GA ATE UNIVER ITY LlBRAFHES
MlC H|

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\l\\ \\\ \\\\\\\\\\

mass 10 699 7343

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
INTERACTIONS IN A TRANSITIONAL ENVIRONMENT

THE KENAI PENINSULA

presented by
Cheryl Lynn Cline .' i

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Masters (mgeehi Anthropology

lL

Major professor

Date a/ 2/ /QC{:L

 

     

MSU

LIBRARIES

Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
*?:*;’ stamped below.

, RETURNING MATERIALS:

  

 

 

 

INTERACTIONS IN A TRANSITIONAL ENVIRONMENT
THE KENAI PENINSULA

By

Cheryl Lynn Cline

A THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Anthropology

1982

Gll7?8/

Copyright by
CHERYL LYNN CLINE
1982

ABSTRACT

INTERACTIONS IN A TRANSITIONAL ENVIRONMENT
THE KENAI PENINSULA

By

Cheryl Lynn Cline

This thesis addresses the prehistoric interaction of
the Tanaina Indian and the Pacific Eskimo on the Kenai
Peninsula of Alaska. Distinction and definition of
populations and the effects of interaction as a process
of change are considered in the context of a transitional
region, the interface between biological communities.
Ecological theory is used as groundwork in the development
of predictive models of interaction. Cultural interaction
meets the needs of groups to survive autonomously and to
cooperate. The concepts of niche, habitat, ecotope, and
ecotone are used to categorize the populations. The
interaction models, synthesized from ecological and
anthropological research, are competition, predation and
parasitism, mutualism, proto—cooperation, commensalism,
and neutrality and independence. Environmental, histor—
ical, and cultural information is detailed in explanation
of the derivation of the problem. Pertinent ecological
concepts and applicable anthropological perspectives are
reviewed. The application of the models in explanation

of Kenai Peninsula.prehistory is discussed.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
ORIGIN OF THE PROBLEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Environmental Setting . . . . . . . . . . . 7

The Historic Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

The Prehistoric Cultures . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Culture and Ecology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Niche, Habitat, and EcotOpe . . . . . . . . . . 40

The Ecotone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Population Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
The Use of Ecotone . . . . . . . 56
Population Distinction and Interaction . . . . 61
Population Interaction in Alaska . . . . . . . 67
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
MODELS OF INTERACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
Cultural Ecotope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

The Negative Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

The Positive Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

The Neutral Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

The Transition Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

THE KENAI PENINSULA EXAMPLE . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
The Pacific Eskimo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

The Tanaina Indians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Regional Adaptation and Distinction . . . . . . 117
Interaction Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

CONCLUSION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 124
LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

TABLE 1
Northern, Open, Low Growing Spruce
Forest—~Dominant Species. Coastal
Spruce Hemlock Forest——Kenai Lowland Phase . . 11

TABLE 2
Southern Coastal Spruce Hemlock
Forest--Dominant Species. Coastal

Spruce Hemlock Forest-—Kenai Lowand Phase . . . 12

TABLE 3
Bogs--Dominant Species. Coastal
Spruce Hemlock Forest—4Kenai Lowland Phase . . . 13

TABLE 4

Interaction Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Page
FIGURE 1
Map of the Kenai Peninsula and Surroundings . . 6
FIGURE 2

Patterns of Adaptation (Ecotope) of a Single
Population to a Region with a Transitional
Zone (Ecotone) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

FIGURE 3
Interrelated Patterns of Adaptation (Ecotope)
Two P0pulations to a Region with a Transitional
Zone (Ecotone) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

INTRODUCTION

One trend in behavioral and biological sciences is to
emphasize particulate inquiry: the nature of the cell,
the individual, the p0pulation, the culture, or society.
As these units become understood, investigation expands to
the interrelationships between units and their processual
development. Research changes from reduction and defi—
nition of parts to a wholistic explanation of living
systems. Historically, research has oscillated between
these two poles of interest.

This thesis involves an integration of both of these
perspectives of behavior through a regional and an
ecological approach. Concern shifts among entities
(cultures, populations) and process (pattern, system,
change). Being a regional study, this work (1) deals with
the structure and function of individual pOpulations by
examining patterns of settlement, the selection of
particular resources from alternatives, and the distri—
bution of these resources; (2) surveys interactions
between cultural p0pulations within a region; and (3)

presents human p0pulations as part of a larger ecological

community. Using ecological methodology, cultural
populations are described by niche and habitat within a
region and as part of a life system.

AnthrOpologists from varied schools of thought find
the regional approach to research a valuable one. For
example, Watson, LeBlanc and Redman, archaeologists, refer
to the necessity of the wholistic survey to obtain a
picture of cultural process, "To do this one must study
the total system of interacting communities and their
environmental milieu" (1971:93). Suttles, an ethnologist,
in his analysis of habitat or cultural variation in a
region, states,

. . . we need much more work on the ecology of

the Northwest Coast, on the relations of local

groups to resources, on the system of exchange

of food and wealth among groups. . . . Seen in

a framework that includes ecology, questions of

migration, diffusion, and the persistence of

values assume their proper places as parts of

the larger whole, the study of culture change as

an evolutionary process. (1968:105-106)
Binford speaks for many anthropologists when he general—
izes, "The methodology most appropriate for the task of
isolating and studying process of culture change and
evolution is one which is regional in scope" (1964:425).
It is from this heritage that this thesis developed.

This study is focused on regions and the patterns of

interaction associated with a particular ecological

context. This context is a region which contains an edge

or transitional zone between two ecological communities.
Within a transitional zone, p0pulations may be either

(1) at the edge of the functional ecological ranges (but
without the necessity for cultural adaptation), or (2)
particularly adapted to ecotone (transitional area)
exploitation. When separately defined human.populations
interact, the ecological setting affects the population's
regional distribution and subsistence strategy. How this
occurs can be examined by developing models of population
interaction patterns.

These models of interaction can define space and form
and can explain the structure and function of systems.

The models are synchronic in nature, but their application
can contribute to an understanding of a diachronic
process. The use of models of system and pattern form the
basis for understanding the deveIOpment and change of
interrelationships.

The purpose of this work is to deve10p such models of
patterns of interaction. The result is an analytical
tool. These models are then examined to see how they
might be used to postulate spatial and temporal relation-
ships between cultures in a particular transitional
region of Alaska. The intention of this work is to
perform a precedent investigation of system and pattern
in space and form to serve as a foundation upon which to

explore developmental process.

The thesis is organized in the following manner.
First, the origin of the question is described. Next,
ecological concepts which are elemental to this work are
reviewed and some related studies are examined. The
perspectives and concerns of anthrOpologists are then
discussed and relevant ethnographic material is presented.
A set of models of interaction is described, and then the
models are applied to a specific regional setting.
Finally, the contributions of this thesis to continuing

research are considered.

ORIGIN OF THE PROBLEM

For six months during 1972, the writer conducted a
study on the Kenai Peninsula of south-central Alaska.
This work was funded by a Youthgrant (Ay—8087-73-88) from
the National Endowment for the Humanities. The primary
objectives were to gain field experience and to compile
an anthropological study of Ninilchik, a contemporary and
historic village. The attention of that study was
focused on four areas: (1) an archaeological survey (to
find information about the acculturation of the village
native population), (2) a study of village folklore (to
reflect community characterization of the modifying and
changing culture), (3) an ethnographic and developmental
description of the village, and (4) a consideration of
the environment as echoed in community art. The questions
explored in the present thesis developed from this
research.

This thesis not only suggests explanatory models,
but employs those models in detailing a prehistoric
population's ecological adaptation in the Kenai region.

A description of the environment, culture, and history of

 

8/

f

a?“
ass—s

 

 

 

Figure 1

Map of the Kenai Peninsula and Surroundings.

f’mukAmi r

7,
r’ . /
/ g
A ’ , Anchorage ‘
; Turnagain . "
a Q}; -~ Am ,’
—‘ / I - - ’I 4‘ .
, Hope ~>,- c _
Sunrise ’ , 8
Kal in ' ' ,’
Islgnd " Ken” Skilak , ,- , ‘3
Lake Clark '? , , Léke Kenai Lake; ,., r ‘
_.’ f & ‘0’ ‘...o
Tustumena ,
~ Lake ‘1» .
V
VZQ 7 ‘ ,
Ninilchik $ 1 ,r
A\ ©§$ , ’ ‘3
I I Q? . \’_ E,
. ‘2 . ’5
93‘! , °
eldovia ' ‘ l
G U L F 0 F A L A S K A

r

 

 

manpommn

 

BERING
SEA

 

 

 

 

$.ad

 

(Adapted
from the National Geographic Society, 1965, Alaska,

Washington, D.C.)

the Kenai region follows. This description demonstrates
the derivation of the problem and provides a setting in

which an analysis can be understood and applied.

The Environmental Setting

 

The Kenai Peninsula is located between the parallels
of 59° and 62° north longitude and the meridians of 148°
and 1520 west latitude. The peninsula is approximately
150 miles long from north to south and 100 miles wide at
its maximum, averaging 45 miles wide from east to west.
The region is naturally bordered by major water bodies.
Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska are located
to the east and south while Cook Inlet is to the west.
The northern boundary is the Turnagain Arm of Cook Inlet
where it is virtually separated from the mainland
(Bennett, 1918).

With information compiled from Bennett (1918),
Martin et a1. (1915), and Rieger et a1. (1962), the
peninsula can be divided into two physiographic areas:
(1) the Kenai Mountains with glaciers and ice fields and
(2) the Kenai lowlands and intermediary hills. The
mountain area is predominantly located along the eastern
part of the peninsula. The peaks there range in elevation
from 3000 to 5000 feet. Ice and snow fielmsare'bordered
by alpine tundra. The majority of the barren region

(known as the Harding Ice Fields) is not suitable for

human habitation, not known to have been a source of
utilized resources, and not amenable to field research.
That region is not of concern to this study except in
that it serves as a boundary and affects the climate.
Lower mountains, reaching above the 2000 foot timberline
and topped by alpine tundra, are of concern as the loci
of resources exploited for subsistence by human popula—
tions. These mountains are in the Seward Turnagain Arm
area and in the southeast, the Caribous. The mountains
are geologically differentiated from the lowland as they
consist of Mesozoic indurated, slightly metamorphosed
and highly folded rocks.

The second physiographic region of the peninsula, the
Kenai Lowland, is the area of principal interest for this
thesis. This broad area consists of low hills, broad
level plains, bogs, lakes, rivers, and streams (draining
west into Cook Inlet). The general elevation is 200 feet
and does not exceed 500 feet. The base of the lowland is
a gently folded, tertiary (Eocene) Kenai formation of
silty, sandy sediments and thin lignite bed. This is
covered by thick glacial and alluvial deposits. During
maximum glaciation, the lowland and Cook Inlet was filled
by a valley glacier.

The shore of the peninsula along Cook Inlet is char-
acterized by-a sharp bluff formed from heavy wave action

and is currently eroding at an average rate of one foot a

year. The bluff ranges from 20 to 200 feet high and is
interrupted only by major streams and rivers. At low
tides a beach is formed which continues into the inlet as
a wide, shallow shelf. The shoreline consists of smooth,
open curves with few distinct natural bays and harbors
except in the extreme south.

The southwestern shore, at the mouth of Cook Inlet,
is dominated by the large expanse of Kachemak Bay. The
southern edge of Kachemak Bay and the remaining southern
and western shore of the peninsula are characterized by
numerous small bays and deep forges into the mountains.
This thesis is concerned with known habitation sites along
this extremely rugged shore (though ecological interaction
of associated populations is primarily with the maritime
environment).

Viereck and Little (1972) identify the climax
vegetation of the lowland as the Kenai Lowland Phase of
the Coastal Spruce-Hemlock Forest. The criteria
distinguishing the phase are a relatively low proportion
of hemlock and a relatively greater proportion of deciduous
to coniferous trees. The lowland phase exhibits two
vegetational types: coastal spruce—hardwood forest to
the south and an open, lowegrowing spruce forest to the
north. These types can be seen as part of the generalized
Alaskan pattern of two separate forest groups being (1)

the coastal type spruce-hemlock forest and (2) the interior

10

type spruce—hardwood forest. The vegetation of the lower
elevations of the mountains on the southern and western
shores is of the first type, coastal spruce-hemlock
forest.

Specifically within the Kenai Lowland Phase of the
Coastal Spruce—Hemlock Forest geographical differentiation
of the dominant and major genera, Picea (Spruce) is noted.
The species found mainly in the northern part of the

lowland is the white spruce (Picea glauca.). The species

 

dominating the south is the Sitka spruce (Picea

sitchensis.). Hybridization of the two species has taken

 

place in an intermediary zone (centering along an east—
west axis approximately through the village of Ninilchik).
Additional north—south differentiation is noted in (1) the

relative scarcity of hemlock (Tsuga mertinsiana.) in the

 

north (except in the hills adjacent to the low mountainous
area) and (2) in the distributional dominance of the black
spruce (Picea mariana.) in the northern area. Notice also
in Tables 1, 2 and 3 the variance in dominant species
between each vegetational community. This north—south
gradient corresponds with more precipitation in the south.
An additional corresponding gradient in drainage pattern
occurs with the north physiographically characterized by
larger rivers, lakes, and bays.

Two secondary vegetation zones can be isolated within

each type of the general forest phase: (1) forest, on

11

Tmfle1
Northern, Open, Low Growing Spruce Forest-—

Dominant Species Coastal Spruce Hemlock
Forest—-Kenai Lowland Phase

TREES

black spruce (Picea mariana.)

 

paper-birch (Betula papyrifera.)

 

white spruce (Picea glauca.)

 

quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides.)

 

Balsom popula (P. balsamifera.)

 

SHRUBS

red—fruit bearberry (Arctostaphylos rubra.)

 

crowberry (Empetrum nigrum.)

 

Labrador-tea (Ledum groenlandicum.)

 

prickly rose (Rosa acicularis.)

 

littletree willow (Salix arbusculoides.)

Bebb willow (Salix bebbiana.)

 

grayleaf willow (Salix_glauca.)

 

diamondleaf willow (Salix planifolia ssp. pulchra.)

Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana.)

 

bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum.)

 

mountain-cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea.)

 

(Compiled from Viereck and Little, 1972; Bennet, 1918.)

 

12

TdfleZ

Southern Coastal Spruce Hemlock Forest—~Dominant
Species Coastal Spruce Hemlock Forest—-
Kenai Lowland Phase

TREES

Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis.)
mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertinsiana.)

black cottonwood (Polulus trichocarpa.)
SHRUBS

Sitka alder (Alnus sinuata.)

 

rusty menziesia.(Menziesia ferruginea.)
trailing black current (Ribes laxiflorum.)

salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis.)

 

Barclay willow (Salix barclayi.)
Scouler willow (Salix scouleriana.)

Sitka willow (Salix sitchensis.)

 

Pacific red elder (Sambucus callicarpa.)
early blueberry (Vaccinium ovalifolium.)

highbush cranberry (Viburnum edule.)

 

(Compiled from Viereck and Little, 1972; Bennett, 1918,)

 

13

Table 3
Bogs—-Dominant Species. Coastal Spruce Hemlock
Forest——Kenai Lowland Phase

TREES

black spruce (Picea mariana.)

 

dwarf arctic birch (Betula nana.)

 

SHRUBS

bog—rosemary (Andromeda.polifolia.)

 

crowberry (Empetrum nigrum.)

 

Labrador-tea (Ledum groenlandicum.)

 

rusty menziesia (Menziesia ferruginea.)

 

Barclay willow (Salix barclayi.)

 

undergreen willow (Salix commutata.)

 

bog cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoccos.)

 

bog blueberry (Vaccinium uliginosum.)

 

mountain or lowbush cranberry (Vaccinium vitis-idaea.)

 

thin—leaf Labrador tea (Ledum decumbens.)

 

horsetails (Equisetum sp.)

 

fireweed (Epilobium angustifolium.)

 

reed-grass (Calamagrostis canadensis.)

 

(Compiled from Viereck and Little, 1972; Bennett, 1918.)

14

well drained benches, ridges or hills, and (2) heather, in
swampy bogs or muskegs. The second zone is found much
more predominantly in the northern region. The black

spruce (Picea mariana.), also commonly called bog spruce

 

and swamp spruce, "is characteristic of cold wet flats,
muskegs, north-facing lepes, silty valley terraces, and
lake margins in the spruce—birch interior forests up to
an altitude of 2000 feet" (Viereck and Little, 1972:51).
This disposition of the black spruce correlates with its
dominance in the northern area of the Kenai Peninsula.

The north—south gradient of vegetation types is
important to this thesis as it illustrates that the Kenai
Peninsula is a transitional region. This condition,
though illustrated by the climax and dominant vegetation,
is explained by a complex ecological schema. As secondary
edge areas betWeen secondary vegetation zones, the heather
and forests also distinguish the transition, grading from
north to south. As the heather is an edge between the
forest and the aquatic environment, the point can be made
of greater variability of environment in the north (at
least terrestrially). The possibility exists that this
'variability is enhanced because of an "edge effect"
postulated by some ecologists (this argument is examined

later).

15

An important contribution to the understanding of
the forest boundaries and transition areas was made by
Griggs (1934). He studied the Sitka spruce (Picea

sitchensis.) forest development, principally on Kodiak

 

Island, 100 miles to the southwest of the Kenai Peninsula.
He found, "In light of the practically unanimous opinion
of observers on the ground, it is justifiable to general—
ize and conclude that in many places in Alaska, the forest
boundaries are mobile migration fronts rather than static
climatic boundaries" (Griggs, 1934:92). He suggests two
interesting causes for this vegetation mobility. The
first cause is that the greater region of south central
Alaska is still quite geologically active. Ash cloud
deposits from active volcanoes in the Aleutian Range
travel for hundreds of miles over large areas, and destroy
and temporarily inhibit growth of vegetation. (This
volcanic range is located fifty miles across Cook Inlet
from the Kenai Peninsula. Exposed stratigraphy in the
shore bluff reveals thin layers of volcanic ash. This
evidence is important in developing archaeological
chronology and in demonstrating ecological factors. Known
strata indicating large scale forest fires may be related
to the volcanic activity or caused by other natural
agents.) The second factor Griggs suggested that affects
vegetation mobility is tetonic movement associated with

the geographically "live" region, changing elevation

16

(rise and fall) and cline of land masses. The resulting
rapid, though relatively minor ecological shifts, are
stimuli for vegetation movement. It should be noted that
the Turnagain Arm of Cook Inlet, the northern boundary
of the Kenai Peninsula, was identified as the center of
fault activity in the 1964 Alaska earthquake.

Climate has a more subdued environmental effect than
that resulting from the geological activity discussed
above. The peninsula is influenced by maritime and
continental weather factors. On a large scale, it is
described as being in transition between those two
climatic zones. (The information here is compiled from
Bennett, 1918; Rieger et al., 1962; Martin et al., 1915;
and Viereck and Little, 1972.) The lowland is dominately
influenced by the maritime factors while the high,
eastern mountains are influenced by the colder and dryer
continental pattern. A slight gradient in temperature
and rainfall occurs from the coast of Cook Inlet into the
interior of the lowland to the east, with the western
shore warmer and more moist. A north—south gradient in
rainfall has been described earlier. This second gradient
reflects a pattern expected from the peninsula's relation
to the larger coastline of southern Alaska. The interior
to the north is dryer and cooler while the shore exposed

to the Gulf of Alaska receives the moist warm air.

17

The average annual rainfall on the Kenai Lowland is
20 inches, with the major rains in July through September
and the dry season in spring. The dry spring, in terms of
precipitation, is offset by the saturated soil of the snow
thaw. Snowfall averages sixty inches with an average
maximum depth of less than three feet.

The mean summer temperature is 55°F, usually ranging
to a high of 90°F. The lowest recorded winter temperature
is of —450F, though the extremes are not maintained for
long periods. Generally there is great variability in
temperature. The frost—free season is less than 100 days,
though long periods of summer daylight increase the
vegetative growth season. In isolated areas permafrost is
found within three feet of the ground surface, though it
is usually much deeper.

The lowland is relatively sheltered from the eastern
winds by the Kenai Mountains, and from the west by the
Aleutian range across Cook Inlet. Strong winds are
channeled up the inlet and mostly effect the shoreline.
Prevailing wind directions are from the north from
September to April and from the south during the remaining
months.

The animal population, environmentally dependent upon
those factors already discussed, is quite diverse. Both
black and Kodiak bear range on the peninsula as well as

porcupine, rabbit, otter, beaver, chipmunk, Hudson Bay

18

red squirrel, mice, moles, marmot, shrews, American sable
marten, lynx, weasel, mink, muskrat, and four species of
fox. Game birds include grouse, rock ptarmigan (above
timberline in the summer), ducks, geese, snipe, curlew,
and plover. Birds of prey are owl, hawk, raven and the
Alaskan bald eagle. Other common birds are robin, loon,
gull, sandpiper, horned puffin, cormorant, magpie,
woodpecker, blackbird and sparrow. A variety of fish are
found in the abundant lakes and rivers. Baluga whale and
seal are found in Cook Inlet. Mullusks are found on the
beaches of Cook Inlet. Seasonally, the red, silver,
pink, king, and dog salmon come up the Cook Inlet to
spawn in the rivers (H. H. Bennett, 1918).

The large herbivores currently include the moose
ranging on the lowland, and the mountain sheep feeding on
short grasses in the alpine tundra of the lower mountains.
The sheep are the prey of raven, eagle and lynx. Though
the ranges of other fauna have fluctuated during historic
times on the Kenai Peninsula, the fluctuation of that of
the moose is a pertinent example. Moose feed on willow,
birch, and aspen twigs, especially in open areas and in
areas undergoing the initial stages of burn recovery.

The moose population greatly increased after 1870 and
reached a peak in 1913. In 1916 the peninsula was pro-
claimed as the best hunting area in the world for moose.

An epidemic in 1913 reportedly began the decline of the

19

population, though organized game hunting was also a
factor. As to the initial rapid increase of the moose,
there are various explanations. Increased hunting and
trapping of the predator population (wolverine, bear and
lynx) is one such possibility. An increase in the moose's
effectual habitat may have occurred from a rash of forest
fires either set by human hand or from geological
activity.

One further explanation of the pOpulation decline
of the moose concerns also the caribou (which have not
been reported on the peninsula for some years). In the
1973 research, this author found a Ninilchik folk belief
that before the rise in the moose population, the
peninsula was occupied by caribou. Some villagers
remember from the turn of the century hunting the few
remaining caribou, having items of clothing (some of
which survive) made from the hides. Legends suggest that
the caribou come and go on the peninsula over wide periods
of time, alternating with the moose.

The caribou and the moose do have some overlap in
niche. If an interrelated fluctuation of ranges occur,
it need not reflect competition or incompatibility between
the two species. It could be the result of expansion of
resources or of climate change and habitat alteration with
one species unable to adapt. The herding behavior of the

caribou or the "social" system of either species may also

20

explain such a phenomenon of long term variability.

The transitional nature of the Kenai Peninsula
environment is repeatedly stressed in the preceding
description. Detail is presented in the discussion of
vegetation, climate, and fauna such that a sense of the
complexity of evidence, and the level of the phenomenon
is understood. One other important species interacts
within this environment, man. How human adaptation
affects and is affected by such a transitional environment
is the question that began this research. This specific
environmental setting will be returned to as an example
of the application of ecological models.

Interactions during the period of historic contact
unbalanced the ecological system in this environment. The
culture change affected not only human populations, but
also major animal populations. The problem of human
adaption in a transitional environment is best addressed
in terms of a more stable situation, perhaps the pre-
historic occupation. iHowever, an overview of the historic
period is important to outline the nature of culture and
ecological change, to indicate difficulties in reconstruct-
ing the prehistoric system, and to characterize sources

that contribute to an early ethnography of the peninsula.

21

The Historic Period

 

Records from Bering and Cherikov's 1741 expeditions
are the earliest documents from southern Alaska. These
reports do not describe the Kenai Peninsula directly for
neither vessel of the expedition approached Cook Inlet,
and theluleof the scientific corps, Delisle, died before
the boats returned, as did Captain Bering. A naturalist,
Steller, who sailed on Bering's ship, though imprisoned
upon his return to Siberia, wrote some scientific reports
(Golder, 1922-25; Van Stone, 1959).

The limited scientific information and the tales of
the survivors of the Bering expedition were received as
news of great riches. Siberian hunters and traders
launched their crude vessels to exploit the new frontier.
The Eskimo, Aleut, and Indian.populations of southern
Alaska were rapidly drafted (by force or fear) into the
fur trade of several competing companies.

During the final quarter of the eighteenth century,
explorers from many nations came to the southern coast of
Alaska. Their main purpose was to search for a northwest-
passage. Captain Cook, 1776-1780, was the first to survey
the shoreline of Cook Inlet (Cook, 1785). The last major
voyage in search of the passage was made by Vancouver in
1792. As a response to these explorations, Russia
strengthened her claim to Alaska by establishing more

permanent settlements.

22

From historic records, it is fairly clear that the
initial settlement on the Kenai Peninsula was formed as
part of the fur trade. Shelikov, in 1783, began the
first Russian settlement in Alaska on.Kodiak, a large
island 100 miles southwest of the peninsula. His fur
trade company then established two posts on the Kenai
Peninsula: one, Fort Saint George, at the mouth of the
Kasilof River in 1776, and another in 1791, Fort Saint
Nicholas, at the mouth of the Kenai River. In 1799, that
company was granted a monopoly of the fur trade and
became the Russian American Company with Baranov both the
manager and first governor of the territory. Recognizing
the value of acculturating the natives of his employment,
Shelikov supported a mission of the Russian Orthodox
Church. The mission served the peninsula first from
Kodiak and then from Fort Saint Nicholas.

Various explanations have been offered as to the
establishment of other communities. Khlebrnikov (1973)
writes of the shipwreck of the Russian brig "Catherine"
whose survivors may have established a colony, inter—
marrying with the natives. Another source of population
is exiles from Siberia (Langsdorff, 1813 (II):64;
Lisianski, 1968:215). Retirees from the Russian American
Company, either unable or unwilling to return.to Russia,
formed settlements (Petroff, 1884). Mutineers from

various ships and members of persecuted religious sects

23

from Siberia may have formed other settlements. An
attempt was made to establish an agricultural colony by
the Russian Crown. The actual success and location of
this colony is unknown, though small Siberian cattle were
kept in the settlements until late in the nineteenth
century. The Russian American Company participated in
the relocation of Eskimo and Indian populations to control
native hostilities and to benefit the fur trade. The
traders coerced formerly economically self-sufficient
native families and communities to separate. This caused
dependence for subsistence and survival upon, and assured
employment of natives in the trade system.

The settlements which developed during the nineteenth
century on the Kenai Peninsula were detailed in accounts
of the Russian Orthodox priests. Fort Saint Nicholas
eventually became the village of Kenai. Across the Kenai
River another village, Chernila, was located. Chiktuk
was up the Kenai River. Skilakh village was further
inland on the shore of Skilak Lake. To the south of
Kenai, both Ninilchik and Anchor Point were coastal
settlements. Alexandrovsk, also a trading post, was on
the southern tip of the peninsula. The pOpulation of
these settlements was primarily Tanaina Indians or Creoles
(mixed ancestry of Russian and either Indian or Eskimo).
One Eskimo village, Akhmylik, was also described to be on

the southern shore of the peninsula. Epidemics of measles

 

24

and tuberculosis, and the economic adjustment in the fur
trade (starvation) decreased the size of the population on
the peninsula. The reported high percentage of Russians
and Creoles was probably due to the pressure to claim an
alliance with the prestigious Russian population. Settle—
ments were located on rivers or the coast for transporta-
tion purposes and because of dependence on salmon (J. B.
Townsend, 1974).

The major ethnographic sources for the early historic
period are written in Russian. Some of these have been
translated (Bearne, 1976; Black, 1977; Davydov, 1810-1812;
Risher, 1971; Khlebrnikov, 1973, Sarychev, 1806; Tikhmenev,
1861-1863; J. B. Townsend, 1974; VanStone, 1973; and
Von.Wrangell, 1970). Material that has been only summarily
examined from this period is located in the Alaska Russian
Church Archives and the Yudin Collection, both located in
the Library of Congress, and in the Archives of the
Russian Orthodox Church, St. Herman Pastoral School, Kodiak
(Black, 1977). The Russian works reflected the bias of
the Russian American Company or the individual mission-
aries and did not emphasize ethnography. Journals and
logs from the various expeditions are another source of
information (Dixon, 1789; Langsdorff, 1817).

The early sources document three native population
groups in southern Alaska: Indians, Aleuts, and Eskimo.

The Kenai Peninsula is described as having been occupied

25

by all three groups. The tendency for the Russians to
describe the Pacific Eskimo as Aleuts may mistakenly place
the Aleuts on the peninsula. Exactly which.Pacific

Eskimo group occupied the southern shores of the peninsula
is still an obscured matter. That the p0pulation was
early and drastically affected by the fur trade seems
evident. A rather complete knowledge of the peninsula

and its settlements is indicated not only in the descrip-
tions, but in Tebenkof's Atlas (1852) of Russian America.

Acculturation during the early historic period can
be traced to two important spheres of influence. The fur
trade interrupted economic activities. The program of
missionization reshaped religious practices and beliefs.
Changes wrought by these two imposed institutions are
echoed in the entire life systems of the populations of
the Kenai Peninsula.

A variety of resources were exploited on the Kenai
Peninsula as the Alaskan territory was explored. A few
settlers tried placer gold mining in the Kenai River in
1850. Others mined coal at Port Graham (1854) to supply
the Russian steamers. The United States secured the
administration of Alaska in 1867, and the Alaska.Commer-
cial Company gained control over the Russian fur trade
establishment (Bancroft, 1960). In 1889, an unsuccessful
attempt was made to develop a lignitic coal industry on

Kachemak Bay for export. The gold rush of 1890 was the

 

26

first factor responsible for a marked population increase.
That increase continued with the construction of the
Alaskan Northern Railway between the new settlements of
Seward and Anchorage. The p0pulation of the peninsula was
doubled by the addition of 1500 people in Seward at the
turn of the twentieth century. At that time it is
estimated that out of the total peninsula.p0pulation, 400
were natives (Bennett, 1918).

The commercial fishing industry developed early in
the twentieth century and attracted seasonal labor. This
occupation slowly replaced fur trapping as the major
source of supplementary subsistence. Another occupation,
fox farming, was successful in the 1920s. Those villagers
in Ninilchik who remember the fox farming state that not
only the decline in fur prices, but the unpleasantness of
the occupation, finished the industry. These were only
secondary means of survival. Until the late 1940s, the
majority of the population subsisted primarily by hunting
and fishing.

In the 1940s, a major change occurred on the penin—
sula. A road was built connecting the Turnagain Arm area
(already connected by road to Anchorage) and all of the
major settlements on the peninsula to Homer, on the
northern side of the mouth of Kachemak Bay. This brought
an influx of homesteaders from the "lower 48." The grad-

ual urbanization of the original settlements began and new

27

settlements at strategic spots on the road (including
Soldatna with a 1973 population near 3000) were estab-
lished. Such rapid deveIOpment was recently accelerated
by the construction of the "Alaskan Pipeline." The Kenai
Peninsula is currently one of the most rapidly growing
regions in Alaska.

This thesis evolved from the 1973 project to recon—
struct settlement and subsistence pattern as a base of
the historic acculturation. During the historic period
through 1940, the major food resources exploited by the
Kenai Peninsula population appear to have remained the
same; salmon and moose or caribou. An exception to this
generalization was the virtual elimination of the maritime
hunting Eskimo population. The sustained exploitation of
major food resources was the result of the successful
reorganization of native Subsistence strategy under the
influence of the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian
American Company. To understand the acculturated system,
a reconstruction of the pre—contact settlement and
subsistence pattern was necessary.

During the historic period, the local transitional
characteristics of the Kenai Peninsula were subordinated
to a larger system of change. The development of Alaska
as a territory of Russia and then the United States
resulted in an unbalanced regional ecology. Communities

of human population were rearranged and destroyed. New

 

28

populations and strategies for resource exploitation were
introduced. The effect of the transitional environment
on populations is overshadowed by the complex of historic
change. The pre-contact ecological system of the Kenai
Peninsula is examined in this thesis as an example inter-
action evidenced by human subsistence and settlement

patterns in a transitional environment.

The Prehistoric Cultures

 

The prehistoric cultures of the Kenai Peninsula are
not well known. As already stated, the historic ethnog—
raphy indicates that the peninsula was occupied by at
least two distinct groups, one Eskimo, the other Indian.
In examining the prehistoric cultures of the area,
researchers have been interested in the migration of
populations (Dumond; Reger) in the diffusion of ideas and
culture traits (Chard; De Laguna), or in the internal
development of culture (Laughlin; Aigner). These vantages
are chosen to explain the variety of cultures and the
distinction between cultures.

In archaeological research, particular emphasis
depends on the researcher's perception of the Eskimo-
Indian relationship. Some determine the cultural affinity
of sites based on the historic occupation of the area by
Tanaina Indians (Kent et al., 1964). Others assume that

the Tanaina recently (just prior to historical contact)

29

moved into the region after the Eskimo abandoned the area
(De Laguna, 1934; Reger, 1973; VanStone and Townsend,
1970). Some evidence of the recent entrance of the Tanaina
into the area has been assembled from sites north of the
peninsula though still on Cook Inlet. Spaulding (1967)
found Athabaskan (the larger Indian group to which the
Tanaina belong) houses constructed on older Eskimo
dwellings. Dumond and Mace (1968) demonstrated early
seasonal Eskimo use of Knik Arm until 1000 and maybe as
late as 1700 A.D.

It is difficult to distinguish between the cultural
affinities of Eskimo and Indian occupation sites.
VanStone and Townsend (1970) found this also to be the
case on the nearby Alaskan Peninsula. Dumond et a1. had
similar difficulty distinguishing between Aleut and
Eskimo sites on the Alaska Peninsula. They concluded
"that it is a mistake to expect to find that any material
cultural boundary between Eskimos and Aleuts has ever been
as sharp as the cleavage between their languages"
(1975:58). These difficulties tend to support a continuum
in material culture despite known linguistic and socio—
cultural differences.

Cultural determination of prehistoric sites is
hampered by the often meager assemblages at sites. That
sites are associated with seasonal subsistence activities

is a further complicating factor. A seasonal site of one

30

population may be defined as a distinct cultural site
because it is different from the same group's sites that
are occupied during another season. On the Kenai Penin-
sula, Indian culture is associated with interior, northern
sites and Eskimo culture with coastal, southern sites.
This corresponds with the transitional characteristics of
the environment in the region.

The major archaelogical study on the Kenai Peninsula
was De Laguna's classic work (1934). That defined a pre—
historic culture sequence for Kachemak.Bay on the
southwest shore and surveyed the western coast of the
peninsula. She concluded that the Kachemak sequence was
a generalized Eskimo type with elements common both to
Arctic and northern Pacific cultures, though distinct from
both. She found early occupations to be more clearly
Eskimo while later occupations had Indian and Asiatic
components. She suggested that diffusion explained the
similarities of cultures along the Pacific Coast. Her
survey of sites on the western coast of the peninsula,
north of Anchor Point, described Tanaina sites. This
began the assumption made by later researchers that
Eskimo sites would only be found in the south. Actually,
the difficulties of surveying by boat and dependence on
local informants greatly biased her brief survey. There
is much contrast between her coastal survey and the

rigorous Kachemak Bay excavation and analysis.

31

In a later work with others, De Laguna et al. placed
the Kachemak Bay culture in perspective with the larger
region.

We seem therefore, to be dealing with a North

Pacific province where the cultural lines between

the AleutéPacific Eskimo and Eyak—Yakutat are

much less sharply drawn than are linguistic
boundaries. In defining such a cultural province,

we should not forget the strong ties between the
Eskimo of Kachemak Bay and Prince William Sound

with the adjacent.Athabaskans, as well as those
already cited that link the Eyak, Yakutat, and
Tlingit with their interior neighbors. (1964:209—210)

Others have examined the Kachemak Bay sites since
De Laguna's excavation and confirmed her conclusions.
New sites in the Kachemak cultural tradition have been
located (Hosley, 1968; Lobdell and WOrkman, 1976; Marsh,
1956; Reger, 1974). Smith in 1961 sent De Laguna
artifacts from a site that appear to predate the Kachemak
sequence (De Laguna, 1975a). In 1975, Reger found a
ground slate artifact that suggests affiliation of the
McHugh Creek site of Turnagain Arm with the Kachemak Bay
material (De Laguna, 1975a). The single known inland
Eskimo site, found near Kenai, is described and analyzed
by Reger (1973).

The remainder of the Kenai Peninsula has been only
partially surveyed. Kent et al. conducted a salvage
survey preceding construction of a pipeline south of

Kenai. The project assumed that settlement remains would

be Athabaskan,reflecting the historic population. Though

32

De Laguna is referenced, her conclusion of Pacific Eskimo
settlement of part of the peninsula is ignored. In the
Kent et al. model of Tanaina subsistence which follows,
this author finds both error and an interesting summary
of current inhabitants' attitudes and assumptions.
Most of the northern Athabaskan pe0ple depend
primarily on fish and secondarily on land mammals.
The Tanaina area, however, had sea mammals as well
as an abundance of fish and land mammals. The
distribution is not equal throughout the area,
however, which results in groups of villages
differing in this and dependent aspects of culture.
The outstanding factor affecting the range of the
food supply is correlated with salt water. In the
Kachemak Bay area there is a regular salt water
fauna, but in the narrower upper regions, the Inlet
is apparently not suitable for many forms of sea
life. One thus finds the rich food area in the
lower Inlet, and areas gradually becoming poorer
as one moves up the Inlet and inland until there
was the familiar Athabaskan situation of a people
who intermittently starve. (1960:104)

The findings of the salvage survey consist of several
sites with house remains (20 x 20 ft. rectangular, semi-
subterranean, reinforced with logs and built above ground)
and sites of numerous unexplained depressions (circular
and averaging eight to ten feet in diameter). The smaller
depressions were grouped together and labeled "storage
pits." When this author examined some of these "storage
pits" in 1973, they were clustered with varied sizes and
some had tunnel depressions. In one case a much larger
pit (associated with smaller pits) had built—up sides, was
lined with bark, and contained fire cracked rock. These

"storage pits" may represent a different kind of site;

33

chronologically, seasonally, or culturally.

The site with historic Tanaina affiliations was
excavated inland near Soldatna (Boraas and Workman, 1976).
VanStone excavated a similar structure near Ninilchik
(De Laguna, 1975a). Dumond (1968a) surveyed a section of
the peninsula and found Athabaskan house ruins. After the
1964 Alaskan earthquake, the coast was surveyed to
determine exposure of unknown sites and condition of known
sites (Morgan, 1965). Several of the Kachemak Bay sites
were destroyed by the earthquake.

General questions about the prehistoric culture of
the Kenai Peninsula have been raised in previous research.
What is the antiquity of the occupation? To what extent
was the peninsula settled? How can the Indian or Eskimo
cultural affinities of sites be assessed? To what larger
area of cultural tradition does evidence belong? The
analysis of evidence for answers to these questions has
provided a general picture of the situation.

De Laguna estimates that phase I of the cultural
sequence of Kachemak Bay dates from between 4000 and
3000 B.C., based on a comparison of evidence of cultural
sequences in nearby regions. This culture evolves into
three other discernible phases: phase II beginning
approximately 2200 B.C., phase III beginning 80 B.C.,
and phase IV from 900 A.D. until the historic period.

The Kachemak Bay sequence and the other distinct (though

34

comparable) sequences of the Kodiak—Afognaks Islands and
the Alaskan Peninsula are "local variants of an ancient
North Pacific 'co—tradition'" (De Laguna, 1975a:x-xi).
These local variants appear to be associated with a
particular region, to emphasize unique subsistence
patterns, and from the historic and linguistic evidence,
to speak different dialects if not distinct languages.
The range of settlement of the Kenai Peninsula by the
Pacific Eskimo has not been adequately examined.

A finding that may have relevance for the Kenai
Peninsula derives from the interpretation of the Kodiak
prehistoric sequence. D. W. Clark (1966, 1970, 1975,
etc.) interprets a hiatus in the last prehistoric phase
just prior to historic cultural contact. This could be
related to a regional population fluctuation including
movement of the Tanaina onto the Kenai Peninsula. It
should be stressed that De Laguna sees the last pre-
historic Kodiak phase, Koniag, to correspond with the
last Kachemak Bay phase (De Laguna, 1975a:x).

The period when the Tanaina Indians first settled
on the peninsula is not as well known. The Athabaskans
are thought to have entered the coastal regions of
south-central Alaska after 1000 A.D. However, ethnography
of the Tanaina is better understood than that of Pacific
Eskimo groups (Osgood, 1937; J. B. Townsend, 1974;
VanStone and Townsend, 1970; Von.Wrangell, 1970). The

35

specific adaptations of each culture will be described and
examined in the context of the models of subsistence and
settlement pattern.

The prehistoric cultures of greater southern Alaska
are considered in relation to several general anthrOpolog—
ical issues. There is debate about correspondence of
archaeological remains with language groups (Eskimo,
Aleut, Athabaskan, or their predecessors), and the appli-
cation of glotto-chronological dates. Explanations of the
occurrence of Asiatic and American traits in the cultural
complexes are attempted. An understanding of the
influences of different cultures upon each other and their
distinctions is desired. The chronological ordering of
developments is sought.

Questions about the prehistoric occupation of the
Kenai Peninsula need solutions. The geographical and
temporal range of occupation by different cultures is not
clearly known. Did Tanaina and Eskimo groups inhabit the
peninsula at the same time? If so, what was their relay
tionship (trade, war, COOperation, boundary, buffer zone)?
If they did not occupy the Kenai Peninsula at the same
time, why not (climate shift, depletion of resources, long
range movement of caribou)?

The first possibility, that both Indian and Eskimo
p0pulations inhabited the peninsula during the same period,

is addressed in this thesis. Understanding the possible

 

36

interaction between populations contributes a larger
question of the movement and development of cultural
traits. Such is an inquiry into the process of inter—

action between cultures.

Summary

From a series of observations, this thesis problem
originated. The Kenai Peninsula is an environmentally
transitional region as evidenced by a complex of factors.
In trying to understand the patterns of historic accul—
turation for populations in this region, the prehistoric
cultural occupation was researched. The prehistoric
settlement pattern and distribution, and subsistence
relationships for the peninsula were found only in rough
outline. Two cultural p0pulations did occupy the penin-
sula prehistorically. What were the interrelationships
between the Tanaina Indian and Eskimo p0pulation on the
Kenai Peninsula? If they did occupy the peninsula during
the same period, did the transition between two ecological
communities affect those interrelationships? Can patterns
of subsistence and resource exploitation within the
transitional region describe the form of interrelation—
ship? To find generalized explanations to these specific
questions, an initial step is the review of ecological
and anthr0pological sources.

The problem addressed in this thesis is the

37

prediction of interaction between distinct cultural p0pu-
lations in a transitional environment. The strategy of
this thesis is to develop generalized models of inter-
action between cultures, that employ data about settlement
distribution and exploitation of resources. The specific

application of these models to a transitional environment

will be considered.

ECOLOGICAL CONCEPTS

The position is taken here that human cultures are
part of a larger life system. Concepts developed by
ecologists, whose research is about the interrelations
of organisms with their environments, are used as a
framework for this study of interactions. A review of
some ecological concepts pertinent to this thesis follows.
The problem of using ecological concepts in the study of
culture is discussed. The concepts of niche, habitat,
and ecotope are introduced. The ramifications of ecotone
as a theoretical construct are presented. The ecological

method of studying population interaction is explored.

Culture and Ecology

There is a fundamental difficulty in the application
of ecological theory to human research. Two extremes are
taken by ecologists in considering the human element;
either ignoring it and inquiring into the "natural"
ecological setting before man's interference, or looking
at the net effect of the extreme level of organization,
industrialized society (Bennett, 1976). One might think

it impossible to conceive of man in harmony with nature.

38

39

Man is seen as such an effective element that his actions
oppose rather than coordinate with the life system. It is
possible to subordinate the importance of man to the level
’of being an integral part of a natural system. (See
Bennett, 1976, for discussion of ecological theory in
anthropology, Odom, 1975).

The characteristic of human populations that dis—
tinguishes them from the biological world is culture.
Culture is variously described as the "ultimate in
adaptive strategies." It allows p0pulations to modify
themselves and their conception of the environment to the
extent of satisfying organism needs by controlling the
blood of the life system, energy. Culture so affects the
role of human populations in the life system, that its
variations define populations (i.e., culture groups).

This differentiation of culture populations within
the human species, makes comparisons between human
populations and other life forms difficult. Historical
principles and generalizations in biology are based on
species. Current biological research recognizes "breeding
populationsfl the results of which should be applicable to
the study of culture populations. The difficulty is
whether to interpret and analyze interactions of human
p0pulations at the biological level of community or the
level of population. Options exist to consider human

cultures as components of the species population or as

 

4O

anahmgous to separate species in a community. Realistic—
ally, generalizations from both levels of biological

research apply (Odum, 1975).

Niche, Habitat, and Ecotope

 

The concepts of niche, habitat, and ecotope are
fundamental in understanding a population's association
with the ecological system. These concepts are histor-
ically reviewed and refined by Whittaker et al. Their
definitions are: niche——"the role of the species within
the community," habitat--"distributional response to
inter-community factors," and ecotope-—"the full range of
adaptation to external factors of both niche and habitat"
(Whittaker et al., 1973:326).

The definition of niche is functional; that of
habitat is spatial. Niche is what can be done; habitat
is where it can be done; and ecotOpe is what is done.
Ecotope, as a concept, integrates niche and habitat. The
ecotope is the adaptation of a.pOpulation to the
environment.

Whittaker et al. (1973) present an organizational
scheme of variables to consider in defining a population's

ecotope. The inter-community variables are those that

 

spatially define the effect on the p0pulation of the
environment. They suggest specific variables of eleva—

tion, soil moisture, etc. (In human pepulations,

41

pertinent variables are the availability of water,

distribution of food sources, etc.) Intra-community

 

variables are those describing the specific role of the
pOpulation in the community (i.e., seasonal limitations,
relative amount and kinds of resources exploited).
(Seasonal subsistence activities, and percentages of
plant, game, and fish consumed are two variables describ—
ing the ecological function of human populations.) The

variables of pOpulation response to the environmental

 

community are density, frequency of utilization, etc.
(Variables defining human population adaptation are
settlement density and distribution, and p0pulation size
and structure.)

The comparison of the ecotope of two cultural popula-
tions in the same regional environment reveals where and
how they adjust to each other's presence. With an overlap
of niche and habitat of the populations there is the
possibility of interaction between the populations. The
definition and comparison of ecotope is the basis for an

understanding of interaction between populations.

The Ecotone

 

It is important to relate the ecological setting in
which populations interact. A conceptual framework is
needed to describe the environment that affects and is

affected by populations.

 

42

Ecologists study several levels of organization in
assessing the organisms' relations with the environment.
Examples of these levels range from individuals, to
populations, and to communities. The associations of
populations in a given area are communities. The concept
of community leads to an understanding of the biotic
zones. A biotic zone is a region displaying a distinct
assemblage of organisms. Such a community associated with
particular abiotic conditions (climate, soils, minerals,
etc.) is an ecological zone. Various classification
systems of world biological communities have resulted from
the zone concept.

These principles of biotic and ecological zone are
useful in examining directional change in an area
(specifically through succession) and in predicting inter—
species relations and associations. There is debate as
to the existence of distinct zones. It is difficult to
define boundaries of either biotic and ecological zones or
of communities. Many ecologists contend instead that
there is a continuum of gradual change of ecological
association in space and time (Curtis, 1955; Curtis and
McIntosh, 1951; Whittaker, 1970).

The abstract nature of the concept of community or
zone association must be accepted. In order to compare
and describe the natural world it is necessary to separate

the continuum of life into some discernible units. The

43

use of biotic zones and communities as a typological tool
by ecologists in their research has been enlightening.
The concepts have provided a.particularly valuable view
in quantitative studies of area communities, succession
and migration analysis, and in comparisons of density
(Knight, 1965).

The difficulty in applying the concept of zone to a
real situation is the lack of distinct boundary of any
given zone. The concept of "ecotone" is a partial
solution to this difficulty. Ecotone is defined as "a
transition area between two adjacent ecological communi-
ties usually exhibiting competition between organisms
common to both" (Webster, 1973).

In nature, there is never discernible a sharp line
or point indicating the beginning of one community
and the end of another; instead there is a zone of
transition, or tension, in which the conditions
for each of the adjacent communities becomes more
adverse and there is often an intermingling of
species from both communities. Such a region is

known as an ecotone or tension zone. (Knight,
1965: 249)

Those who contend that there is no real boundary
between ecological zones will also fail to find boundaries
of the ecotone. As an idea, ecotone describes a transi-
tional area. Some phenomena are attributed to ecotones.
The greater variety of species in the transitional area
is called edge effect. Some edge species may be
particularly adapted to a transitional zone and exhibit

a greater density within the ecotone than within the more

 

44

distinct neighboring zones. There is a tendency for
populations from adjacent zones1x>temporarily occupy the
edge area and then retreat to the original zone; i.e.,
maintain a seasonal edge preference (Knight, 1965;

Odum, 1975).

Recently Rhoades criticized the use of the concept of
ecotone by archaeologists (1978). He primarily finds
fault in misuse of the edge effect phenomena, as applied
in outdated wildlife studies of game animals. He makes an
important point that an edge effect may not be relevant
to human populations. It is important to note that a
larger biomass of a greater total population (per unit
area) in the transitional zone does not necessarily result
from an edge effect (a large variety of species) or the
existence of an edge species (particularly adapted to the
area and densely distributed) (nash, 1975).

Rhoades makes the same error of misusing ecological
concepts that he identifies in the works of others, when
he states, "Edge effect is a very general term designating
the tendency toward increased species variety and density
between two biotic communities where some species, not
all, from adjacent communities intermingle with strictly
edge constituents" (1978:611). He combines what are
actually separate and not necessarily associated phenom—
ena. Edge effect is a general term meaning the tendency

toward increased species variety. Increased density is

45

exhibited only by edge species particularly adapted to
the ecotone not, as implied, by all species in the edge
area. Additionally, some species practice a seasonal
edge preference in the transitional area, while other
species do not survive in the marginal conditions of the
ecotone. The ecotone is a useful concept to examine the
transition area between two ecological zones or com-
munities.

Ecotone is a concept that like ecological zone can
be applied at various levels. These include the transi—
tion between such macro-zones as forest and ocean, or the
margin separating two forest types, or the edge micro—
zones of soil and tree root. These concepts of ecological
zone and ecotone are not meant to describe reality, but
to organize reality so that it can be better understood.
They are used as a framework to describe the environment
that affects and is affected by populations.

It is desirable to compare cultural p0pulation
interactions within transitional areas with the patterns
observed for other species in the ecotone. Cultural
populations may utilize edge species and the edge effect.
.An ecotone might be found to serve as a transitional zone
or boundary between cultural p0pulations associated with

the larger ecological communities.

46

Population Interaction

Within an environment, populations are perpetually
interacting. Two conflicting needs of organisms and
populations can be identified; to survive, and to
cooperate. It is in balancing the fulfillment of these
needs that population interaction takes place (Allee,
1951).

Slobodkin (1961) abstractly derives a.picture for
the coexistence of populations. Typically, groups compete
for a portion of the resources of the habitat. One
population may serve as a resource for the other. The
populations may mutually benefit each other, or the
populations may be independent.

The above organization is refined in Odum (1975).

He views interactions as negative and positive. Competi—
tion, parasitism, and predation are the negative patterns.
The positive interactions are commensalism——one population
benefiting with the other unaffected, proto-COOperation—-
both benefiting with the relationship not necessary for
survival, and mutualism——an association necessary for the
survival of both groups. Neutralism--the independence of
populations can be added to the scheme. Each of these
types of p0pulation interaction is discussed below.

Much attention is given by ecologists to the
phenomenon of competition. Gause's principle, or compe-

titive exclusion, is the basis for ecological discussion.

47

The tenet is that no two species (or populations) with the
same niche can coexist within one ecosystem. The compe—
tition between two groups results in either elimination of
one group or modification of the niche (or ecotope;
considering that the space of the system could be divided
and a boundary established).

A different order of competition is identified by
Park (1954) in a study of flour beetles. He labels this
form of competition "interference." It occurs when the
coexistence of two populations in the same habitat
modifies their behavior though they are not competing for
food or space. In examining cultural p0pulations, this
seems a particularly significant idea.

Intra-specific competition is usually more intense
than inter-specific because organisms are competing for
virtually the same resources.

As a species becomes increasingly "successful," its
struggle ceased to be one of struggle with the
physical environment or with other species and
comes to be almost exclusively competition with its
own kind. We call that species most successful that
has made its own kind its worst enemy. Man enjoys
this kind of success. Intra—specific competition
may be as crude as cannibalism or infanticide, as
"romantic" as chivalrous jousting or dueling, or as
subtle as Stephan Potter's "one-upmanship," but it
all has the same end in view; the securing of
advantage to one's self at the expense of one's
neighbor in a world that is not, and cannot be,
large enough for the continuously "successful"
species. No activity of man is without competitive
uses. Even tact is a competitive weapon.

(Hardin, 1966)

48

Niche diversification is a strategy for coexistence
in a setting of competition. Species with a corresponding
niche can exist in the same habitat by subtly differen-
tiating their niche. They can exploit particular food
resources in preference to a range of other possibilities,
shift time period of exploitation (seasonally or daily),
or limit the range in which the resources are exploited.

Competition between barnacle populations in an edge
area was studied by Connell (1961). Natural resolution of
competition involved stratifying the habitat. This niche
reduction resulted in distinct strata (related to light
penetration and temperature) of the two barnacle groups.
Either group could exist in the conditions of either
strata, though one group was not as successful in the
darker waters.

In a situation analogous to competing human cultural
populations, interesting observations have been made.
Competition between populations of a single species
(interbreeding pepulations distinguished by ecotope)
results in population distinction approaching the vari—
ation of habitat. This functionally facilitates less
competition between the populations in the area of range
overlap. The primary example is of two nuthatch groups.
Where their ranges overlap, bill length and head color
are different. At the extremes of their respective

ranges, they appear quite similar. The increase in

49

variation of the bill may be directly related to the kind
of food eaten (Vaurie, 1975). Two competing non—
interbreeding p0pulations become more specialized at the
poles of their ranges, the gene flow being restricted.
The degree of specialization between two adjacent
competing populations may reflect the quality of their
interrelationship.

Patterns of interrelations found in competing p0pu—
lations for which there is much supporting evidence are
generalized by Odum (1975).

(1) Closely related organisms often do not occur in
the same place; or if they do, close study shows
that they use different energy sources, are active
at different times of day, or at different seasons,
or otherwise occupy a different niche. (2) Where
a large number of related species is present in a
region, the niche of each is often narrower than
when only a few species are present. Comparison
of islands and mainlands often illustrates this
trend. (3) Related species often replace one
another in a gradient. (Odum, 1975:134)

Interaction patterns of predation and parasitism are
similar. They produce a negative rate of increase in one
of the populations (the prey or hosts). The relationships
are density dependent; removing old, young, or unfit
organisms. Cycles of growth and decline in both p0pula-
tions or predator and prey (parasite and host) occur. If
the predator population increases rapidly, then the prey
p0pulation will decrease which will in turn decrease the

predator population which will cause an increase in the

prey population . . . and so on. The amplitude of this

50

oscillation over time can be quite great or hardly notice—
able. Examples of this type of interrelationship between
human groups are the instances of slavery and ritualized
warfare.

Over a long period of association, mutualism may
appear to be a relationship of predation and prey. The
difference is that the existence of each population is
necessary for the survival of both populations. The
relationship is a mutually beneficial association.

Proto-COOperation, commensalism, and mutualism are
positive interactions as they reinforce the balance and
success of the entire community. Among human populations,
trade and tribute systems are examples of these positive
interactions. A relationship of proto-cooperation between
two populations benefits both groups and is not necessary
for the survival of either. In a relationship of commen-
salism, one p0pulation benefits from the other without
damaging or benefiting the second group.

Neutralism is neither a positive or negative inter—
action; it is the lack of interaction. The balance and
success of the ecological community is not affected. It
implies the existence of a boundary or frontier between
p0pulations. A separation can be made of frontier and
boundary as types of spatial segregation. "A frontier
involves the process of integration of new areas into old

(more developed) traditions, whereas the function of

51

boundaries is to separate regions along physical or
conceptual lines" (watson et al., 1971:100).

Within a defined environment, ecological interaction
is studied to find (1) how the interrelationship con—
tributes to the needs of individual populations to survive
and cooperate, and (2) the negative, positive, or neutral
effect of the interrelationship upon the larger community.
The interrelationships are evaluated in terms of the
benefit to populations. The contribution of the rela—
tionship to the populations' survival is analyzed. How
the relationship affects the adaptation of the organism
(as in ecotope specialization) and the long range cycle
of growth and development of the community are appraised.
Similarity and differentiation of the population and the
number of interacting groups in comparison to the extent
of ecotope are noted. A typology of interrelations is
formulated. This is the technique used by ecologists for
inquiry into the nature of interrelations between

populations.

Summary

Ecological concepts that are elemental to this thesis
have been reviewed. Relating cultural studies with bio-
logical data is difficult because of the tradltionally
different focus of the studies. Cultural populations can

be compared with biological patterns at various levels of

52

generalization. Interacting populations can be compared
through a schema for defining ecotOpe. There is an
organizational framework that is used by ecologists to
describe and study the environmental setting of p0pulation
interaction. The ecotone, a typological concept,
describes transition areas. Ecologists have broken down
population interaction phenomena into forms of behavior.

These ecological concepts are important to this
thesis as they provide the foundation for modeling
interaction. Determining the nature of interrelationships
of culture populations involves investigating (1) how the
interrelations contribute to the needs of the p0pulations
to survive and 000perate, (2) the effect of the relation—
ship (positive, negative, or neutral) to the ecological
community, (3) the benefit to individual p0pulations,
(4) the adjustment of ecotope and differentiation made by
the populations, and (5) the overall nature of the inter—
action. The characterizations of competition, predation,
parasitism, mutualism, commensalism, proto—cooperation,
and neutralism organize types of interaction that can
serve as models.

The object of this thesis is to predict how cultural
populations might interact in an ecotone. The tactic is

to deveIOp models of interaction dependent upon ecotope.

53

To augment this application of ecological concepts toward
the study of cultural population interaction.prior

anthropological use is surveyed.

 

ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

This thesis is a contribution to the anthropological
study called "cultural ecology." J. W. Bennett suggests
a broad definition of that school: "How and why humans
use Nature, how they incorporate Nature into Society,
and what they do to themselves, Nature, and Society in the
process" (1976z3). Fitzhugh (1972:7) explains such an
approach in his "environmental archaeology" monograph:

One of the fundamental assumptions in relating man
to his environment is that man is part of the
ecosystem, that he cannot live without it, and
that he is limited by the environment or by the
extent of his ability to alter it. A second
assumption is that culture can be analyzed as a
superorganic system and that it is man's chief
means of survival, resulting in successful
adaptations in almost every conceivable portion

of the globe. Culture is, therefore, an adaptive
system which articulates with the environment
through a complex set of patterned relationships.
Following Struever (1968bz136), this occurs within
two environmental milieus, one of which is bio—
physical, the other social. Anthropological
investigation of culture must therefore concern
itself with both aspects of the environment.

In accordance, this thesis is concerned with both of these
environmental facets.

As an investigation of human population interaction
within a particular environment, definition of distinct

population is implied. Culture is the element that

54

55

distinguishes groups symbolically, materially, and
spatially. A population's patterned relationships
indicate a system of adaptation to a social and bio—
physical environment. This thesis is concerned with the
pattern of interaction between distinct cultural p0pula—
tions. Defining groups by cultural variables is
typological though dynamic as elements change through
invention and/or contact with the social and biOphysical
environments.

The relationship between cultural units and adaptive
systems of resource use is an anthropological issue to
which this thesis contributes. J. W. Bennett stated,

This is the basic Stewardian problem: the extent
to which cultural cores can be determinative of
other institutions, or the extent to which cultural
cores can themselves be shaped by these institu—
tions. The techno-economic—ecological systems
complex can become part of the definition of
distinctive cultures, or it can transcend cultural
boundaries, permitting new definitions of
boundedness. (Bennett, 1976:308)

In examining a part, there should be an awareness of
the edge which incorporates it into a larger system as
both a boundary and a link. A culture is partially
shaped by boundary and interaction with other cultures
and the environment.

The concern here is about how a transitional environ—
ment affects cultural populations. It is assumed that to

some extent the differentiation of culture groups will

follow biological differentiation. An understanding of

56

the ways in which a culture group uses or is bounded by a
transitional environment and then interacts with other
cultural groups is sought. An organization of predictable
forms of interaction between distinct cultural populations
in an ecotone is the goal of this work.

The research of some anthropologists contributes to
this modeling. The ecotone concept has been applied.
Cultural p0pulation distinction and interaction has been
examined. And ethnographic information pertinent to
understanding group interaction in Alaska has been
compiled. These anthropological perspectives are

presented next.

The Use of Ecotone

The concept of ecotone is used in anthropology
primarily in the reconstruction of cultural settings.
Ethnography and socio-cultural studies generally describe
the local environmental components that affect a cultural
system. Their interest is not in the effect of the
interrelations of larger biological communities on the
system (J. W. Bennett, 1976:308). Archaeologists and
ethno-historians reconstruct the environment as thoroughly
as possible. Again the emphasis of the search is for a
phenomenon in the reconstruction or description that
serves as an agent in cultural behavior.

Hickerson (1965) reconstructs the relationship

57

between the Chippewa and the Sioux from 1780 to 1850.
Competition for game, specifically deer, resulted in war-
fare between the two cultures. A buffer zone existed
between the two groups which coincided with an ecotone
between forest and park-land regions. Only war parties
or well—armed hunting groups could safely trespass into
the contested buffer zone. Warfare functioned to prevent
the favorable game habitat from being occupied so
intensively as to deplete the supply. The phenomenon of
deer being an edge species was used to explain warfare.
"The effect of warfare, then, was the regulation and
preservation of a supply of deer in and near the buffer
zone for the use of Indians" (Hickerson, 1965:62). The
situation has been reviewed by Watrall (1976).

Several authors suggest that the biotic edge effect
is echoed in human cultural diversity and density
(Baerreis and Bryson, 1965; Cleland, 1966; Fitting, 1966a;
Gumerman and Johnson, 1971; Gumerman et al., 1976). A
more varied environment is viewed as a more favorable
environment for man. In these instances the concept of
ecotone is evoked in the formation of research strategy.
Cultural occupations are examined by these authors in an
environment assumed to be beneficial for dense and varied
populations.

The concept of ecotone is also used to explain

observations. For example, a shift in subsistence

58

strategy may be related to a high density of deer in an
ecotone (Struever, 1968b; WOod and MCMillan, 1972).
Gorman (1972) concludes that mammoth kill sites and
evidence of the Clovis culture appear to be related to
ecotonal grass stands providing a variety of food for
both man and beast.

Theories about the evolution of village life and
agriculture are associated with the phenomenon of
ecotones. A variety of species and high density leads
to sedentary settlements and population expansion. The
ecotonal environment provides a favorable habitat for
weedy cultigens that become the seeds of human agriculture
(Cooter, 1974; Glassow, 1972; Harris, 1969, 1972;
Rhoades, 1974). Archaeologists theorize that the most
favorable conditions for plant domestication existed in

The marginal transition zones or ecotones between
major ecosystems. Biological productivity tends

to be high at both primary and secondary levels

in these situations and they offer maximum vari-
ation in the availability of species. . . . (Here)
it would have been easier than elsewhere to combine
the crepping of animal protein by hunting

herbivores or catching fish with the gathering of
wild plants. The more assured and better balanced

diet thus afforded would also have reinforced
tendencies towards sedentary settlement. (Harris,
1969:8-9)
Thomas altered the meaning of edge effect to be the
"exploitation of dual life zones" (1973:173). In this
sense he referred to successful human subsistence patterns

involving two biotic zones; i.e., the human.population as

59

an edge species.

Nash (1975) used the concept most effectively in his
regional archaeological research in northern Manitoba.
Rather than applying the concept of transition area with
its context of the ecotonal phenomena, he used the concept
to frame his research. He described the environment of
the region and noted the occurrence of two major biotic
zones (forest and tundra) on the edges of the region. He
identified this area as a transitional zone. ‘Within the
transitional zone, three lesser vegetation zones were
found to be associated with different cultural sites:
forest—tundra, transitional forest, and forest-border.
Substantive conclusions were that each of these micro—
environments contributed to the human exploitative
pattern.

It can be argued that the selection of sites was a
complex process reflecting, at the highest level,
the shifting emphasis within a caribou-fish
subsistence economy, and at a lower level a
concern for the location of eskers. Most sites

in the region are small and not physiographically

diverse (multi-factorial) locales. (Nash,
1975:177)

A review of Nash's (1975) conclusions about the
process of culture in a transitional zone contrasts to the
assumptions of others described above. He found contin—
uity through time and minimal cultural evolution in a
transitional zone. Settlement pattern and subsistence

strategy change little; instead the cultural system

60

persisted in a stable equilibrium. The most significant
change was an increase in population and a possible
increase in functional specialization among sites. With
a stable environment and a conservative culture, major
change appeared to be unprofitable. The culture adapted
to the transition zone. In this instance, greater variety
of species affected settlement and subsistence pattern.
Greater density of edge species appeared ineffectual in
providing a resource to be intensively exploited.
Gumerman and Johnson (1971) suggest that further
study of ecotonal habitation may lead to a better under-
standing of the nature of boundary between culture areas.
They refer to the association of culture areas and
biotic zones and their implied, associated boundaries.
This thesis proposes models of relations between
cultures in the context of a transitional environment.
Such a procedure is similar to Hickerson's (1965) approach
in examining cultural interrelations and boundary in the
transitional environment. Rather than attribute the
phenomena of edge areas to the setting as did Hickerson,
the occurrence of these phenomena are to be assayed for
their influence on the human p0pulations. The inquiry
is in concordance with Gumerman and Johnson's (1971)
supposition that analysis of ecotonal occupation may
disclose the interrelations between cultures. Nash (1975)

has documented a pattern of adaptation by one cultural

61

group to a transitional area between larger biotic zones.
It is not assumed here that all transitional zones will
exhibit the same edge area phenomena for human groups.
The cultural variables of transition areas are dependent
on the components of the larger ecological communities.
This thesis presents alternative models of cultural

p0pulation behavior with respect to transitional zones.

Population Distinction and Interaction
As expreSsed by Levi—Strauss, an aim of anthropology
is totality.

It regards social life as a system of which all the
aspects are organically connected. It readily
admits that, in order to acquire a more thorough
knowledge of certain types of phenomena, it is
essential to subdivide. . . . When the anthropolo—
gist endeavors to create models, it is always

with the underlying motive of discovering a form
that is common to the various manifestations of
social life. (1967:362-363)

 

Anthropology begins with a description of the form
of culture and then moves to an analysis of the ongoing
process and dynamic change of the culture system. The
advantages of this analysis of process as a step beyond
observation of cultural entities are in the development
of theories of relationship and the observation of
similarities and regularities that allow the formation
of predictive models and eventually general theory and
principles (Clarke, 1968:22, 23).

Initially, a means of distinguishing cultural

62

populations is advanced here. Then patterns and forms of
the interaction process of those distinct groups that have
been considered are examined. Anthropologists have
inevitably confronted the problem of boundary, identity,
and role of cultures in a system. The concept of
ecological niche serves as an organizing principle in the
distinction of groups. Other discussion involves the
concept of collective symbols and systems in cultures.
The institutions of warfare, alliance, and trade are
studied as instances of community interaction. Some
relevant examples of these anthropological motifs follow.
Discussion of the distinction of culture groups leads
naturally to a consideration of the interaction of the
populations.

Barth (1956) states that the culture area concept
is usually applied in the analysis of culture distribution
and form in the environment. Culture area is a scheme
associating culture types with biological provinces. He
perceives the environment of a group as not only defined
by "natural conditions . . . but also by the presence and
activities of other ethnic groups on which it depends.
Each group exploits only a section of their total environ—
ment, and leaves large parts of it open for other groups
to exploit" (1956:1079). This intertwining of cultural
groups makes difficult the application of the culture area

concept (in Asia particularly). In his work, Barth uses

63

ecological concepts to study distribution, "particularly
the concept of a niche-—the place of a group in the total
environment in its relations to resources and competitors"
(1956:1080).

Barth also generalized about the distribution of
ethnic groups. The distribution of these groups does not
follow regional areas, but rather the distribution of
habitats exploitable by individual groups (niche).
Different groups will occupy the same area if they exploit
different resources and develop "symbiotic" relations
(mutualism). If both groups compete for the same
resources, the more powerful replaces the weaker. If
different groups use the same resources but the weaker is
able to utilize more marginal environments, they may co—
reside. These are observations of interrelations in one
region.

Love (1977) too has examined the concept of "eco—
logical niche" in anthropology. He discusses the primary
use of the concept in explaining of ethnic or sub-cultural
groups in complex societies. He asserts that it also has
utility for understanding the interaction between culture
groups. He demonstrates this by applying the concept to
the changing patterns of resource exploitation of two
groups in northern California. He documents a process of
competition for resources and the resulting adjustment of

niche and the relocation of one group.

64

A culture group identifies itself with a portion of
the environment.

Not all the environment that surrounds a given
society is consciously realized by its members;
there is a neutral or indifferent part of their
surroundings that does not affect the development
of their social life because the cultural baggage
of the moment does not contain the knowledge and
tools necessary for its exploitation. On the
other hand, there is another part of the environ—
ment composed of a series of elements considered
to be subsistence resources, which taken together
constitutes a "culturally integrated space"; the
latter is an abstract idea of the environment in
the collective mind of the group, which could be
called the "cultural environment." It differs

in populations that exist at the same period of
time and, more logically, differs among those
that are distant from each other in time, even
though they may have occupied the same sites;
this is true not only because of the changes that
habitat could have undergone but also because of
the different conceptions that made up the
aboriginal thinking of the moment. (Martinez,
1979:313)

Reichel Dolmatoff in his ethnography Amazonian Cosmos
(1971) is concerned with the individual's and society's
perception of nature. He examines the symbolic perception
of the environment in terms of stereotypes, images, and
clusters of associated signs at different abstract levels.
He views this perception as diffused throughout patterns,
institutions, technologies, and economic and value
systems. He describes a region occupied by several
exogamous groups which are defined by their relations with
the environment. The groups interact in a complex network
of affinity and consanguinity. Different group settle—

ments are associated with particular geographical features

65

and subsistence patterns. Ecologically, each distinct
group occupies a diverse niche (or micro-niche in terms of
the regional p0pulation). The habitats of the groups
interdigitate within the region. In examining the
p0pulations' perceptions of the environment, he finds a
central theme——man in both competition and symbiosis with
animals of the ecological system.

Some archaeologists (Caldwell, 1964; Blanton, 1976)
interpret the interaction between distinct cultural groups
as mutually beneficial. They describe regional spheres of
interaction in terms of economy. Regional networks arise
from local interaction between cultures. A moderate
degree of sedentary settlement by the social group is
necessary for the establishment of local interaction
networks.

Trigger discusses difficulties in distinguishing
cultures and in understanding interaction.

The simple truth is that while possession of a
common material culture implies interaction and
close ties among those who possess it, it does not
necessarily imply that the bearers constitute a
single linguistic, social, economic, or political
unit. Social anthropologists, moreover, are
keenly aware that the boundaries of social,
political, and economic ties may be as amorphous
and interclined with those of other systems as
are the boundaries of cultural traits. (1967:151)
Trigger pr0poses that the study of social, political,

and economic relationships using archaeological data be

called "settlement archaeology.” He suggests three units

66

of analysis for this research; the structure, the settle—
ment, and their distribution. He postulates that a study
of
the spatial relationships between different
communities may reveal something about ecological
and political arrangements. Some communities may
be shown to be dependent, either economically or
politically, on other communities. The settle-
ment of economically marginal regions may be
related to the development of mining or trade,
and the avoidance of certain areas may reflect the
relationships between different political groups.
(1967:152)

As an example of the settlement method, Trigger
examines warfare between the Huron and their neighbors.
Based on ethnography he sees the interaction constructed
upon values of prestige, revenge, and sacrifice. He
reviews three functional explanations of the warfare.

The psychological explanation is derived from the
Tupinamba of Brazil. A great need for harmony existed
among members of crowded villages. Hostility and aggres~
sion were expressed against members of other bands by
warfare and torture. The economic explanation is a
changing economic role and the division of labor between
sexes, with the men seeking prestige from warfare as their
contribution to subsistence diminished. The demographic
explanation is that a shortage of suitable soil resulted
in population pressure and competition. He did not find

clear correlations between the settlement data and these

explanations or the political organization. He did find

67

a "correlation between larger communities, denser concen—
trations of villages, and the growth of increasingly
elaborate fortifications and cannibalistic practices"
(1967:158).

Others have examined the phenomenon of warfare as
cultural interaction (Fried et al., 1968). Chagnon (1968)
drew interesting conclusions about warfare among the
Yanomamo. He believes that the motive for war is not
territorial, but a demonstration of sovereignty and
autonomy by force and aggressiveness. Further, the
political sovereignty of a group is improved by entering
into alliances or emphasizing military capacity. Smaller

groups are more likely to enter into an alliance.

Population Interaction in Alaska

The nature of conflict and alliance in northern
Alaska was analyzed by Burch and Correll. Their conclu—
sions amplify those of Chagnon. They emphasize the
simultaneity of positive alliance and intense mutual
hostility. They use the term alliance in the liberal
sense to refer to any relation that associates individuals
or organizations. The organization of the northern
Alaska populations is described as being a division of
space and p0pulation into regional groups. Members of a
group spoke a distinct dialect that identified them to

strangers. An individual had a knowledge of detailed

68

dialect differences and could choose which dialect to
speak for the occasion. A group would be identified with
a home region. The entire membership might be absent from
the "home" range while being occupied with seasonal
subsistence. A region would have a yearly cycle of
subsistence distinct from its neighboring region. The
group membership vaguely defined the marriage universe.
Marriage rules did not exist except in a.pattern of
contact and familiarity. "Each group thus constituted a
'deme' in that it was a partially isolated population of
individuals having an intimate temporal and spatial rela—
tionship to one another" (1971:24).

Boundaries between these regional groups were
territorial, linguistic, and social. It was important to
have alliances across regional boundaries. A "stranger,"
a threat to one's existence, was either avoided, killed,
or enslaved. With nomadic hunting patterns, fluctuating
food sources and/or feuding within a region, a group
might have to move to another region to avoid starvation
or murder. Alliances with members of different regional
groups were important.

Alliances were relations between individuals.
Individuals' relationships between regions benefited many
people as they involved the network of alliances of each
individual's group. Two types of inter—regional alliances

were considered; the common trade partnership and the

69

stronger bond of intermarriage. Trade partnerships were
functionally diffuse relationships of obligation for
mutual protection and support. The element of trade was
often symbolic. "Partnerships were more significant as
alliances per se than they were specialized foci for
exchanging goods" (Burch and Correll, 1971:26).

Burch and Correll emphasized that the trade partner—
ships did not occur simply as a mechanism to intersect
ecological zones. That is, they were not simply a network
of trade of caribou skins and furs from the interior for
sea mammal products from the coast. The regional alliance
network crossed major linguistic, social, and ecological
boundaries. Athabaskan groups were incorporated in the
regional system.

For the Eskimo groups intermarriage was of two types.
Burch and Correll label these types as residential and
co—marriage (non-residential spouse exchange). "Inter—
marriage between Eskimo and Athabaskan groups followed
Eskimo marriage rules" (1971:26-28). This may reflect an
Eskimo lack of understanding of the Athabaskan marriage
rules and an avoidance of the bride price obligation.

Both mechanisms of alliance increased the adaptation
of the groups to the regional system in times of warfare
and famine. The alliances functioned to allow safe inter—
regional movement of groups. A messenger might be sent to

invite allies to a late fall or winter feast. These

7O

invitational feasts assembled large numbers of individuals
(all allied to the host, but not necessarily to each
other) for friendly interaction to reaffirm the alliance
and solidarity, in addition to the redistribution of
goods. A second type of trade fair or market (by general
announcement) was usually held in the summer on the coast
because of food requirements. These fairs might be held
in another season or location if there was an exceptional
abundance of food resources. Inter-regional migration
occurred at a low level. An individual might leave his
group to intermarry, escape feud or famine, or in fear of
a shaman.

Inter-regional contact accentuated conflict.
Personal insult or injury, defeat in games at fairs,
being surpassed in trade, murder of an ally, abduction of
wife or sister, or theft, all might lead to warfare.
Burch and Correll found that conflict and inter-regional
alliance vary directly not inversely. "Groups that fight
one another stick together" (1971:35).

Hostility between groups might last a few months to
a few years. Since fighting was a one—to-one action,
population size was important. Smaller groups would ally
against larger ones for retaliation and defense. The
object of the warfare was not to gain territory or
property, but to annihilate the group. Conflict within a

regional group (feud) was differentiated from that between

 

71

groups (warfare). Warfare might involve ten allied men on
a side, even though only one man or a family might be
feuding with another. Warfare involved direct action and
ambush while feuding was performed discretely and resulted
in murder. A ritual was necessary in the disposal of the
murdered body, but no ritual was needed in warfare.

Burch and Correll (1971) found that this network of
inter-regional alliance and warfare crossed linguistic
boundaries (between Indian and Eskimo) and geographical
boundaries (coast and inland, or north slope and south
slope). They surmised that material culture reflected
these regional interactions. The work of A. M. Clark
(1970), an archaeologist, supported their linguistic and
social—anthropological conclusions. "With respect to
Indian—Eskimo relations in North Alaska, then, the answer
to the question, 'Intermarriage, trading, or war?' is
simply 'Yesl'" (Burch and Correll, 1971:19).

Associations and alliances in Eskimo society provide
adaptive flexibility in the operation of the community
both socially and ecologically. A more specific list of
these relations found in Eskimo culture can be detailed.
Relations extending kinship are adOption, betrothal,
namesake, and spouse-exchange. Relationships not extend-
ing kinship are serious and joking partnerships, feasts
and trade fairs, meat sharing, dancing, singing, wrestling

partnerships, amulet relationships, ritual sponsorship,

72

and work and hunting associations. "Alliance is sympto-
matic of the essentially negotiable character of all.
social relations in Eskimo Society" (Guemple, 1971:5).
Alliance incorporates strangers into the group. Even
"kinsmen are not, in Eskimo thinking, irrevocably bound
into networks of mandatory social connection where no
discretion is possible. Instead, every man is at liberty
to make his own way in the social world" (Guemple,

1971:7).

Slobodin (1960) discusses patterns of warfare between

Eskimo and Indians.

Although captives and loot were a part of these
raids, the main cause of war was revenge. A

result of these hostilities was a neutral ground
where neither group felt safe and which was left
uninhabited. Neither group the Kutchin or Eskimo
were attempting to expand their territories by
these war raids, before or during the fur trade.

A similar pattern of traditional hostilities
existed between the Chipewyan and the Eskimo of
Hudson Bay and Coronation Gulf. There was a neutral
land established between these two groups and also
a similar situation of an increase in conflicts
during a short period when the Chipewyan felt their
superiority from direct involvement in the fur
trade. (1960:361)

Another system that insures that an individual will
meet a kinsman or partner in any region he visits is
described by De Laguna.

Western Athabaskan economy is based upon the
ability to exploit all the available micro—
environments in short distances that separate lake,
river, marsh, and mountain, and the social organ—
ization is adjusted to facilitate the movement of
individual families, not only within the territory
of their own band, but to caribou fences, sheep

73

licks, or fishing places in any area where they

can join a relative. A sib system which permits

the equation of lineages across band or even

dialectical "tribal" boundaries is, however, an

ideal way of insuring the presence of kinsmen and

partners where one travels and thereby widens the

possible areas a hunter can exploit. (1975b:136)
A small local group is the sib (a group associated by
claimed descent from an ancestor) or sub—sib among the
western.Athabaskans "because exogamous marriages are
necessary and profitable" (1975b:137). The sib is associ—
ated with a residence (or residence of its leader) and
named for an animal or other important resource or
possession. The sibs are aligned into moieties because
of a consistent marriage pattern. The moiety system is
fluid, not a fixed association of Opposite sibs, so as
to adjust for changes in sib populations in specific
regions. If an individual moved into another region he
would come into contact with members of another regional
group belonging to his sib.

In addition to the system of matrilineal descent of
the Northwestern Athabaskans linking individuals through
regional boundaries, the institutions of feuding and
warfare are also found. McClellan (1975) describes the
expressed need of the Athabaskans to kill all strangers;
or those who could not claim a relationship. An intense
hatred for the nearby Eskimo is expressed with the

apparent trade relationship. Two Athabaskan groups would

band together against the Eskimo. The Athabaskans also

74

fought among themselves. A war party would have a leader,
though not an institutionalized chief. The warriors would
have physical training, endure a food taboo, and seek the
aid of shamans. This warfare could occur in any season.
The object of the warfare was to kill all adult males of
the opposition group and take the women and children
captive. A group could settle the dispute by a payment

of wealth.

Summary

Culture systems are as continuous as ecological
systems. It is difficult to determine where one culture
system begins and another ends. In the study of culture,
anthropologists have made subdivisions. The concept of
niche has served such a purpose, isolating a group from
others based on relations to resources and competitors.
In using niche to distinguish cultures, areas of culture
types are indistinct; habitats form a mosaic of culture
groups. The total environment is not perdeived by the
culture group. The relevant, perceived, or symbolic
environment separates groups. A culture has a circum—
scribed membership. Individuals and groups encountered
by a culture must be accounted for by interrelation or
they are seen as a threat to the existence of the culture
(a stranger-—unknown and unacquainted). Though culture

groups must account for other groups by interaction, they

75

must also emphasize their own autonomy and sovereignty.

Cultural interaction crosses linguistic, ecological,
and social boundaries. Culture groups that interact are
discriminated by linguistic form, regional habitat or
sendentary settlement, and sUbsistence patterns. Given
an environment with fluctuating resources, cultural
interaction is a process of ecological and social sur—
vival. Interrelations can be analyzed as a sphere of
interaction or network. Inter—group relations are based
on the associations of individuals. Types of interaction
have been explored: alliance and partnership, warfare,
kinship, descent, and trade. Warfare need not be opposed
to other types of relations or seen as competition for
resources or territory. 'Warfare may result from other
elements of interaction. It may function to maintain
harmony within the group by expressing hostility and
aggression outside of the group. Some observations have
been made on the processes of interaction between groups.
Two cultural groups can occupy the same area in symbiosis
or mutualism if they exploit different resources. In
competition for resources, either the more powerful or
the weaker group adjusts its niche and relocates in the
marginal habitat of the area.

Marginal habitats, transitional areas, and ecotones
have been considered in the reconstruction of cultural

settings. Phenomena associated with edge areas have been

76

used to explain observations of cultural interrelations
and interaction with the environment. The concept of
ecotone has been used in research—strategies in the hope
of finding an "edge effect" of cultural diversity and
density. The transitional area has been theorized as the
setting for the origin of domestication. The transi—
tional zone has been used as a regional framework for the
study of culture process.

These anthropological perspectives temper a discus-
sion of cultural interaction in a transitional area.
There is a need to assay the effect of the phenomena of
edge areas upon cultural p0pulation. As transitional
areas serve as regions of boundary between two ecological
communities, the interface of cultural populations is
expected. Differentiation of cultural groups in relation
to habitat and niche inthe ecological community prefaces
the analysis of their interaction. HOW'a cultural group
accounts for population outside its membership and per—
ceives their own autonomy, influences the interrelations
with other cultural groups. The process of interaction
between some groups has been shown to relate to more
general biological observations; i.e., two groups with the
same niche cannot occupy the same habitat without dom-
inance of one group and niche differentiation and
relocation for the other group. The function of cultural

interaction is to allow a population to adjust to

77

fluctuation of resources and flexibility in the social
community. These observations about cultural interaction
will be placed in the context of generalized ecological
interaction patterns. They enrich the ecological concepts

in the synthesis of models.

MODELS OF INTERACTION

Models are simplified versions of complex reality.
They isolate important properties and functions while
filtering the noise of unnecessary information. They are
a set of hypotheses with which to organize and classify
observations. Models offer a predictive framework with
which to view process.

Interaction is a process of change in variety
resulting from contact between systems. Population inter—
action takes place as a result of the individual
p0pulation's need to survive and cooperate. For cultural
p0pulations, that need may be for an expanded marriage
universe, or for resources of material, political or
social development. Or, interaction may be a response to
a culture's need to pit its membership against non-members,
establishing sovereignty and autonomy. As a primary
process of change, interaction leads to acculturation,
growth, decay, maintenance, or disintegration of the
population (Clarke, 1968:349).

Since variation of cultural populations is the
evidence of interaction, it is important to distinguish

that variety normally exhibited by a population from that

78

79

variety resulting from the process of interaction. There
is a normal range of variability within a cultural
population which reflects change and adaptation to a
particular region.(Binford, 1968:58). Processes
influencing this internally originating variety are

(1) diffusion or internal trade, where elements of culture
travel along a network of interconnection and recircu—
lation; (2) invention or scientific experiment and
research where "new" elements are discovered by recombin—
ing existing components of the system; and (3) loss or
utiliarian displacement of variation because of inappro—
priate resources, isolated drift, or inclusion in a more
general form. Change in variety exhibited by a p0pulation
may also indicate a complete restructuring and repattern—
ing of that population as a result of colonization or
subjection to military conquest, or membership of a
federation (Clarke, 1968:411-413).

Variables affected by interaction are cultural
structure, zonation and land use, population number and
density, and inputs and outputs of resources and tech—
nology. Models of cultural interaction deal with adaptive
strategies (patterns formed) and adaptive process (change
introduced over a period of time). The models represent
differentiation, qualitative change, and gradual trans-

formation (Odum, 1975:8; Clarke, 1968:410, 667).

80

In order to employ models of regional interaction,
several preparations should be made. First, variants and
gradients of the non—cultural aspects of the region are
indicated. Then, distinguishing properties of the
populations are defined and described (such as sub—
sistence, social organization, language, boundaries and
territories, settlements). Finally, formal and spatial
patterns of the population are compared with the region

as a whole, defining an ecotOpe for the population,

Cultural Ecotope

 

To discover the process of interaction between
cultural populations a definition of the ecotope of each
p0pulation is necessary. Using an ecological method,
the ecotope of a cultural group is its functional and
spatial role in an ecological system. The ecotOpe is the
combination of two elements: the functional niche and
the spatial habitat.

In general terms, the habitat is composed of inter—
community variables. It is the set of environmental
resources available for a group to exploit. These
resources are available for use by any p0pulation. The
habitat can be described in terms of accessible water
bodies (lake, river, stream, ocean, and snow melt). The
vegetation community is part of the habitat as it can be

utilized for shelter, clothing, food, and technology.

 

81

The birds, animals, and fish (insects, amphibians, and
reptiles also) are important in their availability for
food, shelter, clothing, and technology. The physio-
graphic variables of elevation and relief are important
to settlement location. Diversity and variety of
resources may be localized and their availability may
change seasonally or yearly.

The niche of a cultural group is the structure which
it imposes on the environment. It is comprised of intra-
community variables. It is detailed in socio-cultural
organization: political, social, and economic groups;
leadership, marriage and residence patterns; and the
distinction of territory and property. Variables of
economy and subsistence are also part of the niche:
preferred foods, seasonal exploitation patterns, intensity
of exploitation (numbers of group cooperatively involved
in subsistence activities), exchange mechanisms of
reciprocity and resource distribution, and technology of
exploitation, storage, preservation, shelter, and
mobility. Belief in origins, ideology, and values are
also variables that structure the interaction with the
environment (including symbolic identity, prestige, wealth,
supernatural conceptions, descent systems, and methods for
incorporation of non-group members). These variables
describing the function of a group are associated. An

individual member of a group need not follow the

82

collective pattern of the cultural group's niche. The
niche is the collective function of the group.

The combined variables of niche and habitat, then,
form a patterned population response, the ecotope. That
pattern is the adaptation and operation of the population
in the environment. The density, distribution, size, and
structure of the population's elements in relation to
resources outline a culture group's ecotope. An
equivalent of what is being labeled here as the ecotope
has been labeled by others as subsistence and settlement
patterns. Variables of these patterns include duration
of use and permanence of occupation, location, and
seasonality. House, fishing or hunting camp, look—out,
and burial and ceremonial sites are elements of the
patterns. The ecotOpe of a population reflects the
interaction with the environment by the culture group.

The habitat, niche, and ecotope of each population
can be described and analyzed toward an understanding of
cultural interaction. The similarities and differences
of the groups indicate where and how populations must
adjust to each other's presence. These adjustments are
in qualitative and quantitative change or gradual
transformation of variety through space and time (Clarke,
1968:310). Such observations about the interactions of
cultural p0pulations can be compared to the general

models of interaction developed here.

83

These models are classified according to the
consequences of the interaction to the stability of the
ecological system. The interaction can have a negative,
positive or neutral influence on the system as indicated
by a change in variables of zone and resource use,
population number and density, and diversity and variety.
The negative interaction results in inhibitions to one or
both populations. The positive interaction results in
gain for one or both parties. The neutral interaction
does not affect the balance of the ecological system.

The models of ecological interaction are summarized in

Table 4 as well as presented in the following text.

The Negative Form

 

Competition, predation, and parasitism are patterns
of interaction that negatively affect the balance of an
ecological system. That impact is generally a fluctuation
in number and density of the elements of the population
over time and qualitative change in the variety of
resources exploited. These interactions are digressive,
in breaking down the stability of systems.

Competition is interaction between p0pulations whose
niches and patterns of resource exploitation overlap. It
denotes a striving for the same elements and mutual
inhibition. Competition may exist when there is an

inadequate supply of resources or an overpopulation.

84

Leave

one an eozoaaom
macho mhsosw
ocolioqflaooc can
npzosw mo woaoho

oawwssvm coaaoo
\ownoso chmBop
m5a58fl9m\mdosw

mo Ascoflpocflaflaov
:ofipflcamoeos

can soflpmoflmfimso>flc

AoQOpooov
mmmoomm A<momzme

oafinoe aflosw

one 59H: mooseoa
1:909 cowzvon :Hwhma
\mpaoEoprom copwoc

ow: mosSOmos
copmaflamasovqfl so
cocoon .Hoeeaoeomeee
\QHQQSm cocoon».

has cacaocv covfloamXo
haasm we: moohsomos

Aononoenc
ZOHB<NH24UmO A<H9¢mm

mopmmo
.aooapom .hho>mam
IIoQrocomoc
Ilwoohsomos
ooaopmwmQSm ow
:oawmpmocw ovoam
lacocfillmvflafla
cospoazmom
o>flpmqsowam mo
Romallafiosw oao
com: soc::Hm\%osm

enemas:
can ooqmflaam
Indefipqumcm Ga
oodosomsopcfl\a0flw
Iwowmflmho>flc
so :OHmSHoXQ
Incespmpmoco

mo :oHPoOHHHcoE

Aeneaav
ambeobmam A<zmom

waocozHQOHwomsoch

$®fl39

Emflvflmohmm
use soapocosm

:oeeaeoesoo

m>HE<Umz

mamnoz mo
ZOHB<OHmem<QO

85

soap

Imsmmom commences
59H? hamcGSOQ so
asepwssop mo owcm:o

ommn

monopmeQSm :efi3
coaucfloommm aoohwc
as po:\:0HpmHsmom
:vBosm couflamspcoo

soapmpfloamwo
oossomos mo sowpoufl

mesoaoappom
avocados: Geezeon
soaposomom osaonahm
-Hooansaexeaosnonae
.soflpsosm .hsocczon
msowflssop consume

mafipouflnmwho
mo heaXonaoo
mo oaflao\:soppmm

psoEoprom cosmoaosa

moflsocczon

oflaonE%m\moos=omos mo

Iamfioomm comoohocfl envenomoccfl vsoaoappom

ommosocfl so
Sassaflaflzvo museum
6 :H macaw
Imasmom soawpmflc
mo Hm>fl>s5m

mflnmsoEBO
soaaoo\vqo8oappow

comsommflc\moflsquson

oaaona%m\moos:omoh
mo :oaeoeflweenopde

mafimhzm campawms

use aflmaoosm
\eoeaoaawo sass“
we: moossomos so
wSHQOSm oscofihom

\Eocoosm\%socason

.wmosam «soap
Icopaoo .:OHpom

Ihopafi mo Roma

maopmhw opsnfisp
Ileanwflaos
m5HQASmIIvmo:

op owosmc 950
uses: eno:\emo=w
Ilkawawsvoafl
Ilsoapoam

Scam oceanomos

mcflopno macaw one

heavehmflooh
\msamn5m mans
Iflaoh\%sommoooc
pom pun mmbosm

noon on eemoeon

maopmhm ooamaaam
.mmsosw encomoc
seawmsomooo can
can assess sow

wdoapmeHQO\oococ
Icomoc .hpflamzvo

Acosqflvcoov e oHnt

HUZWQZHQMQZH

924 MEHA<¢BDMZ

EmHHomcoaaoo

ScavmsomoooIOposm

Ewflamsasz

H>H8Hmom

86

Competitive interaction occurs primarily between the same
kind of, or even related, groups. It is therefore part of
a process of distinction between similar groups. The
populations interfere with each other, though not
necessarily for food and space. The interaction is not
necessary for the survival of either group. Competition
benefits the groups in stimulus to change. The inter—
action can evolve into a more beneficial one. Though
without change, the relationship contributes to an
unstable system.

The process of competition results in a change in the
form of the p0pulations. It modifies the adaptation of
both groups. P0pulations diversify or specialize their
niche by time, region, or variety of resources exploited.
The process is one of external stimulus, where both
populations respond similarly to the same needs. Cultural
groups adapt as a result of warfare, observation, or a
transfer of knowledge. The process can also be one of
diffusion of elements of culture from one group to the
other as in economic trade and gift exchange.

Competition results in a reordering of the spatial
quality of the cultural populations. Resources are not
fully exploited. Rather they are used differentially,
perhaps by season, region, or variety. The organization
of the population is more territorial. Generally, at no

time are all the resources exploited by either group.

87

The habitat is limited (food, space, and other resources).
The p0pulations are mutually inhibited. This competition
results in pressure on the population size and density.

Competition is a process of interaction that changes
the p0pulations through time. The culture groups undergo
a series of modifications until they are dissimilar.
This development precipitates a.pattern of either competi-
tive exclusion or coexistence. Competitive exclusion
takes two forms: (1) one group dominates the locale while
the other group occupies the margin of the region and
adjusts to the change by increasing the variety of
subsistence means, and (2) ultimately, one group succeeds
in exploiting the resource by either destroying or incor—
porating the other group, a case of cultural assimilation
where the dominated population might survive as an ethnic
subculture. A pattern of fluctuating coexistence is the
alternative to competitive exclusion: (1) groups may
impose a structure of autonomous differentiation and
exploit the same resources with varied degrees of success,
or (2) both p0pulations may impose a regional or
temporal limit to their exploitation and not overlap in
range.

Many examples of competitive interaction can be found
in ethnography. In a classic study of warfare, Chagnon
(1968:158) describes the interaction of the Yanamamo as a

form where the goal is a definition of sovereignty and

88

autonomy of groups throughalliance. Some evidence of
spatial inhibition and pressure (population density and
number) is indicated by the practice of female infanticide
and the described trend of smaller p0pulation groups
having a greater compulsion to enter into the alliance
system. Through time the p0pulation groups coexist by
emphasizing sovereignty and autonomy by force and
aggressiveness. One of Chagnon's main observations is
that this differentiation of similar groups is not to
define territory, which suggests instead the exploitation
of the same resources. Over a period of time, fluctuation
and shifts in the groups which are allied is also
observed.

Hayano (1974:281), in generalizing about the
"acephalous" Melanesian.populations, describes similar
forms of warfare and alliance. He isolates demographic
(spatial) variables that contribute to the competitive
interaction. These are a low p0pulation size and density
relative to an unavailability of marriagable females and
are compounded by a preference for polygamy. Through
time, great importance is placed on symbols of group
identification. He describes political alliances formed
mainly through exchange of gifts and women. "These
exchanges result in cross—cutting friendship and alliance
ties between groups creating mutual and conflicting

interests and obligations as part of the continual

 

89

unstable process of alliance formation in small—scale

 

societies." EEmphasis addedg]

Divale and Harris (1976:521), describing competitive
interaction, used cross-cultural data even more generally
to explain the perpetuation of warfare in bands or
villages and its link with selective female infanticide.
They view this inhibition "as a response to the need to
regulate population growth in the absence of effective
or less costly alternatives." The competitive process
limits the ecotope, necessitates the distinction of
groups, and allows for the coexistence of p0pulation
groups. Over time, the competitive interaction could
evolve into a positive form. First it becomes one of
proto-cooperation if the resources increase to more than
fill the demand, then changes to mutualism if that
interaction is necessary to the groups' organization and
autonomy.

Predation and parasitism are also interactions that
negatively influence the balance of the environment. Both
types of relationships result in a marked fluctuation of
population. These two interactions are considered
together because of their similar form and function. One
group uses the other population as a resource, though each
population benefits from the relationship in long term
ecological terms. The parasite or predator population

causes a population decrease in the prey group. That

90

need of the exploiting group then becomes difficult to
fulfill which in turn causes a decline in the predator
population. That decline allows the prey population to
expand again. And the cycle of fluctuating population
begins again.

The interactions of predation and parasitism result
in key developments in the structure of the p0pulations.
There is a lack of alternative structural sources of
population check found in the exploited (prey) population
(such as infanticide, internal warfare and feuding,
sacrifice, disease, and subsistence on variable
resources). Simultaneously, the exploiting population
develops a need to use the other population (for example,
as slaves, laborers, mates, or to fulfill a ritual).

The interaction may cause group repatterning in organiza—
tion, military control, or unification. Variety may
intrude into the form of a p0pulation as a result of that
population's insertion into its own system of a new
segment (such as slaves, workers, specialists, renegades,
or mercenaries). Cultural elements of the p0pulations
may change in response to diffusion from trade or gift
exchange, from the stimulus of warfare, or observation of
variation in other cultural p0pulations.

The spatial organization resulting from these inter-
actions of predation and parasitism depends on the form

of a population's use of the other group in respect to

91

resources. (1) A wide margin may separate the populations
in the form of a distinct boundary or a buffer zone. The
exploiting population would have a particular adaptation
to allow movement across the boundary. Either fear of

the predator population is great or the harvest of the
prey insignificant. Otherwise the interaction could
easily become one of competition. (2) Both groups cohabit
a region with the predator population maladapted to
exploiting sufficient resources but dominating the prey
population in another manner. This interaction could be
between distinct population groups nested in the same
habitat. A system of castes may be an example of the
logical extension of this form of interaction.

Change through time is an evident result of the
interaction of predation and parasitism. It is an alter—
nate rise and fall, increase and decrease, decline and
expansion in the variety and size of the p0pulation
groups. The degree and regularity of these fluctuations
are different for these two similar interactions.

Usually the parasite population does not directly or
immediately kill the host, resulting in a slow and
irregular cycle. The predator pattern is drastic and
regular.

Cycles of feast and famine in village India are one
source of an example of a relationship of predation and

parasitism. Interdependent castes can be viewed as

92

cultural groups that interact in a nested heirarchy. Each
cultural group is dependent upon other groups for some
aspects of subsistence. Some of these castes hold
economic and political control of the region and are
supported by the subordinate castes. The ruling caste is
responsible for the subordinate's welfare. The subordi-
nate castes pay tax and rent to the rulers, and perform
ceremonial service (Marriot, 1955:54). The castes
consist of workers, specialists, and even mercenaries.
Villagers associated with one caste or a cluster of castes
may be specialized.

Not all can produce the complete range of foodstuffs

needed to provide an adequate or satisfying diet.

From this it follows that there must be an exchange

of goods and services between them, and that

different villages concentrate on the production of

goods and services. (Beals, 1962:84)
The living system is dependent on a nested heirarchy of
distinct cultural populations, castes. When a disaster
such as an epidemic or famine occurs, it results in a
shortage of resources most affecting the groups on the
lower end of the heirarchy; diminishing support stimulates
a change in the charge of power and prestige in the ruling
class.

Given an environment with a reliable surplus of

resources, this parasitic interaction could change into a

positive form of interaction, commensalism. (The differ—

ence between these two forms is that in predator or

93

parasitism the lack of a reliable surplus makes the inter—
action detrimental to the host population. Sufficient

resources allow the interaction necessary for the survival
of the guest population without harm to the commensal host

p0pulation.)

The Positive Form

 

Mutualism, proto-cooperation, and commensalism are
patterns of interaction that positively impact the balance
of the ecological system. That impact is generally a
redistribution of resources and an increase in variety of
cultural elements over time. These progressive inter-
actions contribute to an increase in the flow of energy
in the life systems.

Mutualism is a relationship that is necessary for the
survival of both interacting populations. The interaction
provides for a sharing of resources particularly in
regions where a diversity of resources is available, and
where the availability of these resources may fluctuate.
The difference between this mutualism and the interaction
of competition is that in the latter the population groups
are more independent. Competing groups do not depend on
an interaction between the groups for their survival.
After a period of time the process of competition may
evolve into a process of mutualism, or vice versa.

A relationship of mutualism results in population

94

groups being integrally related in an adaptive system.
The p0pulation group itself though, will put emphasis on
its autonomy, specialization, and separateness while
depending on c00peration with other groups. Two functions
will be Operating simultaneously, an institution distin-
guishing groups (autonomy, sovereignty, and warfare) and
one reinforcing the interdependence of groups (alliance
and descent organizations). Change in cultural elements
resulting from the interaction will emerge from diffusion
between the p0pulation from trade and gift exchange, and
from observation and transfer of knowledge. Redistribu-
tion and economic relationships require a similarity of
the partner populations of the mutual interaction. The
relationship may appear to be one of predation or para-
sitism but is distinguished in being necessary for the
survival of both.populations. Mutualism involves a form
of common ownership, effort, or control. This shared
action is regulated by sentiments of brotherhood and
equality, and obligations for mutual aid and cooperation.
Populations mutually interacting will exhibit a
particular spatial pattern. Population groups may be
interdigitated in respect to specialized resources
exploited. Each population, though, is associated with a
set of regional or ecological factors. A p0pulation will
have a unique subsistence pattern that seasonally takes

them into the region of another group. The p0pulation

95

groups are separate, but the associated territory or
region is not bounded or defended. The distribution of
settlement of the populations is dispersed.

The temporal change associated with mutual inter—
action depends upon maintenance of a balance of the
population's conflicting needs to remain distinct and to
be part of a dependent system. If the groups over—
emphasize distinction then the relationship between them
will become one of competitive interaction. On the other
hand, if the p0pulations allow themselves to be too
similar then they will become one group (acculturated)
or form a federation or other larger organizational
structure. Maintenance of a mutual interaction is bene—
ficial primarily in instances where there is some vari—
ability in the availability of resources.

Examples of mutual interaction are many. The Bantu
farmers and the Pygmy hunters are a good example of two
very distinct populations that rely on alternative
resource systems. The Bantu periodically exchange their
vegetable products for animal protein from the Pygmys
(Turnbull, 1962:47). The relationship between the
Iroquois and the Delaware as described by Miller (1974:
511) is an interesting case of mutualism. The network of
trade, redistribution, and economic interaction may have
resulted from military conquest or political agreement.

The process designating the differences of these similar

96

groups is called the transformation, following Levi—
Strauss. This transformation is a process by which
cultural features are made distinct (by reversal, segre-
gation, or redefinition) on either side of a cultural
boundary. The designation of the Delaware and Iroquois
as respectively feminine and masculine (or the women and
men groups) is echoed in other interactions: those
between the Tewe and Keres, the Pawnee and Winnebago, and
the Shawnee and the Delaware.

Proto-c00peration is an interaction quite similar to
mutualism. The primary difference is that proto—
cooperation is not necessary for the survival of either
group. Both groups benefit from the relationship. That
the groups are not dependent on each other is explained
by a reliable surplus of resources. The interaction can
be viewed as primary or lowelevel in that it is nearly
automatic and involuntary. Both groups sense advantage
and so they interact.

The interaction of proto4cooperation is one where
distinct cultural populations vacillate between coopera—
tion with and independence from each other. Some degree
of specialization of resource exploitation occurs which
contributes to a network of interaction. Balancing this
differentiation, a natural pressure toward increased
similarity of the cultures will occur consequent to

diffusion from interactions of reciprocity, trade, and

97

gift exchange. Variety and change are also stimulated by
the introduction of a sub-cultural segment to the popula—
tion: slaves, workers, renegades, mercenaries, and
specialists. Neither group is dependent on the other as
a population control mechanism.

The spatial organization resulting from an inter—
action of proto-cooperation is diagnostic of the form of
the interaction. More sedentary settlement is associated
with reliable resources. Yet, the interacting populations
are spatially, and in respect to shared resources, inde—
pendent. A symbolic boundary separates the groups with
neither having a need to defend the boundary.

The temporal process that is associated with
proto-c00peration is a change first toward increased
specialization of resource exploitation and then increased
dependence and interaction. Again, this may result in
repatterning of the populations into one group or
federation of groups. That change depends upon the
assertion of the groups to survive autonomously or to
cooperate more intensely.

An example of cultural groups interacting in proto—
cooperation is the regional pattern of the North Pacific
Coast. It is an interesting one in that an examination of
various observations made over a.period of time (Boas,
1966; and Drucker, 1965) allows an observation of change

in interaction of the culture groups between competition,

98

mutualism, and proto—cooperation. (This is bounded by the
limits of the original observations.) The region is
comprised of quite diStinct populations (linguistically
also) that have a similar major mode of subsistence and
yet depend on some specialization in resource exploita—
tion. They depend on salmon for subsistence and are
able to counteract a fluctuation in supply with a
technology for storage of surplus. The cultural systems—-
demonstration of prestige and autonomy, clan relationships,
the institution of the potlach-—all depend on a shared,
abundant resource and redistribution of the surplus. As
proto-cooperation, the interaction is mutually beneficial
but not necessary for the survival of the individual
groups.

Commensalism is a third positive interaction form.
One cultural population dominates the interaction and is
the primary beneficiary. Commensalism depends upon a
surplus of reliable resources processed by a subordinate
group and channeled to the dominate cultural group who
redistributes the surplus. The interaction is associated
with a Cline in complexity of social organization. The
subordinate group pays the dominate group in acknowledge—
ment of submission to political or economic power. The
subordinate population receives advantage, or is at
least not harmed, in being allowed to survive with a

limited degree of distinction and autonomy, and is

 

99

afforded military, political and economic protection. The
dominant p0pulation subsists as a lodger and ruler among
the subordinate population.

The commensal interaction is similar to predation and
parasitism, in both cases one population benefits. In
the commensal interaction the host population is not
harmed because of a reliable surplus of resources.

Neither group depends on the other as a mechanism of
population control. The dominant culture group is
dependent on the other group for subsistence. The subor—
dinate group slowly restructures the military, political
and economic pattern of their population while retaining
distinguishing elements. In contrast, with predation and
parasitism only one population benefits and the host or
prey is harmed by the interaction. The interaction
determines a long range cycle of growth and decline of the
p0pulations. The host or prey p0pulation defends itself
against the other population without absorbing elements
of the offensive cultural system.

Two facets of the spatial organization of interacting
populations indicate commensalism. The settlement pattern
is independent of the location of subsistence resources
and tends to be nucleated. The settlements reflect the
cline of complexity of the interaction, with the subor~
dinate group incorporated into the social organization of

the dominant group. Examined separately though, the

100

subordinate group provides an autonomous social structure
and system.

Centralization is the long range cycle of growth and
development by populations with commensal interaction.
Through time in a region, the growth of the population
does not parallel and is not in direct association with
subsistence resources. The interaction is the seed of the
formation of international economic blocks or federations.
Variation and change in the separate p0pulation cultures
is a result of diffusion from economic trade and gift
exchange, observation and transfer of knowledge, and
deliberate utilization of a subcultural segment (special—
ists, workers, mercenaries).

Cultural examples of commensal interaction are best
found in tribute systems of emerging states or civiliza-
tions. The often described peasant class can be
understood as the host to the dominating though dependent
aristocratic class. Such a symbiotic interaction
described by Sanders (1968:88) for Mesoamerica could be
classed here as a positive form of interaction. Some of
the interaction is commensal in that one population group
survives on the surplus resources produced by another
group. Flannenr(1967:79—110) describes interregional
commensal interaction in the formation of the Mesoamerican
state, where agricultural surplus could be converted to

"imperishable wealth" which could be used to set up

101

reciprocal obligations with neighboring peOple whose food
supply was even more secure" (1967:81). He uses analogies
of Northwest coast interaction between the Tlingit and
Athabaskans and of highland Burma interaction between the
Shan and Kachin (from Leach, 1954) to indicate the
adaptive value of commensal interaction: "They make
possible the more nearly total exploitation of a very
diversified environment, many of whose sub-areas could not
otherwise sustain a self-sufficient population" (1967:79).
In all three cases, one cultural group subsisted on a
resource that provided a reliable surplus and the other

group was maintained by that surplus.

The Neutral Form

 

Either by its absence or by a form of interaction,
the balance of the ecological system may remain
unaffected. That is, there is no increase or decrease in
the flow of energy in the life system. The interaction
is neither progressive nor digressive, and does not
cause fluctuation in the population, qualitative change
in the resources exploited, or redistribution of those
resources.

Interaction that is part of such a steady—state
system is unstressed and without contention. It is not

symbiotic in that population groups do not live closely

102

together. Independent populations are symbolically
defined as autonomous and self—sufficient with finite
territory. Subsistence resources are either not fully
exploited or technology is available for storage of
periodic abundance. These p0pulations proclaim and
maintain an adequate supply of resources.

The territory or habitat boundary may be a tradi—
tional edge of environmental use, a buffer zone of
no—man's-land between culture groups, or a threshold or
frontier. The boundaries symbolically or physically
separate populations. These are established by limits
of relevant resources, by debate in the past, or from
geographical barrier. A frontier is a possibility for
expansion of boundary and incorporation of new areas
given other growth stimulation (Watson, et al., 1971).
The buffer zone that exists between some p0pulation
boundaries implies recognized territory and its defense.
Interaction in the bounded zone is proclamation and main—
tenance of a region with surplus resources for time of
need. The settlement pattern tends to be nucleated with
unoccupied territory held as a resource reserve.

Change through time stimulated by this neutral
interaction is minimal. Slight shifts in territory or
boundary are expected as adjustment to internal variation
and development. A change or differentiation in the

symbolic identification of the group might also occur.

103

Stimulus for growth derives internally or by infrequent
contact with variation in the boundary area.

Writing about tribal societies in Brazil, Myers
(1976:354) mentions clearly defined territories separated
by a non—man's-land. The size of the buffer zone seemed
relative to the ferocity of the tribes. It was used as a
hunting area and entered only after a careful frontier
crossing ritual. He mentions that Hickerson's (1965)
"war zone" between the Chippewa and Sioux (already cited
here) was probably a similar no—man's-land prior to
p0pulation fluctuation. According to Peterson (1976:355,
356), Northern Californian hunter—and—gatherers, the Maidu
and Vedda, similarly evolved boundary patrolling parties
in response to population pressure. He also writes of a
marginal no-man's—land assimilated into the subsistence
range between the Chippewa and Dakota because of p0pula—
tion stress. Change in these living systems was
stimulated by factors outside of the neutral interaction.

These models of interaction of cultural p0pulations
are not an all-inclusive typology, but examples to be
amplified. They can serve as predictive patterns formu—
lated from ecological and anthropological observations.
Evidence of a culture's formal structure, spatial
organization, or temporal process (niche, habitat, and
ecotope), could then be used to indicate interaction with

other groups. An understanding of interaction enhances

104

knowledge of living systems and process.

This thesis began by addressing the process of
interaction between cultural populations in a prehistoric
setting. "Direct observation of differences between
cultures, their boundaries, and the interaction within and
across boundaries is not possible for anthrOpologists
studying prehistoric societies" (Caldwell, 1964z1).

These circumstances must be demonstrated from patterns

and relationships of cultural remains. The models here
organize potential cultural interaction in an ecological
system. They can be used as postulates of cultural
interaction against which actual regional patterns and
relationships can be tested and analyzed. Further
observations about interaction patterns can add detail and

depth to the models.

The Transitition Region

 

The models of interaction are not in the context of
a particular ecological environment. Yet, this thesis is
concerned with the effects of a Specific regional environ—
ment on cultural interaction. This section examines the
effects the transition region has on cultural populations
without regard to a specific form of cultural interaction.

The simplest case is the relationship a Single
cultural population may have within the transition region.

That region is stratified, having two distinct ecological

105

zones separated by an ecotone or edge area. The exploi-
tation of a transition region by a cultural population
implies optional forms of adaptation (ecotope). The edge
of a p0pulation's functional ecological range may
encompass one ecological zone of the region, with that
range perhaps extending to the ecotone. Or the ecotope
of the population may include elements of both ecological
zones and may or may not also include the ecotone. Or
the cultural group may be particularly adapted to the
ecotone (an "edge Species"). Figure 2 illustrates these
options.

It is important to note that this classification of
the relationship of cultural groups to a transition
region indicates nothing about the extent of use of the
ecological zones. Particular resources may be exploited
differently in one zone than in another. For example,
resources may be seasonal or used only in time of famine.
These variables of degree of use must be accounted for
in an analysis. The importance of these considerations
is compounded in examining the relationship of more than
one population to a transition region.

When two cultural groups exploit the same transition
region, a pattern of their use of resources in respect to
the zones of the region may take many forms. Figure 3
illustrates logical alternatives of the adaptation of two

groups to the transition region. Interaction between the

106

(The box represents a range. The divisions within each
box represent divisions of the range into three areas;

two major ecological zones and the ecotone between them.
Hatch marks (707%) represent the range of adaptation of

the p0pulation to a region.

Functional Ecotope Equals Functional Ecotope Equals
One Ecological Zone And

One Ecological Zone But
Excludes The Ecotone. Includes The Ecotone.

A %%

Functional Ecotope Equals Functional Ecotope Equals
Both Ecological Zones And

Both Ecological Zones But
Excludes the Ecotone. Includes the Ecotone.

/ V W
A 2 44%

(Edge Species)
Functional Ecotope Equals
Only the Ecotone.

’/
2

Figure 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Patterns of Adaptation (Ecotope) of a Single
Population to a Region with a Transitional
Zone (Ecotone)

107

(The box represents a range. The divisions within each
box represent divisions of the range into three areas;
two major ecological zones and the ecotone between them.

 

Horizontal lines C‘““) represent the adaptation of
Population A and vertical waves Qflfifi) represent the
adaptation of Population.B.)

 

Papulation 3 Population A adapted to:
adapted to:

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

zone x zone y zone x zone y both both trans
&7trans 8: trans & trans no trans only
at t y x t y ‘x t y x t y x t y x t y x t y
t 31 N{113 =:1
rans ._—. 1 <4 =
any .N NHEE =3
14 1111b- nun—nu i
’1‘ 4“ H "
(4 ’ ‘44 . 4 1 <1
44 441 4 N144
both 1: :11) :__1111
no trans :4 “tr —"" 444
4 140 a: 14
‘4 1 A. ”'1 1
l ' H l 444 47
H 4 <1 44
'4 3' 44 14
both 5 33:3 1' 111' 11
d
a. trans . , “ll 3, :11»: 1:
i 1) 4'4' 44
C - ‘r .7 -
511,13: :1: . E l:
2°“ Y 1141,: w t >
8‘ trans 444444 :1" }
”4,4444 ‘3 ,
p-__-_‘4444444 , A y a
; if r: E" .
zone x . U» n E I
& trans P it; :; --"‘ I
ltfl
.. . b
In— (41
E 1:: ——-,=513»
I
20:13 y = 1:1; .——011
z: .H :mu
“1 ___.""'"'44
-. __
-m: 1h==
H44 14——
zone 3: 111' 1314:
“1 N447:-
Eh— _‘ "1‘:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3

Interrelated Patterns of Adaptation (EcotOpe) of
Two Populations to a Region with a Transitional
Zone (Ecotone)

 

108

groups is related to their adaptation to the transitional
region. The modification of that ecotope (particularly in
patterns of subsistence and settlement systems) reflects
the nature of interaction: bounded, competititve, in
mutual support, etc.. That the adaptation to a stratified
environment may itself be stratified must be considered in
analyzing the effect a transition region has on the

interaction of cultural groups.

Summary

Understanding regional interaction of cultural groups
begins with description of the ecological system. The
populations are distinguished in comparison and contrast
of the variables of habitat, niche, and ecotope. General—
ized patterns of interaction are described for use in
formal and spatial analysis of interrelations between
culture groups in the context of a region. These patterns
are grouped according to their impact on the stability of
the ecosystem.

Models are constructed to classify the gross
structure and function of interaction. They deal with
settlement location in respect to resources, with mode of
organization, and with process. They represent solutions
populations may use in meeting their needs to survive and
cooperate with other groups in obtaining energy, giving

it form, and passing it on. An application of these

 

109

models in analysis begins with a definition of the
cultural population and a description of the gradients
of their adaptation to subsistence resources within the
region. Since the original problem addressed a specific
environment, the variety of modes of adaptation to a
transition region are reviewed here. How these optional
forms of behavior may contribute to an understanding of
the prehistoric peoples of the Kenai Peninsula region is

next considered.

THE KENAI PENINSULA EXAMPLE

This thesis began as an inquiry about the prehistoric
population of the Kenai Peninsula. Using an ecological
approach, it outlines a strategy to distinguish and define
the cultural affinities of populations. And it presents
models to be used as hypotheses in analyzing interaction
between different populations in a region. These tech—
niques are designed to contribute to an understanding of
the process of cultural change and stability in an
ecological system. They are tools that address these
questions: what cultural populations occupied the Kenai
Peninsula; what portion of that region was part of their
relevant environment; what type of interaction occurred
between different population groups; how did cultural
interaction contribute to variation of population adapta-
tion and development.

Details indicating the transitional character of the
Kenai Peninsula have been discussed. This ecotonal
region becomes a framework to study culture interaction
or interface, as a transition zone is the edge between

ecological communities. (It is likely that different

110

111

cultural populations exploited the varied habitat.) A
cultural population in a transitional region may be at
the edge of its ecological range; it may be particularly
adapted to ecotonal exploitation; or it may be utilizing
portions of the entire region. The Tanaina Indian
populations have been associated with the northern and
interior adaptation to the Kenai Peninsula while the
Pacific Eskimo are tied to a coastal and scuthern
adaptation. The nature of interaction between these
populations needs explaining as well as its relationship
to the transitional region.

Toward explaining the prehistoric adaptations on the
Kenai Peninsula, the designed method is applied. The
separate cultures are described with attention given to
niche, habitat, and ecotOpe. Distinction of these
adaptations is outlined by comparing and contrasting them
in the region of the Kenai Peninsula. Then, hypotheses
about the interaction of these culture groups are
presented, using the models develOped.

The specific adaptations of real populations to the
Kenai Peninsula are not described here. Rather a summary
of the available ethnography of the general adaptations
of the larger cultural groups to which these populations
belong is presented. The variation of the local popula—
tions from the more general forms may be clarified with

further archaeological research. No comprehensive

112

description of either local group has yet been formulated.

The Pacific Eskimo

 

The ethnography of the Pacific Eskimo as presented
here is compiled from Bearne (1976), Black (1977),
Guemple (1972), De Laguna (1934; 1975a; 1975b), Lisianski
(1814), and Oswalt (1967).

The collective Pacific Eskimo adaptation was maritime
in orientation. Resources from the sea dominated the
habitat. The hunt for whale, sea—otter, and seal provided
both subsistence and prestige. Fishing for salmon and
halibut was of secondary importance and other fish,
shellfish, and aquatic birds were taken as reliable
supplements. Bear and moose were occasionally hunted.
Berries, roots, ferns, and nettles were gathered as food—
stuffs. Products of sea mammals were used for techno—
logical items: gut and bladder containers, skin tents,
skin—covered boats, and so on. The spruce was an
important land resource used as logs for houses, and the
roots were used in basketry.

The Pacific Eskimo trace their origins in myths to
either a dog or the raven. They were organized in male
sibling family groups or patri—kins. The family unit had
between ten and twenty members and the local group
consisted of about one hundred members. A regional group

might have had one thousand members. A degree of local

113

band exogamy existed. Post-marital residence was veri-
local or uxorilocal. Polygamy and spouse exchange were
practiced, as well as name exchange relations and hunting
and trading partnerships.

Formal leadership roles did not exist among the
Eskimo. A respected man would be followed. A man
was respected for enduring hardship. Others skilled at
whaling in particular and also seal and otter hunting were
held in esteem. Whaling crews would be recruited from
among the most respected hunters in the region. Some
particularly skillful men were admired and sought after
to teach children. Shamans (men or women) had super-
natural powers which they received through no will of
their own and developed them with the help of a senior
shaman. Shamans were granted a different type of respect.
The house in which an Eskimo died was sealed or destroyed,
the body inhumed in a flexed position or dismembered
(the last connected with a whale hunting ritual).

The ecotope of the Pacific Eskimo is described in
the following seasonal subsistence pattern. Beginning in
the spring from the semi—permanent settlements, the local
group would harvest the early salmon with dip nets and
fish Spears, running in the nearby streams and rivers.

As summer approached, small groups of pe0ple would move
from the settlement. The men hunted sea mammals and

birds and the women gathered berries, ferns, roots, and

114

nettles and would fish. Trade fairs were held in the
summer with peOple traveling to and from various regions.
At the end of the summer, fish from the last runs would
be dried and berries preserved. People would then move
back to their winter settlements near the coast. In the
fall, messenger feasts were held (the invitation extended
to particular groups). A mid-winter festival was also
held. In winter, as stores ran low, mullusks were
harvested. Throughout the year, the maritime hunt con—
tributed to subsistence.

From archaeological evidence, the Pacific Eskimo
selected their village sites on some principles. "These
are an extended View and possibility of escape by boats
in several directions . . . Refuge islands were also
used" (De Laguna, 1934:163). The sites were located near
a stream (but not so near as to interfere with game use
of the stream) and near the shoreline for access to
shellfish. The populations of the winter settlements
may have been as high as three hundred. D. W. Clark
(1966a:7) estimated that on Kodiak Island the peak popu—
lation was eight persons for every mile of shoreline.
Houses were semi-subterranean with log sides and sod
roofs. One communal kitchen was surrounded by two or
three small sleeping houses. These smaller rooms might
be filled with hot rocks for a sweat bath (the Eskimo did

not use steam in this region prehistorically). The

115

settlement had at least one very large house. This was
the men's "kashgee" which is where ceremonies and festi-
vals were held. (This structure has been called various
names and reported to have been destroyed at the end of
the winter festival) (Bearne, 1976:5, 20). Skin tents
with whale rib and vertebra, and rock structures, were
used during the summer nomadic hunting and gathering
periods. An inventory of skin-covered boats, which were

skillfully handled, was used for both hunting and trading.

The Tanaina Indians

 

This Tanaina ethnography is compiled from Jacobsen
(1977), Osgood (1937), Townsend (1974), VanStone and
Townsend (1970), Von Wrangell (1970), and Zagoskin
(1967).

The adaptation of the Kenai Peninsula Tanaina.popu—
lation was based on the large salmon runs in major streams
and rivers. Hunting of caribou, moose, and sheep was
also important. Bear, beaver, and wolverine were hunted
for their skins. Women hunted squirrels for clothing.

If the small beluga whale came near shore, it would be
taken. Berries and roots were gathered. Vegetation
sources were depended on for utilitarian objects: spruce
root and birch bark containers, bark and logs for canoes,
and logs for houses and caches.

Tanaina origin myths trace the descent of the group

116

from the raven. The population was organized into two
moities with eleven matrilineal clans or sibs. Cross—
cousin marriage was preferred and polygamy permitted.
Initial post—marital residence was matrilocal, probably
because of a bride service requirement.

The Tanaina did not have hereditary leaders. They
had a system of wealth and prestige. A man gained
prestige by being a successful shaman, a good hunter, or
a successful trader. Prestige was expressed in.potlaches
held at the death of a relative. The Tanaina cremated
their dead or set them in boxes covered with stone.

The Tanaina subsistence pattern also included harvest
of the Spring salmon runs. As summer approached they
moved into fish camps on the river and lake edges, not
far from the semi—permanent settlement. They camped in
tents of skin or bark. Fish weirs and traps were set and
the fish were intensively caught, dried, and stored in
underground or log—raised caches. Berries and plants
were gathered during this time. At the end of summer,
the Tanaina returned to the villages. Some of the people
traveled over the mountains to participate in caribou
drives. Others hunted moose or mountain sheep. WOmen
went squirrel hunting and berry collecting. Large groups
of people gathered for trade fairs. In winter, the
Tanaina returned to the villages and ate the stored foods.

Rabbits and Ptarmigan were caught to supplement the diet.

117

Villages sponsored small winter festivals if food was
abundant.

Tanaina village settlements were located near the
coast and major rivers, or near a lake. Village p0pula—
tions numbered about two hundred. A house held the
local descent group, maybe thirty people. The houses
were large rectangular log structures with partitions and
added rooms. The house had a central hearth. Steam bath
houses were located nearby or attached to the house. Hot
rocks were brought in and water sprinkled on them. In
fish camps the population was dispersed and lived in
tents in nuclear family units. The camp had many pits
for fish processing and storage. Hunting camps were
occupied temporarily and consisted of a sparse shelter.
The Tanaina used birch bark canoes on rivers and lakes,
but did not navigate the ocean waters. Some large
hollowed tree canoes are reported to have been used by

the Tanaina to cross Cook Inlet.

Regional Adaptation and Distinction

 

The Eskimo and Tanaina were known to have engaged in
mutual trading. The Eskimo received caribou, bear,
marmot, and beaver parkas, wolverine skins, caribou
antler for arrows, caribou chest hair for embroidery,
porcupine quills, and hats woven of spruce roots. The

Tanaina received "sukli" (bone ornaments made in a spiral,

118

perhaps imitating dentalium shell), amber, squirrel and
bird parkas, whale~and seal oil, and skin boats.

Both the Tanaina and the Eskimo organized war against
each other and among themselves. The Tanaina "were a
powerful people and were respected and feared by their
Eskimo neighbors with whom they fought" (Townsend,
1974:4). The Pacific Eskimo had large organized raids of
regional bands against the mainland, island, coast, or
interior. Both groups used bows and arrows and clubs
and defended themselves with shields. The strategy of
warfare was surprise attack. The defense tactic was to
scatter and hide at first warning. Prisoners were kept
as slaves. An Indian or Eskimo afraid of being taken a
slave would kill himself and his family.

These relationships of trade and war between the
Tanaina and the Pacific Eskimo crossed cultural bound-
aries. They functioned to redistribute resources, expand
the marriage universe, and define the autonomy of each
group. The relationships are part of an adaptation to
the diverse region. They allow an expansion of variety
of resources available to the groups while mandating a
degree of specialization and differentiation in resource
exploitation strategy.

The two populations are distinguished by their
ecotopes as being two cultural groups. The type of social

organization is different for both groups. This is

119

reflected in the different settlement patterns, though
duration of occupation and house structure and size are
quite similar. The Tanaina depend on an intensive
harvest of salmon and the Eskimo subsist on a wider
range of resources. Ideology and value systems are
dissimilar. Given these separate adaptations, the
environment of the Kenai Peninsula limits the area
exploited by either one of the groups.

Prime winter settlement positions for the Eskimo are
limited as one moves northward on the Cook Inlet shore—
line. The mullusk population along the shore is dense
in the south, but slowly decreases moving north until
they are sparse north of Ninilchik (probably related to
water temperature or salinity). Sites with a good view
in several directions and near a refuge island are limited
to the southern area. Large whales rarely venture far
into the inlet. Seals are associated with rocky islands
and shores and found only in the south or across the
inlet. Settlement too far north on the peninsula would
mean a change in subsistence strategy for the Eskimo.

A maritime orientation would be difficult. Summer
subsistence patterns would be successful on the northern
part of the Kenai Peninsula except that the distance
traveled to hunt sea mammals would be great, though
comparable with distances traveled by the Kodiak Island

p0pulation (100 miles). Also, some vegetable foods used

120

by the Eskimo only grow in the warm moist climate of the
south.

On the other hand, the Tanaina were dependent on
large rivers and lakes for fish and travel and on easy
access to the mountains to hunt. These features are
found most densely in the north. One might speculate
that the Tanaina range was related to the range of the
caribou. If the caribou came down into the southern
peninsula then the Tanaina could follow. Otherwise the
Tanaina would need to adapt their subsistence strategy
to emphasize different game to supplement the salmon.
(Recent experience of the salmon fishing industry
indicates that the fish run in cycles of abundance.

Total dependence upon salmon may be unsustainable.) Birch,
used for material adaptations, is found predominantly in
the north. Berry communities are also different from
north to south. The Tanaina depended on these specific
resources.

These ethnographic details are a reconstruction of
the adaptations of cultural populations during the
historic contact period. Populations utilizing different
facets of the transitional Kenai Peninsula region are
indicated. Evidence for contact and interaction between
the populations derives from the description of trade and
war. That the groups also intermarried would follow the

pattern for the Tanaina and Eskimo relations in other

121
regions (VanStone and Townsend, 1970:133).

Does the distinction of these cultural groups simply
reflect an adaptation to particular elements of the
environment or does it also indicate limits placed upon
the groups by interaction with each other? The two
groups may have exploited the same resources and then
differentiated. The form of interaction between the

groups may have taken one of several forms.

Interaction Hypotheses

 

The general models developed here of population
interaction can be applied as hypotheses to be tested to
explain the nature of interaction between the two popu-
lations. With the present information about the
populations of the region, any of the models may describe
the form of interaction.

It has been assumed that just prior to historic
contact, the Kenai Peninsula Eskimo declined because of
'pressure from the Tanaina, implying competition between
the two groups and explaining our lack of information
about that culture (Oswalt, 1967:190). Not being able to
compete any longer, the Eskimo may have been displaced by
the Tanaina. Another model explaining the drastic popu—
lation fluctuation would be predation. The region may
have been a buffer zone of warfare. One of the popula—
tions may have been reliant on one of the products of

war for survival and periodically invaded the other group

122

to obtain these resources, and in doing so crossed the
buffer zone.

Given that the region is an ecotone, a high density
and variety of some species may have existed. This
surplus could have allowed one group to serve as a host
to the other in a relationship of commensalism. There
may be evidence of an interaction of proto—cooperation
prior to historic contact. Functional specialization of
living sites and a stable equilibrium through time of
both populations would be indicators. The trade and
warfare activities of the p0pulations may indicate some
mutual benefit gained by both groups. This interaction
of mutualism has parallels with that described by Burch
and Correll (1971) in northern Alaska. Finally, a zone
in the transition region may have represented some neutral
ground between the culture groups agreed upon by them,
with warfare resulting from a breech of contract and/or
declaration of autonomy.

Though each of these models may constitute a
description of the interaction of the Eskimo and Tanaina
of the Kenai Peninsula, each carries with it a set of
criteria that have to be established (settlement pattern,
population response, etc.). These models then can be
viewed as a set of alternative hypotheses to be tested
against archaeological observations. As the region is

a transitional one, another hypothesis is possible.

123

A temporal perspective might indicate a subtle environ—
mental fluctuation mirrored by a change in utilization of
the region because of change of resources by one group or

the other.

Summary

Using an ecological approach, this thesis deveIOps
models to explain prehistoric processes. In examining
detail of the adaptation of the Tanaina Indians and
Pacific Eskimo to the Kenai Peninsula, the possibility
of their interaction is noted. Models of types of inter—
action are shown to be possible explanations of the nature
of interaction between the populations. These are
presented as hypotheses to be tested against archaeolog-
ical data.

Explanation of interaction between these culture
groups should contribute to knowledge of the movement and
development of culture traits and adaptation. Interaction
may result in acculturation, growth, decay, maintenance,
or disintegration of the adaptive systems. These are
facets of a process of differentiation, qualitative change

and gradual transformation.

 

CONCLUSION

This thesis contributes to the theoretical groundwork
upon which regional archaeological research.builds. An
ecological perspective is assumed toward integrating
knowledge of human adaptation with that of living systems.
Simple models of population interaction are derived for
use in predicting the form of interface between popula-
tions and its affect on the processes of change.
Ecological and anthropological concepts are synthesized
toward an explanation of living systemS—-to define
discrete units and describe a process, interaction.

The particular approach is selected as one fitted to
explain the prehistoric interaction of the Tanaina
Indian and Pacific Eskimo on the Kenai Peninsula. Use of
the models to predict settlement and subsistence patterns
should solve some of the difficulties of distinguishing
prehistoric occupations of these groups in the region.

In addition to the clarification of these spatial rela—
tionships, the temporal dimensions of the occupation of
the peninsula would be defined. Understanding of the

processes contributing to culture change in Alaska would

be increased. The consideration of the transitional

124

125

character of the region may demonstrate association
between human interaction.patterns and the greater cline
of the biological community.

Anthr0pologists have already used the transition
region or ecotone concept as an explanatory framework for
their research. It seems apprOpriate to further test the
usefulness of the concept in framing ecological communi-
ties by predicting an association of cultural populations
with relevant biological communities and then looking for
interaction of those groups at the "edges" of the communi-
ties. Initial recognition of interaction within transi-
tion zones can expand to an understanding and association
of particular forms of interaction with quantitatively and
qualitatively varied ecotones. The size and form of the
boundary area may regulate interaction, or partially
determine processes of culture change. A transition zone
may be viewed as a stage for population interaction with
several sets and backdrops.

In examining interaction, then, this thesis is
concerned with the distinction and definition of cultural
populations. Conversely, it is concerned with sharing of
cultural components between populations. In inquiry about
interaction as a process of change, this thesis contributes
to knowledge of the origin and growth of culture.

The concepts of niche, habitat, ecotope, and ecotone

(developed by ecologists) are used to organize this

126

discussion of interaction. The first three are used in
categorizing cultural populations' adaptation by the
structure of exploitable resources (space); the function
of the exploitation of those resources (form); and the
populations' response to those variables (process).
Ecotone is the abstraction of a transitional area between
two ecological communities that allows the comparison and
contrast of component systems of the continuum (a life
system).

The total ecological system is not relevant to a
cultural group. Differences in symbolic environments
separate cultural populations. Cultural interaction
allows the autonomy and sovereignty of the groups.
Indeed, interaction necessitates distinction between
groups. Interaction between p0pulations must balance the
needs of the culture groups to survive autonomously and
to cooperate. The constant satisfaction of these needs
is impetus for change.

This thesis advances a set of models of cultural
interaction. These too are developed out of ecological
theory. The models themselves are classified by the
influence of the interaction on the "balance" or stability
of the ecological system. The implication of cultural
interaction for the broad effect of the populations'
adaptation to the transition area itself then is con-

sidered. Man both affects and is affected by his

127

environment. The types of interaction that stimulate
instability in an ecological system are competition,
predation and parasitism. Those contributing to the
stability of the system are mutualism, proto-COOperation,
and commensalism. A third class of interaction, neutral
or independent, neither positively nor negatively
influences the stability of the system.

Beginning with a specific region, a strategy has been
designed and detailed to investigate population inter—
action. The logical extension of this work on the Kenai
Peninsula is to formulate a set of hypotheses predicting
the settlement and subsistence patterns for both the
Tanaina Indians and the Pacific Eskimo in respect to
relevant resources. Particular attention need be paid to
variables distinguishing the populations. The region
should then be stratified according to density and dis—
tribution of those resources, reflecting the transitional
character of the region. The models of interaction
should be used to formulate a set of hypotheses that when
compared with the settlement and subsistence data from
these strata indicate the nature of interaction in the
region. This interaction survey must derive from
synchronic data, but lead to an understanding of the
diachronic process of culture change and development.

This thesis views culture as both defining and

integrating population groups. Elements of culture may

128

change as a result of the process of population inter—
action. The ecological system in which this interaction
takes place may reflect that interaction.

Most cultural—ecological situations are larger
than communities; they include a series of
alternative resource systems with exchanges taking
place between them: the classic case of Bantu
farmers and Pygmy hunters offering each other
vegetable food and animal protein, or the many
similar cases of symbiotic relationships in the
Middle East between pastoral nomads and sedentary
villagers, are the type cases in ethnology. To
an increasing extent, cultural ecologists are
turning to these regional complexes; as they do,
the policy relevance of their work increases.

(J. W. Bennett, 1976:309)

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Aigner, Jean S.
1966 Bone Tools and Decorative Motifs from Chaluka,
Umniak Island. Arctic Anthropology 3(2):57—83.

Allee, W. C.
1951 Cooperation among Animals with Human Implications.
New York: Henry Shuman.

Baerreis, David A. and Rud Bryson
1965 Climatic Episodes and the Dating of Mississipian
Cultures. Wisconsin Archaeologist 46:203—220.

Bancroft, Hubert Howe
1960 History of Alaska, 1730—1885. New York:
Antiquarian.Press.

Barth, Fredrik
1956 Ecologic Relationships of Ethnic Groups in Swat,
North Pakistan. American Anthropologist 58:1079-1089.

Beals, Alan R.
1962 Gopalpur: A South Indian Village. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Bearne, Colin, trans. and Richard A. Pierce, ed.
1976 A Selection from G. I. Davydov: An Account of
Two Voyages to Russian American, 1802—1807. Arctic
Anthropology 13(2):1—30.

Bennett, Hugh H.

1918 Report on a Reconnoissonce of the Soils,
Agriculture, and other Resources of the Kenai
Peninsula Region of Alaska. United States Department
of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils. Washington:
Government Printing Office.

Bennett, John W.
1976 The Ecological Transition, Cultural Anthropology
and Human Adaptation. New York: Pergamom Press.

129

130

Binford, Lewis R.
1964 A Consideration of Archaeological Research
Design. American Antiquity 29:425-441.

Binford, Sally R. and Lewis R. Binford, eds.
1968 New Perspectives in Archaeology. Chicago:
Aldine.

Black, Lydia T., trans. and ed.
1977 The Konyag (The Inhabitants of the Island of
Kodiak) by Iosaf (Bolotov) (1794—1799) and by
Gideon (1804-1807). Arctic Anthropology 14(2):79-108.

Blanton, Richard
1976 'Ip The Valley of Mexico. Eric R. WOlf, ed.
Pp. 181—202. Albuquerque, New Mexico: University of
Nemeexico Press.

Boas, Franz
1966 Kwakiutl Ethnography. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Boraas, Alan and William WOrkman
1976 Current Research. American Antiquity 41(2):215.

Burch, Ernest S. Jr. and Thomas C. Correll
1971 Alliance and Conflict: Inter-regional Relations
in North Alaska. .12 Alliance in Eskimo Society,
Supplement. Lee Guemple, ed. Pp. 19—25. Washington:
University of Washington Press.

Caldwell, J. R.

1964 Interaction Spheres in.Prehistory; 1;;
Hopewellian Studies. J. R. Caldwell and R. L. Hall,
eds. Illinois State Museum Scientific Papers
12(6):133-193.

Chagnon, Napolean A.
1968 Yanomano Social Organization and Warfare. .Ip
War: the Authors of Armed Conflict and Aggression.
M. Fried, M. Harris and Robert Murphy, eds.
Published for the American Museum of Natural History,
Garden City, New York: The National History Press.

Chard, Chester
1959 The Western Roots of Eskimo Culture. Proceedings

3f the 33rd International Congress of Americanists,
ol. 2.

131

Clark, Ann MbFadyen
1970 The Athabaskan Eskimo Interface. Canadian
Archaeological Association Bulletin No. 2:13—23.

Clark, Donald W.

1966a Perspectives in the Prehistory of Kodiak Island,
Alaska. American Antiquity 31(3):358-371.

1966b Two Late Prehistoric Pottery-Bearing Sites on
Kodiak Island, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology
3(2):157-184.

1970 The Late Kachemak Tradition at Three Saints and
Crag Point, Kodiak Island, Alaska. Arctic
Anthropology 6(2):?3—111.

1974 The Earliest Prehistoric Culture of Kodiak
Island, Alaska: 1971 Fieldwork, Preliminary Report.
Arctic Anthropology 11(1):41—46.

1975 Koniag—Pacific Eskimo Bibliography. Ottawa:
National Museum of Canada. Mercury Series,
Anthropological Survey of Canada, Paper No. 35.

Clarke, David L.
1968 Analytical Archaeology. London: Mathuen and
Co. Ltd.

Cleland, Charles E.
1966 The Prehistoric Animal Ecology and AnthrOpology of
the Upper Great Lakes Region. University of Michigan,
Museum of AnthrOpology, Anthropological Papers,]m3.29.

Connell, J. H.
1961 The Influence of Interspecific Competition and
other Factors in the Distribution of the Barnacle,
Ehthamalus stellatus. Ecology 42:710—723.

Cook, Captain James
'1785 A Voyage to the Pacific Ocean in the Years 1776-
1780, Second edition. London: Stockdale.

Cooter, William S.
1974 Ecotones and Broad Spectrum Economics. Papers in
Anthropology 15:37—54.

Curtis, J. T.
1955 A Prairie Continuum in Wisconsin. Ecology
36:558—566.

Curtis, J. T. and R. P. McIntosh
1951 An Upland Forest Continuum in the Prairie—Forest
Border Region of Wisconsin. Ecology 32:476-496.

132

Davydov, Lt. G. I.
1810-1812 Two Voyages to America by the Naval Officers

Khvostov and Daviydov. Partial translation,
University of Alaska Microfilm. Also trans. by
Colin.Bearne and ed. by Richard A. Peirce, Kingston,
Ontario, Canada: The Limestone Press.

De Laguna, Frederica

1934 The Archaeology of Cook Inlet, Alaska. With a
chapter on skeletal material by Bruno Oetteking.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press for
the University Museum.

1975a Preface to the Second Edition. IIp.Archaelogy of
Cook Inlet, second edition. Anchorage: The Alaska
Historical Society.

1975b Matrilineal Kin Groups in Northwestern.North
America. Ip Northern Athabaskan Conference, 1st,
Ottawa, Ontario. Proceedings ed. by A. M. Clark.
National Museum of Man,.Mercury Series, Canadian
Ethnological Service Paper No. 27. Ottawa: National
Museum of Canada.

De Laguna, Frederica, et al.
1964 Archaeology of the Yakutat Bay Area of Alaska.
Smithsonian Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin
No. 192. Washington: U. S. Government Printing

Office.

Divale, William Tulio and Marvin.Harris
1976 Population, Warfare, and the Male Supremacist
Complex. American Anthropologist 78(3):521—538.

Dixon, Captain George
1789 Voyage Round the WOrld, but more particularly to
the North-West Coast of America; performed in 1785,
1786, 1787, and 1788, in the King George and Queen
Charlotte, Captains Portlock and Dixon. Covent
Garden: George Goulding.

Dolmatoff, Gerardo Reichel
1971 Amazonian Cosmos; the Sex and Religious Symbolism
of the Tukano Indians. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Drucker, Philip
1955 Sources of Northwest Coast Culture. ‘Ip New
Interpretations of Aboriginal American Culture
History. Washington: Anthropological Society of
Washington.
1965 Cultures of the North Pacific. Scranton,
Pennsylvania: Chandler Publishing Co.

133

Dumond, Donald E.

1968a Current Research. American Antiquity 33(2):272.

1968b On the Presumed Spread of Slate Grinding in
Alaska. Arctic Anthropology 5(1):82-91.

1974 Remarks on the Prehistory of the North Pacific:
To Lump or not to Lump. l2 Proceedings of the
International Conference on the Prehistory and
Paleoecology of the Western.North American.Arctic and
Sub-Arctic. S. Raymond and P. Schlederman, ed.

Pp. 47—56. Canada: University of Calgary
Archaeological Association.

Dumond, Donald E. and Robert L. Mace
1968 An Archaeological Survey along Knik.Arm.
Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska
14(1):1-21.

Dumond, Donald E., et al.
1975 Eskimos and Aleuts on the Alaska Peninsula:
A Reappraisal of Port Moller Affinities. Arctic
Anthropology 12(7):49-67.

Fisher, Rayman H.
1971 Records of the Russian American Company, 1802,
1817-1867. Washington, D.C.: General Services
Administration.

Fitting, James E.
1966a Archaeological Investigations of the
CarolinianFCanadian Edge Area in Michigan. The
Michigan.Archaeologist 24:143-149.
1966b Edge Area Archaeology. The Michigan
Archaeologist 12(4):1—110.

Fitzhugh, William
1972 Environmental Archaeology and Cultural Systems in
Hamilton Inlet, Labrador. Smithsonian.Contributions
to Anthropology, Number 16. Washington, D.C.:
Smithsonian Institution Press.

Flannery,Kent V.

1967 The Olmec and the Valley of Oaxaca: a Model for
Inter-regional Interaction in Formative Times. .Ip
Dumbarton Oaks Conference on the Olmec. E. P.
Benson, ed. Pp. 79-110. washington, D.C.:
Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection.

134

Fried, Ms, M. Harris and R. Murphy, eds.

1968 war: the Anthropology of Armed Conflict and
Aggression. For the American Museum of Natural
History. Garden City, New York: The Natural History
Press.

Glassow,.Michael A.

1972 Change in the Adaptations of Southwestern
Basketmakers: a Systems Perspective. ‘Ip
Contemporary Archaeology. IMark P. Leone, ed.
Pp. 289-302. Carbondale: Southern Illinois
University Press.

Golder, F. A. .

1922—25 Bering's Voyages: An Account of the Efforts
of the Russians tolletermine the Relation of Asia and
America. 2 Vols. New York: American Geographical
Society.

Gorman, Frederick
1972 The Clovis Hunters: An Alternative View of their
Environment and Ecology. 'Ip Contemporary Archaeology.
Mark P. Leone, ed. Pp. 206-221. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press.

Griggs, Robert F.
1934 The Edge of the Forest in Alaska and the Reasons
for its Position. Ecology 15:80-96.

Guemple, Lee, ed.

1971 Alliance in Eskimo Society. Proceedings of the
American Ethnological Society Supplement. Seattle,
Washington: University of Washington Press.

1972 Eskimo Band Organization and the "D P CAMP"
Hypothesis. Arctic Anthropology 9(2):80-112.

Gumerman, George J. and R. Roy Johnson
1971 Prehistoric Human.Population Distribution in a
Biological Transition Zone. _Ip The Distribution of
Prehistoric Population Aggregates. George Bumerman,
ed. Pp. 83—102. Prescott, Arizona: Prescott
College Press.

Gumerman, George J., Carol Weed and John Hanson
1976 Adaptive Strategies in a Biological and Cultural
Transition Zone: The Central Arizona Ecotone Project,
an Interim Report. University Museum Studies.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

135

Hardin, G.
1966 Biology: Its Principles and Implications,
2nd Edition. San Francisco: W} H. Freeman.

Harris, David R.

1969 Agricultural Systems, Ecosystems and the Origins
of Agriculture. 'Ip The Domestication of Plants and
Animals. Peter J. Ucko and G. W. Dimbley, eds.

Pp. 3—15. Chicago: Aldine.

1972 The Origins of Agriculture in the Tr0pics.

American Scientist 60:180—193.

Hayano
1974 Marriage, Alliance, and Warfare: .A View from the
New Guinea Highlands. American Ethnologist 1(2):281.

Hickerson, Harold

1962 The Southwestern.Chippewa: an Ethnohistorical
Study. American Anthropological Association
Memoir No. 92, 64(3).

1965 The Virginia deer and Intertribal Buffer Zones
in the Upper Mississippi Valley. 12 Man, Culture
and Animals. A. Leeds and A. Vayda, eds. Pp. 43—65.
Washington, D.C.: American Association for the
Advancement of Science.

Hosley, Edward
1968 Current Research. American Antiquity 33(2):272.

Jacobsen, Johan Adrian
1977 Alaskan Voyage 1881-1883: An.Expedition to the
Northwest Coast of America. Trans. by Erna Gunther
from the German text of Adrian.W01dt. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.

Kent, Frederick, John.Matthews and Frederick Hadleigh—West
1964 An Archaeological Survey of Portions of the
Northwestern.Kenai Peninsula. AnthrOpological Papers
of the University of Alaska 12(2):101-134.

Khlebrnikov, K. T.

1973 Baranov, Chief Manager of the Russian American
Colonies in America. Colin Bearne, trnas. and
Richard A. Pierce, ed. Kingston, Ontario: The
Limestone Press.

Knight, Clifford B.

1965 Basic Concepts of Ecology. New York: Macmillan
Co.

136

Langsdorff, G. H.
1813-1817 Voyages and Travels in Various Parts of the
World during the Years 1803—1807. Vol. 1, London:
H. Colburn. Vol. 2, Philadelphia: G. Phillips.

Laughlin, William S.
1971 Ecology and Population Structure in the Arctic.
IE Demography and the Biological and Social Structure
of Human.Populations. G. A. Harrison and.A. J.
Boyce, eds. Oxford: University Press.

Leach, E. R.
1954 Political Systems of Highland Burma, A Study of
Kachin Social Structure. Boston: Beacon.Press.

Levi-Strauss, Claude
1967 Structuralism and Ecology. 'Ip Ecology, Cultural
and Non—Cultural. A. P. Vayda, Roy Rappaport and
J. Clifton, eds. Pp. 362-363. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.

Lisianski, Urey
1968 A Voyage Around the World, etc., in 1803, 1804,
1805, and 1806. New Jersey: Gregy Press.

Lobdell, John and William WOrkman
1976 Current Research. American Antiquity 41(2):215.

Love, Thomas F.
1977 Ecological Niche Theory in Socio-cultural
Anthropology: A Conceptual Framework and an
Application. American Ethnologist 4(1):27-41.

Mariot, McKim, ed.
1955 Village India, Studies in the Little Community.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Marsh, Gordon.H.
1956 A Stone Lamp from Yukon Island, Alaska.
Apthropological Papers of the University of Alaska
4 2 .

Martin, G. C., B. L. Johnson and U. S. Grant
1915 Geology and Mineral Resources of the Kenai
Peninsula, Alaska. United States Geological Survey
gulletin No. 587. ‘Washington: Government Printing
ffice.

 

   

137

Martinez, Agustin
1979 9,700 Years of Maritime Subsistence on the
Pacific, an Analysis by Means of Bioindicators in the
North of Chile. American Antiquity 44(2):309—324.

McClellan, Catherine
1975 Feuding and warfare among Northwestern
Athabaskans. 'IpiNorthern.Athabaskan Conference,
1st, Ottawa, Ontario, 1971, proceedings. A. M.
Clark, ed. National Museum of Man Mercury Series,
Canadian Ethnological Service Paper No. 27. Ottawa:
National Museums of Canada.

Miller, Jay
1974 The Delaware as Women: A Symbolic Solution.
American Ethnologist 1(3):507—514.

Morgan,IMorris
1965 Current Research. American Antiquity 31(2):290.

Myers, Thomas P.
1976 Defended Territories and NO—Man's Lands.
American Anthropologist 78(2):354-355.

Nash, Ronald J.
1975 Archaeological Investigations in the Transitional
Forest Zone: Northern.Manitoba, Southern.Kuwatin,
N. W. T., Manitoba. Winnipeg: Museum of Man and
Nature.

National Geographic Society
1965 Alaska (map). ‘Washington, D.C.: National
Geographic Society.

Odum, Eugene Pleasants
1975 Ecology, 2nd edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart
and‘Winston.

Osgood, Cornelius
1937 The Ethnography of the Tanaina. Yale University
Publications in Anthropology No. 16. New Haven:
Yale University Press.

Oswalt, wendell H.
1967 Alaskan Eskimos. Scranton, Pennsylvania:
Chandler Publishing Co.

 

138

Park T.
1954 Experimental Studies of Interspecific competition;
Temperature, Humidity, and Competition in Two Species
of Tribolium. Physiological Zoology 27:177-238.

 

Peterson, Nicolas
1976 A Reply to Thomas P. Myers. American
Anthropologist 78(2):355-356.

Petroff, Ivan
1884 Alaska: Its Population, Industries and Resources.
Tenth Census, 1880. Washington, D.C.: United States
Government Printing Office.

Reger, Douglas
1973 An Eskimo Site Near Kenai, Alaska- M. A. Thesis,
'Washington State University.
1974 Current Research. American Antiquity 39(4):622.

Rhoades, Robert E.
1978 Archaeological Use and Abuse of Ecological

Concepts and Studies: the Ecotone Example. American
Antiquity 43(4):608—614.

Rieger, Samuel, et al.

1962 Kenai-Kasilof area, Alaska. United States
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,
in cooperation with the Alaska Agricultural
Experimental Station. Soil Survey Series, 1958,

No. 20. Washington: Government Printing Office.

Sanders, William T.

1968 Hydraulic Agriculture, Economic Symbiosis, and the
Evolution of States in.Central Mexico. .ifl
Anthropological Archaeology in the Americas.

B. G. Meggars, ed. Pp. 88—107. Washington, D.C.:
American Anthropological Association.

Sarychev, G. A.
1806 A Voyage of Discovery to the North East.of Siberia.
London: R. Phillips. Also reprinted, New York:
De Capo Press, 1969.

Slobodin, R.
1960 Eastern Kutchin Warfare. Anthropologica N. S.

Slobodkin, Laurence B.
1961 Growth and Regulation of Animal Populations.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

139

Spaulding, Albert C.
1967 Current Research. American Antiquity 32(4):560.

Struever, Stewart

1968a Problems, Methods and Organization: A Disparity
in the Growth of Archaeology. .Ip Anthropological
Archaeology in the Americas. B. J. Meggars, ed.
Washington, D.C.: Anthropological Society of
Washington.

1968b WOodland Subsistence—Settlement Systems in the
Lower Illinois Valley. .ijNeW'Perspectives in
Archaeology. S. R. Binford and L. Binford, eds.
Pp. 285-312. Chicago: Aldine.

Suttles,‘Wayne
1968 Variation in Habitat and Culture on the Northwest
Coast. Proceedings of the 34th International Congress
of Americanists (1960). Ip Man in.Adaptation: The
Cultural Present. Yehudi A. Cohen, ed. Pp. 93-106.
Chicago: Aldine.

Tebenkof, P.
1852 Atlas. Manuscript on microfilm at the University
of Alaska, Fairbanks.

Thomas, D. H.
1973 An Empirical Test of Steward's Model of Great
Basin Settlement Patterns. American Antiquity
39:155-176.

Tikhmenev, P. A.

1861—1863 The Historical Review of the Formation of
the Russian—American Company and its Activities up
to the Present Time. 2 parts, St. Petersburg.
Dimitri Kranov, trans., 1939. Seattle, Washington:
Works Progress Administration, typewritten copy.

Townsend, Joan B.

1973 Ethnoarchaeology in Nineteenth Century Southern
and Western Alaska: An Interpretive Model.
Ethnohistory 20(4):393-412.

1974 Journals of 19th Century Russian Priests to the
Tanaina: Cook Inlet, Alaska. Arctic Anthropology
11(1):1-30.

Trigger, Bruce G.
1967 Settlement Archaeology-—its Goals and Promise.
American Antiquity 32(2):149—160.

140

Turnbull, Collin M.
1962 The Forest Pe0ple. New York: Simon and Schuster.

VanStone, James W.

1959 An Early Account of the Russian Discoveries in
the North Pacific. Anthropological Papers of the
University of Alaska 7(2):91—112.

1973 V. S. Khromchenko's Coastal Explorations in
Southwestern Alaska, 1822. Fieldiana: Anthropology,
Vol. 64. Chicago: Field Museum of Natural History.

1974 Athabaskan Adaptations. Chicago: Aldine.

VanStone, James W. and Joan B. Townsend
1970 Kijik: Anthropology, Vol. 56. Chicago: Field
Museum of Natural History.

Vaurie, C.
1951 Proceedings of the International Ornithological
Congress, 1950.

Viereck, Leslie A. and Elbert L. Little, Jr.
1972 Alaska Trees and Shrubs. United States Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service Agricultural Handbook
No. 410. washington, D.C.: Government Printing
Office.

Von Wrangell, Ferdinand P.
1970 The Inhabitants of the Northwest Coast of America.
James W. VanStone ed. and trans. Arctic
Anthropology 11(2):520.

Watson, Patty Jo, Steven A. Le Blanc and Charles L. Redman
1971 Explanation in Archaeology. New York: Columbia
University Press.

Watrall , Charles
1976 Ecotones: Environmental.Adaptation Strategies in
the Prehistory of Northwestern.Minnesota. PhD
dissertation of the University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis.

Webster
1973 'Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary. Springfield,
Massachusetts: G. and C. Merriam Co.

Whittaker, Robert
1970 Communities and Ecosystems. New York:
Macmillan.

141

Whittaker, R. H., S. A. Levin and R. B. Root
1973 Niche, Habitat and Ecotope. American Naturalist
107(955):321-338.

WOod, W. Raymond and R. Bruce McMillan
1976 Prehistoric Man and His Environment: A Case
Study in the Ozark Highland. New York: Academic
Press.

Zagoskin, L. A.

1967 Lieutenant Zakoskin's Travels in Russian
America, 1842-1844. The first Ethnographic and
Geographic Investigations in the Yukon and
Kuskikwim.Valleys of Alaska. Henry N. Michael, ed.
Arctic Institute of North America. Anthropology of
the North. Translations from the Russian Sources
N0. 7, Toronto.

 

 

 

‘ llHl”HillllllllHlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll