72 BUREAU

Van'''ston°e']

CROW

VILLAGE,

ALASKA 73

lynx,

and

bear.

From

1856 to the

end

of therecord,

marten became

extremely important. In the

American

period for the year 1883

we have

a recordofallthefurstradedtotheAlaska

Commercial Company

at their three stores:

Mumtreklagamiut

Station (Bethel),

Kolmakov, and

^Vinasale. Numericallythe

most

importantpelt

was

themuskrat, then mink, followed

by

marten, beaver, fox, land otter,

and

black bear (Oswalt, 1963 b, pp. 109-110). It

was

only

by

exchanging pelts for trade goods that an

Eskimo

could obtain those exotic items

which

he desired.

The Crow

Village people unquestionably were participants

m

^{the fur trade,}

and

yet there is little evidence of the species that they took.

A few

beaver bones were associated with

H-3, H-4, and

T-2, but again

we would

expect beaver

and

other species to be represented

more

widely in the site, were it not

known

that bones were

thrown

into the river. According to informants, fishbones also were

thrown

into the river. Diu-ing the excavation a

few

scales

and

^vertebrae

from

fish were recovered, but these were only a

minute

fraction of the

number

that

would

be expected at a riverine site

where

fishing

was

a major, if not the major,

means

of livelihood.

Zagoskin _(1956, p. 221) mentions that metal traps wereunsuccess- fully introduced for the trapping of beaver

and

that the aboriginal trapping

methods

^{fortakingthis} animalpersisted, withthe additional Russian technique of destroying the beaver's lodge.

Eskimo-made

traps, consisting of snares, nets, deadfalls,

and

so on,

would

not only be unlikely to leave traces in the archeological record, but would, in in

any

^case, be set at

some

distance

from

the village

and

discarded

when

brokenor

worn

out. Itwillbe

remembered,

however,that there are

some

small

wooden

pegs in the collection that

have

tentatively

been

identified as snare parts.

The

significance of trapping to the

Crow

Village people

and

its effect

on

the annual subsistence cycle will be discussed elsewhere.

Here

it is sufficient to say that the ab- sence

from

the collection of artifacts related to trapping does not necessarily indicate alack of emphasis

on

this activity.

The

birchbark technology at the ^site does notrepresent a develop-

ment from

coastal

Eskimo

material culture; birchbark in that area

was

recovered only

from

driftwood

and

through trade.

Thus

a case cannot be

made

for continuity,

but

working birchbark seems to rep- resent a

new development

induced

by

a

new

environmental setting plus the probability of borrowings

from

theAthapaskans,

The

prev- alence of birchbark in the site in the

form

of baskets, storage pit liners, roof log coverings,

and

floor coverings, plus innumerable un-

worked

fragments, already has been noted. In fact, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the preparation of birchbark for its

various uses

must have

been

an

important activity.

The

effect that

74

the prevalence ^of birchbark ^vessels

may have had

on the scarcity of traditional pottery is discussed elsewhere. It is significant, too, that grass matting usually associated with the

Eskimos

of southwestern Alaskaisvirtually absent

from

thesite,

and

itsreplacement

by

birch-

bark

islikely. Itisinteresting tonotethatallthefragmentsof

worked

birchbark were recovered

from

the

T-1

midden, suggesting that baskets

and

other objects of this material

may have

been

made by

the

men

in the kashgee. This explanation

would

not, however,

be

consistentwith the present

day

situation as baskets are

now made by

the

women.

Working

clay into containerswithin thetradition of potterymaking

isseeninitslaststage atthesite.

The

fragments ofimportedpottery

outnumber

those of the locally

made

ware. It is true, too,that a preference ^for birchbark containers

may

be responsible partially for the scarcity of clay vessels.

The

use of clay cooking pots

was

in rapid decline,

but lamps

continued to be useful, as indicated

by

15 pottery

lamp

fragments, the 2 sections of imported stone lamps,

and

the lampstands in

two

houses.

While

imported pottery

and

birch- bark containers could easily replace clay pots, there seems to

have

been

no

satisfactory substitute for the traditional

Eskimo

lamp.

Thisis likely to

have been due

to the scarcity ofimported fuel, rather than afailure

on

the partofthe

Eskimos

to appreciate the advantages of the kerosene or coal

oU

lamp.

Having

considered those features of

Crow

Village culture in

which

continuity with the past is certain, likely, or vague, it is

now

fitting to dealwith the instances ofchange induced

by

the contactsituation.

This is the realm in

which

w^e

would

^expect "ingenuity" to be

most

evident.

We ^{have come}

^{to expect}

^Eskimos

^to innovate along tech- nological ^lines

and

to be original in manipulating

new

things; the evidence at the site supports this generalization.

An

inspection of the list of imported

manufactured

goods suggests that a relatively small

number

of trade items were available to the people throughout the period represented

by

the site. It is not the actual

numbers

or variety of the imported items that is impressive, but rather the

manner

in

which

imported material

was

adapted to local needs.

Infact, itisimportant that the inhabitantsof

Crow

Villagefrequently

remade

trade items into

new

^things, while items

from

the traditional culture rarelywere remade. Thisis striking, since the secondaryuse of artifacts ^is a characteristic of

Eskimo

material culture

from

pre- historic sites.

It is the stimulus

toward

innovation provided

by

the exposure to

new and

^differentforms thatis

most

impressive.

In

situations

where

innovations occurasaresult ofcontact

we would

expect things

new

to arise from: (1) exotic objects introduced, accepted,

and added

to the

vln"s\on°']

CROW

VILLAGE,

ALASKA 75

culturalinventorywithout formal changes; (2) the availability of

new

materials permitting achange of existing forms;

and

(3) the construc- tion of

new

forms based

on new

models.

With

regard to the first

source of innovation, a reading of the artifact descriptions

and

a glance at the trait list will indicate

which

items Avere accepted into the cultural inventory without change.

The

impression is that the process of selection

was

not a

complex

one. Relatively few items appear to

have

been available,

and

they pertained to aspects of culture in

which

one

might

expect that innovation

would

be theleast disruptive

and

the

most

acceptable:

new

forms of tools, weapons, household equipment,

and

items of clothing

and

ornamentation.

Of

particular interest are those items

which

indicate the introduction of

new

^foods.

The

^cans recovered point to the use of the following food products: meat, fruit, lard, fish, baking powder, syrup or oil,

tobacco,

and

salt.

We

^can

assume

that tea

was

obtained either in bricks or in packages that

would

leave

no

trace.

The

food products represented here are

among

the

most

popular with

Kuskokwim Eskimos

today.

Baking powder and

lardareusedin

making bannock and

are considered staples,

whUe canned meats and

fruit are luxuries.

It then appears that a deshe for these imported food products

was

established atanearlydateinthemiddle

Kuskokwim

region,

but

only tea can be traced through historical references to the Russian period.

Of

far greater interest

and

significanceXis the second source of innovation.

Here we

are concerned A\ith the introduction of

new

materials

and

their effect

on

the construction of traditional artifact types

and

the persistence of old ideas in

new mediums. The most

notable examples are discussed below.

(1) The^drilledmendingholeina sherdofimportedpotteryistheapplicationofan oldtechniqueformendingtraditionalEskimopotterytothenewimportedpottery.

Presumably this transference was reasonably successful, although imported pot- terybreakswitha straightedgethatwouldmakesuccessfulmending bythismeans verydifficult.

(2) Ulubladesfrom canmetalweredoubtless easierto make andcould becon- structed more quickly in larger sizes than those made of stone. However, the flexiblenatureofthemetalanditsinabilitytoholdanedgemust havemadethese bladeslessusefulthanthoseofstone. Thefactthat certainothertoolsweremade from can metaland that can metalwas cutand storedin rollssuggests thatthe people were experimenting withits uses.

(3) The salmondartheadofmetalrepresentsnoradicalchangeindesignand might just as easily have been made in the traditional way from antler. Here is an excellentexampleofanoldandfamiliarartifacttype reproducedinanewmaterial witlioutreference tothespecific qualities ofthat material.

(4) Scrapersmadefrom bottleglass areinno way different inoverallform from those made of flinty materials. Given the presence of heavy bottle glass, the scrapersmust havebeenmoreeasilymanufacturedandatthesametime provided a usefor brokenbottles.

76

(5) The useofa spentcartridge case toform^the endofabird darthead isonly a slightmodificationofatraditionalartifact,but undoubtedlythischangeincreased the durabilityofthe point.

(6) The example ofcanmetal foldedintoshallowdishlikecontainersisparticularly interesting because itillustrates a conservatismwith regard to the new material.

The can metal appears to have been viewed as having the same properties as birchbark, andsincethisis true to some extent,the transition fromone material toanotherwasquitesuccessful. Whilecan metalwasapparently neverplentiful enough, or available in large enough sections, to replace birchbark, the shallow dishesseem tohave formed a useful addition tothecultural inventory.

(7) Theuseofanailwiththeheadfiledawayinplaceofabirdbonesplinter forthe tip ofa dartseemstobeaninnovationwhosevaluewouldimmediatelyrecommend

it,involvingasitdoesnochangeintheshapeordesignofthe traditionalformbut givingaddedstrength against breakage.

(8) Twenty-two {.22-) calibercartridge caseswere perforatedat thecap anda cord passed through the holes. The cases were strung with beads and became a new formofnecklace.

(9) Theengraved metalferrulewithencirclinglinesandshortlinesat right angles toone ofthecirclesrepresents makinga designin metalwhichhad no aboriginal precedent.

Turning

toourthirdcategoryofinnovation, thatof

new

forms based on

new

models, the

number

of examples is small. This points

up

a basicfactabout thenatureofculture changeat

Crow

Village, namely, that as a result of contact, very few needs were created that could not be^fulfilled through the

normal

trade channels.

Thus

it

was

only occasionally necessary for the

Eskimos

to improvise in order to maintain

and

continue to use the imported implements

which

they

had

already.

The most

notable

example

of the attempt to reproduce a

non-Eskimo

artifact locally is the sandstone ^bullet

mold

half.

Only

oneotheritemseems tofitintothis general innovative category,

and

thatis the artifact identified as a

wooden

flower. Thisis a

form which

has

no

referent in the old culture

and may

representa response totheuseof flowersin the services of the Russian

Orthodox

Church.

The

variousspecifics ofinnovation

mentioned

above are interesting because of the information they provide about the response of the

Eskimos

tothe introductionof

new

itemsofmaterialcultm-e.

We

note that the peopleof

Crow

ViUage

seem

to

have

respondedenthusiastically to therelativelysmall

number

ofimporteditems

which

were available to

them toward

the close ofthe 19th century,

and

particularly they

seem

to

have

been interested in experimenting with

new

materials.

Although

neither the archeological record nor historical material permits us to elaborate on the selection factor

and

trade materials, it is

assumed

that the

Eskimos

^of this area accepted whatever

was

offered.

We have

the definiteimpression that the inventory of goods traded into themiddle

Kuskokwim

areaduring both the Russian

and

early

American

periods

was

not great.

Van^Ston°1

CROW

VILLAGE,

ALASKA 77 However,

the truly impressive characteristic of the

Crow

Village collection is not the imported goods or their use but rather the re-

markable

continuity represented, with emphasis on the retention of traditional forms.

The

fact that traditional

Eskimo

material cutiu-e should

loom

as large as it does in this collection

from

a site that apparently

was

occupied ^only during the contact period seems to suggest a single important fact: Diu"ing the middle

and

late 19th century, in an area of Alaska exploited

by American and

Russian traders for three-quarters of a century,

Eskimo

material culture retained its traditional orientation.

When

this is considered in light of the change thathas taken place in the areasince then, it is possible to appreciate the rapidity with

which

the

Eskimos have

been

drawn

into the

mainstream

of

American

life since the turn of the century.