the automatic product of an unquestioned ethic

These sharing practices obviously have important benefits in reducing subsistence risk, given unpredictable nature of hunting success

But in the long run, better hunters contribute disproportionate share of total harvest, and often 1 or 2 hunters contribute majority of food harvested by an entire band; are Naskapi so communal and altruistic that this disparity doesn't matter?

Answer is that more productive hunters are granted recognition as providers for group via muted but widespread admiration

Result can be viewed as a system of exchange of goods for prestige:  less productive hunters (and non-hunting women) grant recognition and prestige to productive hunters in exchange for the sustenance they provide

(There are of course other avenues for social recognition in traditional Naskapi society, including curing and divination)

Leadership

Naskapi, like other subarctic Indians, place high value on individual autonomy; they do not regularly take orders from anyone, even best hunters

Yet they willingly grant certain amount of decision-making powers to leaders in specific situations

Leadership is based on abilities, knowledge and charisma, not on inherited status or wealth; a leader = "first among equals"

Naskapi term for this role is wotshimao, meaning a situation-specific leader who is delegated authority to make decisions in specific context for limited period of time (e.g., concerning traveling routes, hunting tactics)

Wotshimao makes decisions based on discussions & consensus of other hunters

Wotshimao brings decision-making efficiency to anarchy of autonomous families -- Naskapi say "we must have a wotshimao or we cannot act"

To be wotshimao is an honor that can bring prestige; but it is also a burden, because if things go wrong wotshimao is often blamed

Thus, competition to be leader is tempered by fear that you will end up getting blamed for failure of communal hunting or other bad outcome associated with your leadership

Older & more experienced men usually have abilities & authority to successfully carry out the wotshimao role, but younger men try it out periodically to test their leadership skills

If you don't like, or don't get along with, a particular wotshimao, you can always go to different band with another set of relatives

In sum, Naskapi have developed wotshimao institution as way of achieving collective decisions without giving up autonomy

This seems like eminently reasonable compromise between the conflicting requirements for opportunistic mobility and the organized team effort demanded by their caribou-hunting economy

Religious Belief & Practice

Among Naskapi, as with many hunter-gatherers, prey animals must be approached with respect

Animals have souls, and choose to give themselves to hunter; thus, offended animals will be impossible to catch & people will starve

On other hand, animals can be encouraged to yield themselves through:

1) magical preparations preceding hunt (divination, dreaming, spells);

2) respectful treatment of prey (offerings, safeguarding of bones, burning bit of fat in fire, special carrying strap for each prey, etc.)

These actions are taken to ensure future success (cyclic return of immortal prey's souls, if treated properly)

Because of these beliefs, hunting is controlled by detailed rules of conduct & surrounded by various rituals: hunting is a religious practice as well as economic activity

Beliefs especially strong with respect to caribou (Naskapi staple) and bears

Caribou ruled by caribou overlord (deity controlling caribou) living in far-off mountains that glow white with ice and accumulated caribou hair

Ritual observances focused on bears a widespread phenomenon, termed "circumpolar bear cult" by anthropologists (found among Eurasian peoples as well)

It includes special preparations for hunt, elaborate rules surrounding processing and consumption of bear, and even circumlocutions (euphemistic names used out of respect)

Bear hunt preceded by ritual sweat bath of hunters

If find hibernation den, hunters call "Come out, Grandfather!" (or some similar salutation of respect)

Must kill bear quickly, then offer it tobacco, hold ceremonial feast, etc.

[QUOTE NASKAPI STATEMENT (Speck 1935, pp 95-96)]

Mokoshan

Mokoshan = ritual communal meal to please overlord of particular prey species & ensure future hunting success practiced by Subarctic Algonkians

Among Naskapi, mokoshan institution is most developed with respect to caribou

Held regularly during main caribou hunting season, when weather bad or newcomers arrive in camp; everyone in camp is invited

Two principal actors for any mokoshan: the feast host (wotshimao mokoshan); and the "bone master" (wotshimao osken), who collects caribou bones from all hunters on a regular basis

In preparation for mokoshan, host lays fresh spruce bough on tent floor

Leg bones from recent caribou kills gathered from bone master's scaffold, divided into equal piles for each family in camp

Hunters gather in tent, share boiled meat, scrape leg bones clean

Bone master crushes ends of bones, each hunter boils kettle of bones

Bone grease skimmed off & carefully divided into kettles for each family -- these kettles of sanctified food kept in mokoshan tent (taboo to remove)

Marrow from leg bones shared by all present, rest stored in kettles

Great care taken to not spill or waste the smallest bit of marrow or bone; every bit spilled must be collected & burned in fire to avoid offense

Mokoshan characterized by relaxed, harmonious atmosphere

Ritual feast may last up to 12 hours, followed by drum dance, story-singing

Emphases of mokoshan:

1) respectful handling of sustenance, designed to ensure future hunting success

2) reinforcement of food-sharing, interdependence, communal consciousness

 

NORTHERN ALGONKIAN LAND TENURE

In early 20th century, detailed ethnographic research among N. Algonkians revealed pattern of land ownership termed "family hunting territories"

This led to an extended controversy in anthropology & Native American studies regarding the antiquity and function of these territories

Three main alternatives in this debate:

1) Family-owned territories were aboriginal to area

2) These territories developed in direct response to fur trade

3) Territories developed in response to changes in game populations

First position argued most forcefully by Frank Speck, who was first to document this system of land tenure in detail

Speck (1915) stated that "the territory owned by each tribe was subdivided into tracts owned from time immemorial by the same families and handed down from generation to generation. The almost exact bounds of these territories were known and recognized, and trespass...was summarily punished."

Speck & others saw this as system geared to conservation of game & fur species in order to realize sustained yield (aboriginal wildlife management)

Argument over universality of private property also entered into this -- offered as refutation of Marx & Engels' claim that small-scale societies were characterized by "primitive communism" and absence of ownership of land or undeveloped resources thereon

Second position, focusing on fur trade, first proposed by Leacock (1954), based on her archival research and fieldwork with Montagnais-Naskapi for her PhD dissertation at Columbia U

Leacock did not dispute the reality of family hunting territories, but argued that they were a historic institution, not aboriginal

Her argument had two parts, a critique/refutation of Speck's views, and her own alternative explanation of the origins of family hunting territories

For the first part, Leacokc began by noting that all of Speck's data referred to period long after subarctic Algonkians began their involvement in fur trade

For example, Leacock pointed out that Micmacs (mouth of St. Lawrence) waved furs to entice Cartier's ships in 1534, whereas Speck took 1670 to mark beginning of fur trade (year HBCo established first perm. post), and his actual data came from early 1900s (and informant's memories of mid-1800s)

Leacock made much use of ethnohistorical accounts, especially letters and other documents from European missionaries since published in Jesuit Relations

One of most important sources here was French Jesuit (Father Le Jeune), who kept a detailed record documenting extensive movement & fluid group composition in the early-contact period (Le Jeune lived with Montagnais-Naskapi in the 1630s)

In one winter, group Le Jeune traveled with fluctuated greatly in membership (from 29-45 people), with individuals hunting over very wide areas, and made 23 moves in 5 months!  In response to Le Jeune's suggestion than they stay in one place longer, Indians compared themselves to mobile caribou, French to sedentary moose)

In addition to her critique of the accuracy of Speck's claim for antiquity of family hunting territory system, Leacock offered alternative explanation

Leacock's basic argument as follows:

1. store food obtained thru fur trade increased family self-sufficiency

2. reliance on trapping also decreased importance of communal hunting

3. non-migratory furbearers became most important resource, leading to competition for trapping areas

4. family investments in traplines reduced mobility ("400 traps can't easily be moved")

5. as fur trade became established, individual trappers tied to particular posts (grubstaking, etc.), increasing family self-sufficiency & reducing mobility

6. traders themselves espoused ideology of private ownership & conservation, and urged Indians to adopt it

Third position, championed by anthropologists such as Rolf Knight & Charles Bishop, focuses on ecological changes affecting game resources of E. Subarctic in historical period

Many species are either migratory (caribou) or subject to great fluctuations in local density; reliance on fixed territory not feasible in such cases, even for those participating in fur trade

Local resources also subject to great fluctuation due to fire, windfall, etc.

As long as relying on fluctuating & unpredictable resources, fixed land tenure unworkable; but shift to more predictable resources might change this

Various lines of evidence indicate that in late 18th and early 19th centuries, No. Algonkians shifted away from caribou and towards moose and small game

Replacement of caribou by moose as major prey favored by:

1. habitat changes due to forest fires, which became more frequent with European settlement (moose feed on secondary growth, caribou on lichen in older-growth forests)

2. technological changes, esp. use of rifles (woodland caribou subject to overhunting, lower reproductive rate)

3. moose solitary, best hunted by 1-2 hunters = same as trapping team; also occur along stream & lake edges (best trapping areas)

In addition, fish & hare became much more important in diet; these are localized, non-migratory species, harvested by individuals (nets & snares)

In summary, 3 basic explanations for N. Algonkian family hunting territories:

1. family hunting/trapping territories aboriginal; conservation devices

2. territories arose from fur trade -- investment in trap lines, increased self-sufficiency of family units, policies of fur companies

3. territories = consequence of ecological changes, especially caribou depletion, shift to moose, small game, fish

First position (classical one of Speck et al.) now seems quite untenable, and few anthropologists still support it

2nd & 3rd positions not really mutually exclusive, but reinforcing; both seem to be important, though relative importance of each may vary from place to place

Both 2nd & 3rd positions point to importance of subsistence patterns (economics and ecology) in determining patterns of social organization, and to dynamic quality of NNA adaptations -- Native Americans do not match stereotype of "traditional" in sense of static, unchanging culture

References:

Bishop, Charles A. (1970) The emergence of hunting territories among the northern Ojibwa. Ethnology 9: 1-15.

Cooper, J.M. (1939) Is the Algonquian family hunting ground system pre-Colombian? American Anthropologist 41: 66-90.

Feit, Harvey A. (1978) Waswanipi Realities and Adaptations: Resource Management and Cognitive Structure. Montreal: Ph.D. thesis, Department of Anthropology, McGill University.

Hallowell, A. Irving (1926) Bear ceremonialism in the northern hemisphere. American Anthropologist 28: 1-175.

Helm, June (ed.) (1981) Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 6: The Subarctic. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution.

Henriksen, Georg (1973) Hunters in the Barrens: The Maskapi on the Edge of the White Man's World. St. John's, Newfoundland: Memorial University.

Knight, Rolf (1968) Ecological Factors in Changing Economy and Social Structure Among the Rupert House Cree. National Museum of Canada Anthropological Papers, No. 15. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada.

Krech, Shephard III (ed.) (1984) The Subarctic Fur Trade: Native Social and Economic Adaptations. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.

Leacock, Eleanor B. (1954) The Montagnais "Hunting Territory" and the Fur Trade. American Anthropological Association, Memoir No. 78.

Leacock, Eleanor (1982) Relations of production in band society. In Politics and History in Band Society, ed. E. Leacock and R. Lee, pp. 156-170. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Morantz, Toby (1983) An Ethnohistorical Study of Eastern James Bay Cree Social Organization, 1700-1850. Ottawa: National Museum of Canada, National Museum of Man.

Nelson, Richard K. (1973) Hunters of the Northern Forest. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Nelson, Richard K. (1983) Make Prayers to the Raven. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ridington, Robin (1988) Knowledge, power, and the individual in subarctic hunting societies. American Anthropologist 90: 98-110.

Ridington, Robin (1988) Trail to Heaven: Knowledge in a Northern Native Community. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.

Speck, Frank G. (1915) The family hunting band as the basis of Algonkian social organization. American Anthropologist 17: 289-305.

Speck, Frank G. (1935) Naskapi. University of Oklahoma Press.

Tanner, Adrian (1979) Bringing Home Animals: Religious Ideology and Mode of Production of the Mistassini Cree. Memorial University of Newfoundland, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Social and Economic Studies, No. 23. St John's: Memorial University of Newfoundland.

Thwaites, Reuben G. (ed.) (1896-1901) The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France, 73 Vols. Cleveland: Burrows Brothers.