Native American Genocide

Raina Delema

History behind the News

Spring 2005

Introduction

When people think of genocide, there are many different examples that may run though their heads. For example, right now there is an intensely watched genocidal issue in Sudan. Another important genocide which occurred was during World War II when Adolph Hitler wanted to exterminate everyone who was of the  Jewish faith. This example may be the most prominent in history, but it may not have been the earliest. Many think that issues of genocide only occur in foreign countries, but it may have in fact occurred here within the United States.

            When Europeans first came to the Americas, they thought that they were discovering new land. Instead they were greeted with a land which was already inhabited by people with their own way of life. What happened after that is described by some as an American Holocaust. A lot of death and destruction came to Native American tribes when the European explorers and settlers landed.

Columbus, 1492

 Christopher Columbus landed in the Americas on October 12, 1942. He brought with him the hope of prosperity and an excitement of discovery of a new world. Little did the voyagers know, there was already a “world” which existed in that land. That sense of hope and discovery from one part of the world eventually led to the death and destruction of another.

Many Native Americans believe that when Columbus first landed in the Americas, it was the beginning of what is now referred to as the American Holocaust. Columbus brought with him greedy men which ultimately led to discrimination, diseases and the death of thousands of Native American people.

Columbus himself brought men who were looking for gold. They took the inhabitants and made them into slaves. In some accounts, the Natives were murdered, tortured and deprived of the necessities. This occurred throughout other voyages as well, as Columbus and his men went from island to island.

English Europeans

            It wasn’t necessarily the Spanish that did all of the damage, it was what (or who) followed after that. When the English started to come to the Americas from Europe, they didn’t particularly care who was already living on the land and they certainly didn’t have any regards for the Native Americans way of life. Europeans looked at their discovery as a new way of starting over and they saw the land that they had complete rights to. The English wanted the land and they would literally take it form them without a second thought. Native Americans soon became a minority as settlers poured in from Europe and began to expand. Not only did they treat then poorly but many tried to kill them altogether.

            When Europeans first settled in North America, one of the biggest problems for Native Americans was the diseases which they brought with them. Since they had never been exposed to these diseases as the Europeans had they extremely susceptible to catching them. The Natives immune system could not handle the change. An intense amount of Native Americans died to diseases such as the plague, influenza and smallpox. The toll it took one each tribe was immense. Most tribes lost anywhere from fifty to ninety percent of their people due to illnesses alone.

The Indian Removal Act of 1830 – Trail of Tears

            Throughout decades of English immigrants and the formation of the United States, Native Americans were continually mistreated. They were looked at as “savages” and were made slaves. The English had no tolerance of them and many wanted them dead. This was mostly because they did not share religious beliefs and they did not share the same way of living. Natives were killed by attack after attack. Their crops were destroyed by settlers leaving them dying of starvation. 

On May 28, 1830, Andrew Jackson enacted the Indian Removal Act as a means to “trade” land which lied on the eastern side of the Mississippi where the Native Americans resided. In return, the Native Americans would be given land which was designated for them west of the Mississippi. Within the treaty there were some important terms of conditions in which the President guaranteed these different nations.

Jackson promised the protection of tribes from all outside forces while they were o the newly designated land. The act also guaranteed “aid” for those who were moving and needed help in doing so. In one paragraph it was stated that the land which was traded was to always belong to the tribes, regardless if it was them or their successors living on it. (There was however one exception to this rule. It stated in the treaty that if the “Indians become extinct, or abandon the same” then “…such lands shall revert to the United States”).

With all of these promises and more from President Andrew Jackson, five different tribes decided to move to the other side of the Mississippi. Their destination was Oklahoma which was known as Indian Territory. This began the incredible (albeit deadly) move of over 70,000 Native Americans within the span of ten years. This trek is sadly known as the Trail of Tears.

The move from east to west proved to be more destructive to the tribes than it was helpful. What seemed to be a fair trade soon turned a terrible ordeal as many people died from the move. Native Americans died from exhaustion and starvation from the long journey. Over 3,000 Natives of the Cherokee tribe alone died on the Trail of Tears. This was not to mention all of those who died once they arrived in Oklahoma.

Western Expansion

            As America was expanding, Native Americans were being pushed farther west and even up into Canada. With Manifest Destiny and the United States constantly taking shape, the English settlers were much greedier for land and grew less tolerant of the Natives standing in their way. There were numerous amounts of massacres and things were not getting better.

            One example of a state and its extreme efforts to move the Native Americans out of the land was Texas. When Texas entered the union they had different policies regarding Native Americans than the United States had already outlined. Texans did not think they needed to trade land nor did they think that the Natives even had rights to the land to begin with. Because of this, Texans would invade land owned by Native Americans because they supposedly had no claims or rights to it.

            In 1847, Texas granted “speculators” pieces of land. This land was already inhabited by Natives. When the new settlers had surveyors check out the land they found Native Americans who were none to happy about the situation.

            Texans wanted the Native Americans out so the new settlers could help to expand the state. Texans continually went onto their lands and they continually killed many people. In 1859, after a system of reservations failed, Native Americans were finally forced out of Texas.

            Another example on a Tribal level (rather than state) occurred in 1877 with the Nez Perce Tribe. Approximately 750 members of the Nez Perce tribe were forced to move to designated reservations under orders of General Howard. The Nez Perce fled to Montana where they thought that they would be safe from Howard. Once they were settled, Colonel John Gibbon took orders from Howard to carry on an attack on the tribe with the intention of wiping them out, not just relocating them. Gibbon issued a surprise attack which left numerous dead (a significant amount of those were warriors). The war ended in surrender with Chief Joseph’s now famous words “I will fight no more forever.” Upon surrendering the Nez Perce were forced to move to a reservation, which was what they had tried to avoid all along.

            These are just a couple of examples which occurred out of a numerous amount. History books show many massacres and many wrongdoings toward the Native Americans before and after these occurrences.

Raphael Lemkin and “genocide”

The question is not whether they were treated inhumanly because that has already been established by history itself. The question is whether or not the treatment they received constitutes a form of genocide. In 1944, Raphael Lemkin introduced the term “genocide” and provided a set of definitions or guidelines for the word.

Lemkin defined genocide after the Holocaust of World War II. He described it to be the destruction of a “culture, language, national feelings, [and] religion.” According to prevent genocide.org, part of genocide is the “abolition of local laws and local courts.” Within the treaties and even in the Indian Civil Rights Act if 1968, Native Americans were given sovereignty whether or not this actually kept. There are many tribes today which still have tribal governments. Economically, Native Americans were targeted. There lands were taken from them and their crops were destroyed. They were endangered by the disease which were carried and sometimes administered among the Natives.  Being forced out of their homelands on long trails such as the Trail of Tears led to deprivation of many things which caused the deaths of thousands.

Can the mistreatment of Native Americans constitute genocide? There are certainly many instances in which it could be considered genocide. The outspokenness of some men back in those times of war distinctly called for the extermination of Native Americans. There were many actions which were taken to “get rid” of them.

One also must look at the fact of whether or not the removal of Native Americans constitutes as a form of genocide if negative consequences occur along the way. The intended death and destruction of a people just because they are of a certain origin or ethnic background does fall under the definition of genocide. What the history of Native Americans gives us can be determined as a form of genocide. While we can not go back in time, we can learn from mistakes and learn tolerance from history. This can help us to realize that not only does this go on in other nations, it may also occur on America’s homeland.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bowman, Sally Jo. “From where the sun now stands.”  National Parks. Jan/Feb 99.

            Vol 73.

Connery, William S. “Fight No More Forever.” World & I. Aug 2002, Vol. 17.

http://www.historicaldocuments.com/indianremovalact.htm

http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/AxisRule1944-1.htm

http://www.preventgenocide.org/lemkin/AxisRule1944-2.htm

http://www.rosecity.net/tears/trail/timeline.html

Katz, William Loren. “Columbus and the American Holocaust.” New York Amsterdam

            News. Vol 94 Issue 41. 10/9/2003.

McDougall, Walter A. “Freedom Just Around the Corner.” Harper Collins: 2004

Norrell, Brenda. “ANALYSIS: American Indians see Columbus as the trigger man for a

            Holocaust.” Indian Country Today (Rapid City, SD); 10/12/2004.

Trennert Jr, Robert A. “Alternative to Extinction.” Temple University Press.

Philadelphia: 1975.

LINKS

           

http://www.fs.fed.vs/npnht/index.shtml

http://www.library.yale.edu/rsc/natiive/internet.html

http://www.tribalcollegejournal.org/

Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968:

http://www.tribal-institute.org/lists/icra1968.htm

Athabaskan Languages

Athabaskan or Athabascan (also Dene, Athapascan, Athapaskan) is a large group of indigenous peoples of North America, located in two main Southern and Northern groups in western North America, and of their language family. The Athabaskan family is the second largest family in North America in terms of number of languages and the number of speakers, following the Uto-Aztecan family which extends into Mexico. In terms of territory, only the Algic language family covers a larger area. Most Athabaskans prefer to be identified by their specific language and location. Although, the general term Athabascan persists in linguistics and anthropology, in August of 2012 the annual Athabaskan Languages Conference changed its name to the Dene Languages Conference.

The word Athabaskan is an anglicized version of a Cree language name for Lake Athabasca (Woods Cree: Aδapaska˙w “[where] there are reeds one after another”) in Canada. The name was assigned by Albert Gallatin in his 1836 (written 1826) classification of the languages of North America. He acknowledged that it was his own preference to assign this name to the group of languages and peoples, writing:

I have designated them by the arbitrary denomination of Athabascas, which derived from the original name of the lake.

—1836:116-7

Albert Gallatin’s arbitrary designation has unfortunate connotations as the term describes a shallow, weedy lake rather than a coherent people with shared language and culture. Most Athabaskans prefer to be identified by their specific language and location, however the general term persists in linguistics and anthropology despite alternative suggestions such as “Dene”. As noted above, in August of 2012 the annual Athabaskan Languages Conference changed its name to the Dene Languages Conference.
The four spellings of “Athabaskan”, “Athabascan”, “Athapaskan”, and “Athapascan” are in approximately equal use. There are various preferences for one or another spelling depending on the particular community. For example, the Alaska Native Language Center prefers the spelling “Athabascan,” following a decision in favor of this spelling by the Tanana Chiefs Conference in 1997. Michael Krauss had previously endorsed the spelling “Athabaskan” (1987). Ethnologue uses “Athapaskan” in naming the language family and individual languages.

The word Athabaskan is an anglicized version of a Cree language name for Lake Athabasca (Woods Cree: Aδapaska˙w “[where] there are reeds one after another”) in Canada. The name was assigned by Albert Gallatin in his 1836 (written 1826) classification of the languages of North America. He acknowledged that it was his own preference to assign this name to the group of languages and peoples, writing:

I have designated them by the arbitrary denomination of Athabascas, which derived from the original name of the lake.

—1836:116-7

Albert Gallatin’s arbitrary designation has unfortunate connotations as the term describes a shallow, weedy lake rather than a coherent people with shared language and culture. Most Athabaskans prefer to be identified by their specific language and location, however the general term persists in linguistics and anthropology despite alternative suggestions such as “Dene”. As noted above, in August of 2012 the annual Athabaskan Languages Conference changed its name to the Dene Languages Conference.
The four spellings of “Athabaskan”, “Athabascan”, “Athapaskan”, and “Athapascan” are in approximately equal use. There are various preferences for one or another spelling depending on the particular community. For example, the Alaska Native Language Center prefers the spelling “Athabascan,” following a decision in favor of this spelling by the Tanana Chiefs Conference in 1997.^[2] Michael Krauss had previously endorsed the spelling “Athabaskan” (1987). Ethnologue uses “Athapaskan” in naming the language family and individual languages.

Languages

Linguists conventionally divide the Athabaskan family into three groups, based largely on geographic distribution:

1. Northern Athabaskan
2. Pacific Coast Athabaskan
3. Southern Athabaskan or Apachean

The 31 Northern Athabaskan languages are spoken throughout the interior of Alaska and the interior of northwestern Canada in the Yukon and Northwest Territories as well as in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Several Athabaskan languages are official languages in the Northwest Territories, including Dëne Sųłiné (Chipewyan), Dogrib or Tłįchǫ Yatʼiì, Gwich’in (Kutchin, Loucheux), and Slavey.
The seven Pacific Coast Athabaskan languages are spoken in southern Oregon and northern California. The six Southern Athabaskan languages are distantly isolated from both the Pacific Coast languages and the Northern languages as they are spoken in the American Southwest and the northwestern part of Mexico. This group includes Navajo and the six Apache languages.
As a crude approximation of differences among the languages in the family, one can compare differences between Athabaskan languages to differences between Indo-European languages. Thus, Koyukon and Dena’ina are about as different as French and Spanish, while Koyukon and Gwich’in are as different as English and Italian.
The following list gives the Athabaskan languages organized by their geographic location in various North American states and provinces. Note that several languages such as Navajo and Gwich’in span the boundaries between different states and provinces, and hence they appear in this list multiple times. For alternative names for the languages, see the classifications given later in this article.

• Alaska: Ahtna, Deg Hit’an, Dena’ina/Tanaina, Gwich’in/Kutchin, Hän, Holikachuk, Koyukon, Lower Tanana, Middle Tanana, Tanacross, Upper Tanana, Upper Kuskokwim
• Yukon Territory: Gwich'in/Kutchin, Hän, Kaska, Mountain, Tagish, Northern Tutchone, Southern Tutchone, Upper Tanana
• Northwest Territories: Bearlake, Dëne Sųłiné/Chipewyan, Gwich’in, Hare, Mountain, Slavey, Tłįchǫ Yatʼìi/Dogrib
• Nunavut: Dëne Sųłiné
• British Columbia: Babine–Witsuwit’en, Bearlake, Beaver, Chilcotin, Dakelh/Carrier, Hare, Kaska, Mountain, Nicola, Sekani/Tsek’ene, Slavey, Tagish, Tahltan, Tsetsaut
• Alberta: Beaver, Dëne Sųłiné, Slavey, Tsuut’ina/Sarcee
• Saskatchewan: Dëne Sųłiné
• Washington: Chilcotin, Kwalhioqua-Clatskanai (Willapa, Suwal), Nicola
• Oregon: Applegate, Clatskanie, Galice, Rogue River (Chasta Costa, Euchre Creek, Tututni, Upper Coquille), Tolowa, Upper Umpqua
• Northern California: Eel River, Hupa, Mattole–Bear River, Tolowa
• Utah: Navajo
• Colorado: Jicarilla, Navajo
• Arizona: Chiricahua, Navajo, Western Apache
• New Mexico: Chiricahua, Mescalero, Jicarilla, Lipan, Navajo
• Texas: Mescalero, Lipan
• Oklahoma: Chiricahua, Jicarilla, Plains Apache
• Northwestern Mexico: Chiricahua

Eyak and Athabaskan together form a genealogical linguistic grouping called Athabaskan–Eyak (AE) - well demonstrated through consistent sound correspondences, extensive shared vocabulary, and cross-linguistically unique homologies in both verb and noun morphology.
Tlingit is distantly related to the Athabaskan–Eyak group to form the Na-Dené family - also known as Athabaskan–Eyak–Tlingit (AET). With Jeff Leer's 2010 advances the reconstructions of Na-Dene (or Athabascan-Eyak-Tlingit] consonants this latter grouping is considered by Alaskan linguists to be a well-demonstrated family. Because both Tlingit and Eyak are fairly remote from the Athabaskan languages in terms of their sound systems, comparison is usually done between them and the reconstructed Proto-Athbaskan language which resembles both Tlingit and Eyak much more than most of the daughter languages in the Athabaskan family. Although Ethnologue still gives the Athabaskan family as a relative of Haida in their definition of the Na-Dene family, linguists who work actively on Athabaskan languages discount this position. The Alaska Native Language Center, for example, takes the position that recent improved data on Haida have served to conclusively disprove the Haida-inclusion hypothesis, thus making Haida unrelated to Athabaskan languages.
The major advance in Athabaskan and Na-Dene external classification was a symposium in Alaska in February 2008. Edward Vajda of Western Washington University summarized ten years of research, based on verbal morphology and reconstructions of the proto-languages, indicating that the Yeniseian and Na-Dené families might be related. Vajda's research was published in June 2010 in The Dene–Yeniseian Connection in the Anthropological Papers of the University of Alaska (ISBN 978-0-615-43296-0). This 369-page volume, edited by James Kari and Ben Potter, contains papers from the 2008 symposium plus several contributed papers. Accompanying Vajda's lead paper are primary data on Na-Dene historical phonology by Jeff Leer, along with critiques by several linguistic specialists and articles on a range of topics (archaeology, prehistory, ethnogeography, genetics, kinship, and folklore) by experts in these fields.

 The internal structure of the Athabaskan language family is complex and its exact shape is still a hotly debated issue among experts. The conventional three-way split into Northern, Pacific Coast, and Southern is essentially based on geography and the physical distribution of Athabaskan peoples rather than sound linguistic comparisons. Despite this inadequacy, it is clear from current comparative Athabaskan literature that most Athabaskanists still use the three-way geographic grouping rather than any of the proposed linguistic groupings given below because none of them have been widely accepted. This situation will presumably change as both documentation and analysis of the languages improves.

Besides the traditional geographic grouping described previously, there are a few comparatively based subgroupings of the Athabaskan languages. Below the two most current viewpoints are presented.
The following is an outline of the classification according to Keren Rice based on those published in Goddard (1996) and Mithun (1999), and representing what is generously called the “Rice–Goddard–Mithun” classification (Tuttle & Hargus 2004:73), although it is almost entirely due to Keren Rice.

1. Southern Alaska (Dena’ina, Ahtna)
2. Central Alaska–Yukon (Deg Hit’an, Holikachuk/Kolchan, Koyukon, Upper Kuskokwim, Lower Tanana, Tanacross, Upper Tanana, N. Tutchone, S. Tutchone, Gwich’in, Hän)
3. Northwestern Canada (Tagish, Tahltan, Kaska, Sekani, Dunneza/Beaver, Slavey, Mountain, Bearlake, Hare, Tłįchǫ Yat’iì/Dogrib, Dëne Sųłiné/Chipewyan)
4. Tsetsaut
5. Central British Columbia (Babine–Witsuwit’en, Dakelh/Carrier, Chilcotin, Nicola?)
6. Tsuut’ina/Sarsi
7. Kwalhioqua–Clatskanai
8. Pacific Coast Athabaskan (Upper Umpqua, Tututni, Galice–Applegate, Tolowa, Hupa, Mattole, Eel River, Kato)
9. Apachean (Navajo, W. Apache, Mescalero–Chiricahua, Jicarilla, Lipan, Plains)

Branches 1–7 are the Northern Athabaskan (areal) grouping. Kwalhioqua–Clatskanai (#7) was normally placed inside the Pacific Coast grouping, but a recent consideration by Krauss (2005) does not find it very similar to these languages.
A different classification by Jeff Leer is the following, usually called the “Leer classification” (Tuttle & Hargus 2004:72–74):

1. Alaskan (Ahtna, Dena’ina, Deg Hit’an, Koyukon, Holikachuk/Kolchan, Lower Tanana, Tanacross, Upper Tanana, Gwich’in, Hän)
2. Yukon (Tsetsaut, N. Tutchone, S. Tutchone, Tagish, Tahltan, Kaska, Sekani, Dunneza/Beaver)
3. British Columbia (Babine–Witsuwit’en, Dakelh/Carrier, Chilcotin)
4. Eastern (Dëne Sųłiné/Chipewyan, Slavey, Mountain, Bearlake, Hare, Tłįchǫ Yat’iì/Dogrib)
5. Southerly Outlying (Tsuut’ina/Sarsi, Apachean, Pacific Coast Athabaskan, Kwalhioqua–Tlatskanai)

Neither subgrouping has found any significant support among other Athabaskanists. Thus at this time the details of the Athabaskan family tree should be regarded as tentative. As Tuttle and Hargus put it, “we do not consider the points of difference between the two models ... to be decisively settled and in fact expect them to be debated for some time to come” (Tuttle & Hargus 2004:74).
The Northern group is particularly problematic in its internal organization. Due to the failure of the usual criteria of shared innovation and systematic phonetic correspondences to provide well-defined subgroupings, the Athabaskan family – especially the Northern group – has been called a “cohesive complex” by Michael Krauss (1973, 1982). Therefore, the Stammbaumtheorie or family tree model of genetic classification may be inappropriate. The languages of the Southern branch are much more homogeneous and are the only clearly genealogical subgrouping.
There is active debate whether the Pacific Coast languages actually forms a valid genealogical grouping, or whether it may instead have internal branches that are tied to different subgroups in Northern Athabaskan. The position of Kwalhioqua–Clatskanai is also debated since it may fall in either the Pacific Coast group – if that exists – or into the Northern group. The records of Nicola are so poor – Krauss describes them as “too few and too wretched” (Krauss 2005) – that it is difficult to make any reliable conclusions about it, although Nicola might possibly be intermediate between Kwalhioqua–Tlatskanai and Chilcotin.
Similarly to Nicola, there is very limited documentation on Tsetsaut, and consequently it is difficult to place it in the family with much certainty. Athabaskanists have concluded that it is a Northern Athabaskan language consistent with its geographical occurrence, and that it might have some relation to its distant neighbor Tahltan. Tsetsaut however shares its primary hydronymic suffix (“river, stream”) with Sekani, Beaver, and Tsuut’ina – PA *-ɢah – rather than that of Tahltan, Tagish, Kaska, and North and South Tutchone – PA *-tuʼ (Kari, Fall, & Pete 2003:39). The ambiguity surrounding Tsetsaut is why it is placed in its own subgroup in the Rice–Goddard–Mithun classification.
For detailed lists including languages, dialects, and subdialects, see the respective articles on the three major groups: Northern Athabaskan, Pacific Coast Athabaskan, Southern Athabaskan. For the remainder of this article the conventional three-way geographic grouping will be followed except as noted.


The Northern Athabaskan languages are the largest group in the Athabaskan family, although this group varies internally about as much as do languages in the entire family. The urheimat of the Athabaskan family is most likely somewhere in central southern Alaska, probably overlapping where the Dena’ina and Ahtna languages are spoken today (Kari 2009)^{[citation needed]}. The Northern Athabaskan group also contains the most linguistically conservative languages, particularly Ahtna, Dena’ina, and Dakelh/Carrier (Leer 2008).

• Southern Alaskan subgroup

1. Ahtna

2. Dena’ina (AKA Tanaina, Kenaiski)

• Central Alaska–Yukon subgroup

3. Deg Xinag (AKA Deg Hitʼan, Kaiyuhkhotana, Ingalik (deprecated))

4. Holikachuk (AKA Innoko)

5. Koyukon (AKA Denaakkʼe, Tenʼa)

6. Upper Kuskokwim (AKA Kolchan, Goltsin)

7. Lower Tanana and Middle Tanana (FKA Tanana)

8. Tanacross

9. Upper Tanana

10. Southern Tutchone

11. Northern Tutchone

12. Gwich’in (AKA Kutchin, Loucheux, Tukudh)

13. Hän (AKA Han)

• Northwestern Canada subgroup

A. Tahltan–Tagish–Kaska (AKA “Cordilleran”)

14. Tagish

15. Tahltan (AKA Nahanni)

16. Kaska (AKA Nahanni)

17. Sekani (AKA Tsekʼehne)

18. Dunneza (AKA Beaver)

B. Slave–Hare

19. Slavey (AKA Southern Slavey)

20. Mountain (Northern Slavey)

21. Bearlake (Northern Slavey)

22. Hare (Northern Slavey)

23. Dogrib (AKA Tłįchǫ Yatiì)

24. Dene Suline (AKA Chipewyan, Dëne Sųłiné, Dene Soun’liné)

Very little is known about Tsetsaut, and for this reason it is routinely placed in its own tentative subgroup.

• Tsetsaut subgroup

25. Tsetsaut (AKA Tsʼetsʼaut, Wetalh)

• Central British Columbia subgroup (AKA “British Columbian” in contrast with “Cordilleran” = Tahltan–Tagish–Kaska)

26. Babine–Witsuwit'en (AKA North Carrier, Natutʼen, Witsuwitʼen)

27. Dakelh (AKA Carrier)

28. Chilcotin (AKA Tsilhqot’in)

29. Nicola (AKA Stuwix, Similkameen)

• Sarsi subgroup

30. Tsuut’ina (AKA Sarcee, Sarsi, Tsuu T’ina)

The Kwalhioqua–Clatskanie language is debatably part of the Pacific Coast subgroup, but has marginally more in common with the Northern Athabaskan languages than it does with the Pacific Coast languages (Leer 2005). It thus forms a notional sort of bridge between the Northern Athabaskan languages and the Pacific Coast languages, along with Nicola (Krauss 1979/2004).

• Kwalhioqua–Clatskanie subgroup (also called Lower Columbia Athapaskan)

31. Kwalhioqua–Clatskanie (AKA Kwalhioqua –Tlatskanie)

• California Athabaskan subgroup

32. Hupa (AKA Hupa-Chilula, Chilula, Whilkut)

33. Mattole–Bear River

34. Eel River (AKA Wailaki, Lassik, Nongatl, Sinkyone)

35. Kato (AKA Cahto)

• Oregon Athabaskan subgroup

36. Upper Umpqua

37a. Lower Rogue River and Upper Coquille (AKA Tututni, Chasta Costa)

37b. Upper Rogue River (AKA Galice, Applegate, Dakubetede)

38. Tolowa (AKA Smith River, Chetco, Siletz Dee-ni)

• Plains Apache subgroup

39. Plains Apache (AKA Kiowa-Apache)

• Western Apachean subgroup

A. Chiricahua–Mescalero

40. Chiricahua

41. Mescalero

42. Navajo (AKA Navaho)

43. Western Apache (AKA Coyotero Apache)

• Eastern Apachean subgroup

44. Jicarilla

45. Lipan

The reconstruction of Proto-Athabaskan phonology is still under active debate. This section attempts to summarize the less controversial parts of the Proto-Athabaskan sound system.

As with many linguists working on Native American languages, Athabaskanists tend to use an Americanist phonetic notation system rather than IPA. Although some Athabaskanists prefer IPA symbols today, the weight of tradition is particularly heavy in historical and comparative linguistics, hence the Americanist symbols are still in common use for descriptions of Proto-Athabaskan and in comparisons between members of the family. In the tables in this section, the proto-phonemes are given in their conventional Athabaskanist forms with IPA equivalents following in square brackets.
Since transcription practices in Americanist phonetic notation are not formally standardized, there are different symbols in use for the same sounds, a proliferation partly due to changes in typefaces and computing technology. In the following tables the older symbols are given first with newer symbols following. Not all linguists adopt the newer symbols at once, although there are obvious trends such as the adoption of belted ɬ instead of barred ł, and the use of digraphs for affricates which is standard today for the laterals but not fully adopted for the dorsals. In particular, the symbols c, λ, and ƛ are rare in most publications today. The use of the combining comma above as in c̓ has also been completely abandoned in the last few decades in favor of the modifier letter apostrophe as in cʼ. Republication of older materials may preserve older symbols for accuracy although they are no longer used, e.g. Krauss 2005 which was previously an unpublished manuscript dating from 1979.
It is crucial to recognize that the symbols conventionally used to represent voiced stops and affricates are actually used in the Athabaskan literature to represent unaspirated stops and affricates in contrast to the aspirated ones. This convention is also found in all Athabaskan orthographies since true voiced stops and affricates are rare in the family, and unknown in the proto-language.



From Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabaskan_languages

Tribes of the Athabascan Nation

 For some reason the whites have used many of the Athabascan Indians tribes, as a means to force the Anishinabek to lose their Anishinabe identity. I state that because the whites historically recorded that many Athabascan Indian tribes among them, the Chipewyan, Babine, Beaver, Carrier, Dogrib, Slavey once used or still are using the Ojibway syllabic writing system, until the whites forced those tribes to stop speaking in their native language and to use the Roman alphabet. It was in the second half of the 19th century when the whites historically recorded that some of the Athabascan tribes were using the Ojibway syllabic writing system. Athabascan people are obviously partially Anishinabe. They were either first subjugated by the Anishinabe Nation around 1,000 years ago, or it occurred fairly recent. That be about 200 to 300 years ago.


Though that may not appear impressive, it does leave me believing that those Athabascan tribes are really Anishinabe, with an admixture of some Athabascan tribes the Anishinabek conquered on their forced westward expansion after the whites invaded. Prophesy led the Anishinabek to expand towards the west. Today, the Chipewyan, Beaver, Carrier, Dogrib, Slavey and the Tsuu T'inaAthabascans are partly Anishinabe and partly Athabascan. Further westward in the Yukon and Alaska, are many Athabascan tribes who probably originally lived in central Canada, before the Anishinabek commenced to expand westward. They are the gwich'in indians, han indians, holikachuk indians, koyukon indians, tanana indians, tutchone indians, kuskokwim indians, ahtna indians, tanaina indians, chilcotin indians, kaska indians, tahltan indians, tagish indians, sekani indians, tsetsaut indians, clatskanie indians and tlingit indians. Those Athabascan tribes are Athabascans.


There are also Athabascan tribes in California and Oregon including the hupa indians, eyak indians, mattole indians, wailaki indians and kato indians but they are probably Anishinabe as well. Many Anishinabek invaded into the Pacific northwest around 1800, where they settled down in California, Oregon and Washington. However, the whites have forced them to lose their Anishinabe identity.


The Tsuu T'ina
Size of their nation is 109 sq. mi. or 283 sq. km.
Their population is 1,982

The Beaver

When the Anishinabek commenced their expansion westward, one of the first Athabascan tribes they subdued was the Beaver or Dunneza. Their original territory was located in central and northern Alberta and central and northern Saskatchewan. Today, the Beaver are a mixture of Anishinabe and Athabascan. There live in Alberta and British Columbia. The Anishinabek have been forced to lose their Anishinabe identity. Since the Beaver were once accustomed to using the Ojibway syllabics, that tells the Anishinabe people that the Beaver are partly Anishinabe. Since the Beaver live in areas where few white people live, i will not include the sizes of their Reserves, because the whites left them with huge areas of land in northern Alberta and northern British Columbia, as fishing and hunting lands. That land probably covers over 100,000 sq. mi. Beaver First Nations are as follows.


Child Lake - Alberta
Boyer - Alberta
Clear Hills - Alberta
Horse Lake - Alberta

Prophet River - British Columbia
Beaton River - British Columbia
Doig River - British Columbia
Blueberry River - British Columbia
West Moberly Lake - British Columbia

The Carrier including Babine, Chilcotin, Nicola and the Tsetsaut

Today, the Carrier Indians live in British Columbia but before the whites invaded they probably lived in central and southern Alberta and central and southern Saskatchewan. They were driven out by the expanding Anishinabek in the 18th century, into central British Columbia. They once were accustomed to using the Ojibway syllabics but were forced to end that relationship. That tells the Anishinabe people that the Carrier are partly Anishinabe. Since the Carrier live in areas in British Columbia where huge areas of land have yet to be settled by the whites, i will not include the sizes of their Reserves, because the whites, by treaty, left them with huge tracts of land as fishing and hunting lands. That land may cover over 100,000 sq. mi. Their First Nations (communities) are as follows.


Burns Lake - British Columbia
Cheslatta - British Columbia
Hagwilget - British Columbia
Lake Babine - British Columbia
Kluskus - British Columbia
Lheidli T'enneh - British Columbia
Moricetown - British Columbia
Nadleh Whut'en - British Columbia
Nak'azdli - British Columbia
Nazko - British Columbia
Nee Tahi Buhn - British Columbia
Red Bluff - British Columbia
Saik'uz - British Columbia
Skin Tyee - British Columbia
Stellat'en - British Columbia
Takla - British Columbia
Tl'azt'en - British Columbia
Ulkatcho - British Columbia
Yekooche - British Columbia
Wet'suwet'en - British Columbia

The Chippewan (Chipewyan)

Originally the Chippewan lived in central and northern Manitoba and parts of what are now the eastern portion of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, north of the Manitoba border. They are really Anishinabe. Parts of Saskatchewan were also Chipewyan land. They were the first Athabascan tribe to be subdued by the expanding Anishinabek. That conquest occurred anywhere between the late 17th century and the first half of the 18th century. However, it probably occurred nearly 1,000 years ago. Since some Chippewan are accustomed to using the Ojibway syllabics, that tells the Anishinabe people that the Chippewan are partly Anishinabe. Since the Chipewyan live in areas where few white people live, i will not include the sizes of the Reserves, because the whites, by treaty, left them with huge areas of land to be used as fishing and hunting lands. That land may cover close to 1,000,000 sq. mi. Included among the Chippewan are the Dogrib people, Gwich'in people, Sahtu people, and Yellowknife people who all, excepting the Gwich'in, speak dialects of Chippewan. Of course, you only need to look at how Chipewyan (Chippewan) is pronounced, to understand that they are in fact Anishinabe. Their First Nations (communities) are as follows.


Cold Lake - Alberta
Fort Chipewyan - Alberta
Fort McKay - Alberta
Fort McMurray - Alberta
Janvier - Alberta

Barrens Land - Manitoba
Churchill - Manitoba
Sayisi Dene - Manitoba
Northlands - Manitoba

Fort Resolution/Deninu Kue - Northwest Territories
Smith's Landing - Northwest Territories
Lutsel K'e - Northwest Territories

Buffalo River - Saskatchewan
Black Lake - Saskatchewan
Clearwater River - Saskatchewan
English River - Saskatchewan
Font Du Lac River - Saskatchewan
Lac La Hache - Saskatchewan
Patunanak - Saskatchewan
Stony Rapids - Saskatchewan
Turnor Lake - Saskatchewan

The Dogrib

These people probably originally lived in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, east of Great Bear Lake and Great Slave Lake. When the expanding Anishinabek conquered the Chipewyan, they then subdued the Dogrib to the north of the Chipewyans. Since the Dogrib were once accustomed to using the Ojibway syllabics, that tells the Anishinabe people that the Dogrib are partly Anishinabe. The Dogrib recently signed a treaty with Canada which settled a land dispute between the two nations. The Canadians left the Dogrib people (Tli Cho people) with a territory of 15,100 sq. mi. or 39,000 sq. km. Their nation is located between Great Bear Lake and Great Slave Lake.


The Slavey or Sahtu

Originally the Slavey or Sahtu people, lived to the east but were driven out by the expanding Anishinabek in probably the 18th century. Since the Sahtu people were once accustomed to using the Ojibway syllabics, that tells the Anishinabe people that the Sahtu people are partly Anishinabe. In 1993, Canada and the Sahtu signed an agreement which left the Sahtu people with a territory of 15,999 sq. mi. or 41,437 sq. km. Their nation is located in the western portion of the Northwest Territories.


Gwich'in and Han

These people are obviously partially Anishinabe. The Gwich'in and Han live in Alaska, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon in Canada. They may have originally lived further eastward, before the Anishinabek commenced their westward expansion. They have not, from what i have learned, used the Ojibway syllabic writing system. However, they do have a figure in their ancient folklore who somewhat resembles Nanabozho, who is extremely important to the Algonquians. In the 1992 Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement, the Gwich'in were left with 21,983 sq. mi. or 56,935 sq. km., in the Northwest Territories. Part of that land is located in the Yukon. There are currently 9,000 Gwich'in. In Alaska, the Gwich'in live in the towns of Arctic Village, Beaver, Birch Creek, Chalkyitsik, Circle, Fort Yukon, and Venetie. You would think the weater is cold year round at those cities but they have warm summers. For an example, at Chalkyitsik which is north of Fairbanks, it is warmer in the summer. The average summer highs in Chalkyitsik are for June, July and August a balmy 71.5, 73.1 and 68.5. Most people think Alaska does not get too hot in the summer but they are wrong obviously.


Ahtna and Tanaina

Native to the State of Alaska, the Ahtna and Tanaina people probably lived further towards the east before the Anishinabek commenced their westward expansion. At the present time the Ahtna Indians of Alaska have 1,770,000 acres or 2,766 sq. mi., or 7,154 sq. km. of land. Their population is around 1,200.


Koyukon including the Deg Hit'an and Holikachuk

These Athabascan people live in the interior of Alaska and are probably members of the Alaska Native Corporation. All may be affiliated with the Doyon region of the Alaska Native Corporation. The tribes which make up Doyon, have total land area of 12.5 million acres, or 18,750 sq. mi., or 48,562 sq. km.


Tahltan including the Kaska and Tagish

These Athabascan people live in British Columbia and the Yukon in Canada. Their population is around 5,000. Their country is a vast one which allows many of these people to continue to fish, hunt, and trap for a living.


Tanana including the Kuskokwim and Tuchone

These Athabascan people live in the interior of Alaska and are probably members of the Alaska Native Corporation. All may be affiliated with the Doyon region of the Alaska Native Corporation. The tribes which make up Doyon, have total land area of 12.5 million acres, or 18,750 sq. mi., or 48,562 sq. km.

Athabascans of Interior Alaska

I. GENERAL INFORMATION
Interior Alaska has some of the harshest environmental conditions in the world. Its continental climate is a study of extremes - extreme cold in the winter (it is not unusual for temperatures to be in the -50's) and extreme heat in the summer (often in the 80's). In addition, summer days become exercises in patience and endurance because of the hordes of mosquitoes which abound at that time of year. The land is wooded with spruce, willow, and birch, and is traversed by many river systems.
Athabascan Indians have lived in this environment characterized by forest, rivers, and extreme climate for centuries, their ancestors for thousands of years before them. As might be expected, their way of life has incorporated a series of adaptations to the environment, and many aspects of the culture can be traced to these adaptations.
The name "Athabascan" comes from the large lake in Canada called "Lake Athabasca". The lake was given its name by the Cree Indians, who lived east of it. In Cree, "Athabasca" means "grass here and there", and was a descriptive name for the lake. The name was extended to refer to those Indian groups which lived west of the lake. It also refers to the large language family of which all the languages of Athabascan Indians are a part.
There are eleven different Athabascan languages in Alaska, many others in Canada (see the Native Peoples and Languages of Alaska map), some in California and Oregon, and the Navajo and Apache languages in the Southwestern United States. Within each of the eleven Alaskan Athabascan language groups there are local dialects, and in the past each dialect corresponded with a social and geographical unit called a "regional band", made up of from 30 to 100 nuclear families. (A nuclear family is a unit consisting of parents and their ungrown offspring.) The eleven language groups themselves were not political units, and Athabascans did not recog-nize membership in any group larger than the regional band (dialect group). Thus, although the language of several regional bands was Ingalik, members of those regional bands did not consider them-selves part of the same large group called "Ingalik". The eleven language groups were thus externally observed groups, not groups in the minds of the Athabascans themselves.
Three major principles affected the social groupings of Alaskan Athabascans:
The first principle was pragmatism. Group formation was dependent on the number of people who could most efficiently utilize the resources available. Since different resources required different numbers of people, a person belonged to several different social groupings in any one year.
For instance, summer fish camp often brought an entire regional band together. There were enough fish for all, and often the site for fish camp was the part of the local river system which was most abundant in fish. The entire regional band might also join together for fall caribou hunts, when the cooperation of all members was necessary to repair and man the caribou fence.
In the winter, the regional band might split up into smaller units, called local bands, each one made up of perhaps four nuclear families. Each local band had its own territory within the territory of the regional band, and engaged in hunting and trapping activities at this time of year.
The regional band might meet again at a predetermined place and time in mid-winter for a gathering-up ceremony or potlatch, and then split up again for beaver and muskrat trapping.
Athabascans thus recognized membership in a regional band (dialect group) as described above, but the more important social unit was the local band. Members of this local band lived together and moved around the territory together.
The second principle which determined social grouping was kinship. Local band members were generally related to each other in some manner, either on the mother's or father's side. Although kinship was determined on both sides, each person also had a more specific identification with relatives in the maternal line. A person belonged to the same "side", "clan" or "sib" as his mother, and all other members of the same sib were relatives of a very special nature. One couldn't marry a member of the same sib (but one could marry members of one's father's sib). In addition, wars and gathering-ups (potlatches) were sib affairs.
Most of the Alaskan Athabascan groups recognized three sibs, and each sib was in some cases divided into smaller named family units. Sibs have not operated in some areas for many years, however, and neither Indians nor anthropologists are aware of the total importance which the sibs had in pre-contact days.
The third principle governing Athabascan social grouping was individual choice. Each person was free to choose his local band affiliation within certain bounds. In general, a person was accepted into a band as long as he had relatives in the band. Aside from this limitation, people could choose among several local bands within a regional band. This allowed the local bands to be fluid groups, with individuals changing membership as personality conflicts or availability of game dictated.
Each regional band (and, to some extent, each individual) had its own life-ways, beliefs, and customs. Despite the differences between bands, certain generalizations can be made about Athabascan life. Those things which were common to all the groups, were on the one hand, the parts of the culture which were most dependent on the environment. And were most closely adapted to the environ-ment, and on the other hand, were a series of beliefs about the environment which remained fairly constant across the linguistic boundaries.
For instance, Athabascans used every available resource in their food quest. Thus, the general pattern of life was one of fishing in the summer and fall, to take advantage of the salmon runs and schools of whitefish and grayling, with hunting caribou in the fall, trapping water mammals in the spring, and harvesting vegetable foods (roots and berries) in the spring, summer and fall. The food quest was, of course, much more complicated than that, but the general pattern was very similar throughout the interior.
Variations occur where the environment is slightly different from the inland wooded riverine environment assumed above. Thus, the groups who lived on Cook Inlet took advantage of the abundant source of sea mammals which was available to them. The Ingalik and Lower Koyukon groups which lived along the Lower Yukon where fish runs were large and regular spent a greater part of their year harvesting fish than did those groups farther inland. Finally, people in groups such as the Chandalar Kutchin, who lived in the foothills of the Brooks Range, spent a larger percentage of their time hunting big game animals like caribou and mountain sheep.
The animistic belief system common to all Alaskan Athabascan groups might be briefly characterized as follows: All creatures, and some inanimate objects, had spirits which were active and powerful components of those creatures. The spirits enabled an animal to know more than was immediately apparent to him. Thus, if human beings did something which displeased the animal's spirit, the animal itself would remain aloof from the people, and the people might starve. There were very definite rules which people had to follow in dealing with animals based on this belief in animal spirits. The specific rules differed from area to area, but the general concept was the same throughout.
The belief in animal spirits was actually a logical extension of what the hunters knew about their environment. When all past experiences and logic told a hunter that game should be in a certain area, and it was not there, then the conclusion the hunter drew was that there was a reason for the animal's aloofness. And the reason was, often, that the hunter or a member of his band had broken a taboo and angered the animal's spirit. A sub-sequent ceremony attempted to conciliate the spirit.
Material culture was also similar throughout Interior Alaska, again with variations depending on the specific environ-mental conditions of specific areas. The most notable variations from the inland hunting and fishing emphasis displayed by these artifacts occurred among the peripheral Athabascan groups, the Ingalik and Tanaina. The Ingalik, with their heavy reliance on fish, had many more specialized fishing implements than did other groups. The Tanaina, bordered by Eskimos and close to Tlingits, borrowed various elements of material culture from those cultures.
II: THE YEARLY CYCLE BEGINS
Movement from place to place was an essential part of the lives of most Alaskan Athabascans. The local band was generally the social unit which stayed together in the travels for food.
The following excerpt from Olson's Master's Thesis (1968: 41) describes the yearly movements of one group, the Minto Lower Tanana:
There was a regular pattern to the hunting and fishing migrations which demanded that the people be on the move almost continually throughout the year. They had to travel in small bands. Late in the fall, men who controlled the moose or caribou fence would gather their friends and relatives and set out for the small encampment near the fence. This is where the log houses were located. They would remain in this camp until mid-December or January. If there was to be a potlatch, they would travel to a central point where they would meet others for the celebra-tion. If any were going down the Kuskokwim, they would start in January and return about three months later. Later on in January, they would be back out in small bands searching for caribou or moose, and trapping smaller animals and birds until late in the spring. In the warm weather, they would move to the lakes before break-up to trap beaver and muskrats. As summer approached they moved to their fish camps on the small rivers where they fished and hunted water fowl until the fall.
III: WINTER TIME-SETTLING IN FOR AWHILE
For Alaskan Athabascans, mid-winter meant a slowing down of activity and a temporary settling down for a few months. Each local band generally settled down at a site near the river, but set back into the woods a bit and up on a rise where tempera-tures are usually a little warmer than they are in hollows. The winter camp was often in the locale of the caribou fence that the band used and was inhabited from the time of the hunt until January or February, when days were longer and warmer and families moved out to hunting camps. Exceptions to this general pattern were the Ingalik and Tanaina groups, whose regional bands inhabit-ed their winter villages for the greater part of the year, depart-ing in summer for fish camps.
Winter camp was made up of several households, and although the exact house plan and building materials varied from area to area, the winter houses of many Athabascan groups were similar.
They were semi-subterranean structures made of a wood frame covered by birch or spruce bark, which was itself covered by moss, and topped with dirt. All that was visible of the houses from ground level were mounds of snow with smoke curling out of the centers.
The most obvious variations from this type of winter house appeared in the Cook Inlet Tanaina and Ingalik areas. Tanaina winter houses were also semi-subterranean, but they were larger than the interior Athabascan houses, and housed several families. Also, the outsides of Tanaina houses were composed of wood boards chinked with moss between the boards and then thatched with grass, rather than the bark/moss/dirt combination described above. They were called "barabaras" by the Russians, and that name has since been adopted to identify Tanaina houses.
Ingalik homes were also semi-subterranean, though they were built on a model which closely resembled Eskimo winter houses more than the "typical" Athabascan model described above. Eskimo influence was also evident in that Ingalik vil-lages contained kashims, or large men's houses, used as men's sleeping quarters and workrooms and as ceremonial centers.
The semi-subterranean house plan used by most Alaskan Native groups in winter is excellent for retaining heat, as there is little surface area through which heat can escape, and cold winds cannot penetrate the structure. In addition, the many layers of insulation used on Interior Athabascan winter houses kept the inside quite warm.
The make-up of an Athabascan household was variable, even within a single band. An extremely charismatic leader, who was usually a good hunter as well, might house several families in his home. Other households might hold two nuclear families, or might hold an extended family consisting of a man and woman, their young children, a sibling or two, and their aged parents. Again the exception is the Tanaina household, which contained several nuclear families. In almost all cases, more than one set of adults lived in a single house. This had implications for child rearing, since any children in the house benefited from having a variety of role models and protectors, as well as potential step-parents should their own die. It also meant that there was little individual privacy inside. It might be noted that the concept of individual privacy as Anglo culture knows it is a recent innovation in the history of humanity.
Life in the winter camp was a bit more slow moving than life during the rest of the year. Extreme cold, sometimes below -40, prohibited extended trips for weeks at a time. Some food gathering activity still took place; for instance, snares were put out all around the camp, deadfalls were set to catch larger game, and men went out on short hunting trips for a couple of days at a time. Still, most of the local band was in camp at any one time during the dead of winter.
Favorite activities during the winter were story telling, singing, and dancing. Not only were old legends, humorous hunting stories, and myths told, but children were also given instruction in proper modes of behavior. Many Athabascan stories contain morals which were made quite explicit to children.
Winter was also the time for the annual Gathering-Up festi-vals, lately called potlatches after the somewhat similar affairs which were held along the Northwest Coast. Neighboring bands were invited in mid-winter for one or two weeks of feasting, dan-cing, and singing. The Gathering-ups were given in honor of a deceased sib member, and presents were given away in his memory. The festivals also served to enhance the prestige of the persons who hosted them. In addition, social and kinship relationships were sometimes established by the arranging of marriages be-tween members of different regional bands. Trade relation-ships were also sometimes established at Gathering-Ups when men from different regional bands decided to become trading partners.
As with other elements of Athabascan culture, there were regional variations in the form and function of the winter potlatches. For instance, Lower Koyukon Athabascans at Nulato and Kaltag hold a Stick Dance, as did people in Shageluk and Holikachuk in the past.
IV: BEYOND THE BAND
Potlatches Although the family and the local band have been stressed up until now as representing the social world of Alaskan Athabascans, the interior Indians did have periodic contact with people from other groups. The Gathering-Up Ceremony or potlatch has been discussed in the previous section. This was one event at which people from different local and even region-al bands met. The several regional bands attending a potlatch might have spoken slightly different dialects which were none-theless close enough to each other to be mutually intelligible. The importance of potlatches in establishing friendly ties with outside groups has already been discussed: marriages and trade partnership often grew out of association at a potlatch.
Wars and Feuds Relations between neighboring bands were not always friendly, however. Wars among people of different bands and between the Indians and neighboring cultures (particularly Eskimo and Tlingit) were quite frequent in pre-contact times. These wars took the form of surprise raids and ambushes rather than open, planned, hand-to-hand combat. A war became a feud when two groups con-tinually raided each other's settlements in retaliation of casualties incurred during the previous attack.
The original motives for wars seem to have been desire for women and for goods, and, in the case of ongoing feuds, revenge. A principle which seems to have underlain feuds was similar to a Judaeo-Christian precept, "An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth". When a member of a person's family was killed, it was his duty to avenge that death. If the murderers were of a different band and totally unrelated, the death of a member of the murderer's family was often the only satisfac-tory payment for the first murder. On the other hand, a family sometimes accepted payment in goods for the death of a relative, the amount of payment depending on the status of the dead per-son. People were more likely to accept payment from a close friend or relative than from strangers or members of an enemy group.
Another important concept for understanding wars and feuds is the insider-outsider dichotomy which was part of the pre-contact Athabascan world view. Language and kinship relationships served to define who was a member of the in-group to some extent, but even more, the people to whom one was closely related and with whom one came into contact day after day (the local band members) were considered part of one's group. The less well one knew another person and the other person's customs, the less one identified with him, and the less his death affected one personally.
Since the extended family (which made up the membership of a local band) was the most important social unit to an individual, it is not surprising that feuds were basically family or sib affairs, not regional band affairs. It was the family's responsibility to avenge the death of one of its mem-bers, although other band members who were not members of the same sib sometimes went along if the war leader were charis-matic enough to persuade them. Since kin relationships extended beyond the band, however, it was often also true that a member of the band might warn a relative in the enemy band that an attack was imminent. This seems to have happened as often as did cooperation among different families within the band. The individualistic nature of Athabascan society is highlighted in this aspect of their culture as with others: a person could choose whether or not he wished to take part in a raid.
Trade Another type of contact with outsiders took the form of trade relationships. As was stated above, men often established trade partnerships with a member of a neighboring Athabascan band or Eskimo community, so that they could conduct trade on a person-to-person level and be assured of safe travel in strange territory.
Extensive trade routes were well established between Athabascan groups and their neighbors before white men came to Alaska. In pre-contact days, the commodities the Athabascans obtained from neighboring Native groups had sometimes origin-ated in Europe and had filtered through the trade routes until they finally reached interior Alaska (usually the end of the route for trade goods) from the east or west. But there were
also Native goods which were traded from area to area. No one part of the north was abundant in all resources, and inland peoples traded with seashore peoples to their mutual advantage.
 
V: SPRING AGAIN
Late in winter, from March until May, was a time of long days and often good travel conditions. Snow obtained a crust which made hunting on snowshoes easy, but which was not sturdy enough to hold moose. Hence moose hunting was good at this time of year. Other hunting and trapping activities in-creased, as described in Chapter IV of Tetlin As I Knew It. Local bands began their travels once again, leaving the semi--permanent winter houses behind and hauling skin tents to good hunting and trapping locales.
 The lengthening of the days signaled the time for another activity, at least for the Koyukon Indians: it was the time to pose riddles. Father Jette' noted,

 As the story telling occupies the long winter evenings and entertains the Ten'a (Koyukon) during the time that precedes the winter sol-stice, so also the proposing of riddles is the time-honored recreation for the latter half of the winter, when the days wax long, and the chilled hearts, under the sun's increasing brightness and warmth, begin to cheer, and fill with glowing anticipation of the exuberant summer life.* (*Father Julius Jette', "Riddles of the Ten'a Indians" in Anthropos 1913, p. 181.)

The pattern of hunting and trapping subsistence activities by day, often followed by riddle telling at night, continued until just before break-up. Break-up was perhaps the roughest time of year for pre-contact Athabascans. Caches were almost empty and animals were thin from a long, cold winter. Fish hadn't started to run yet, birds hadn't returned to the north, ice was dangerous to travel on, but the water wasn't open, so travel by canoe was impossible.
Once break-up finally came, though, spring, and soon afterward summer, had finally arrived. Shoots from new plants were gathered, fishing started again, and the busy summer and fall activities were under way.

Athabascan Indians

The name "Athabascan" comes from the large lake in Canada called "Lake Athabasca". The lake was given its name by the Cree Indians, who lived east of it. In Cree, "Athabasca" means "grass here and there", and was a descriptive name for the lake. The name was extended to refer to those Indian groups which lived west of the lake. It also refers to the large language family of which all the languages of Athabascan Indians are a part.

There are eleven different Athabascan languages in Alaska, many others in Canada, some in California and Oregon, and the Navajo and Apache languages in the Southwestern United States.

The Athabascan people call themselves ‘Dena,’ or ‘the people.’

Athabascan Regional Bands

Within each of the eleven Alaskan Athabascan language groups there are local dialects, and in the past each dialect corresponded with a social and geographical unit called a "regional band," made up of from 30 to 100 nuclear families. (A nuclear family is a unit consisting of parents and their still dependant children.)

The eleven language groups themselves were not political units, and Athabascans did not recognize membership in any group larger than the regional band (dialect group). For example, although the language of several regional bands was Ingalik, members of those regional bands did not consider themselves part of a large group called "Ingalik". The eleven language groups are externally observed groups, not groups in the minds of the Athabascans themselves.

Group formation was dependent on the number of people who could most efficiently utilize the resources available. Since different resources required different numbers of people, a person belonged to several different social groupings in any one year.

For instance, summer fish camp often brought an entire regional band together. There were enough fish for all, and often the site for fish camp was the part of the local river system which was most abundant in fish. The entire regional band might also join together for fall caribou hunts, when the cooperation of all members was necessary to repair and man the caribou fence.

Athabascan Local Bands

In the winter, the regional band might split up into smaller units, called local bands, each one made up of perhaps four nuclear families. Each local band had its own territory within the territory of the regional band, and engaged in hunting and trapping activities at this time of year.

The regional band might meet again at a predetermined place and time in mid-winter for a gathering ceremony called a potlatch, and then split up again for beaver and muskrat trapping.

Athabascans loosly recognized membership in a regional band (dialect group) as described above, but the more important social unit was the local band.

Athabascan Kinship Roles

Local band members were generally related to each other in some manner, either on the mother's or father's side. Although kinship was determined on both sides, each person also had a more specific identification with relatives in the maternal line.

A person belonged to the same "side", "clan" or "sib" as his mother, and all other members of the same sib were relatives of a very special nature. One couldn't marry a member of the same sib (but one could marry members of one's father's sib). In addition, wars and potlatches were sib affairs.

Most of the Alaskan Athabascan Indian groups recognized three sibs, and each sib was in some cases divided into smaller named family units. Sibs have not operated in some areas for many years, however, and neither Indians nor anthropologists are aware of the total importance which the sibs had in pre-contact days.

Athabascan social grouping also honored individual choices

Each person was free to choose his local band affiliation within certain bounds. In general, a person was accepted into a band as long as he had relatives in the band. Aside from this limitation, people could choose among several local bands within a regional band. This allowed the local bands to be fluid groups, with individuals changing membership as personality conflicts or availability of game dictated.

Athabascan life-ways

Each regional band (and, to some extent, each individual) had its own life-ways, beliefs, and customs. Despite the differences between bands, certain generalizations can be made about Athabascan life. Those things which were common to all the groups, were on the one hand, the parts of the culture which were most dependent on the environment. And were most closely adapted to the environ-ment, and on the other hand, were a series of beliefs about the environment which remained fairly constant across the linguistic boundaries.

For instance, Athabascans used every available resource in their food quest. Thus, the general pattern of life was one of fishing in the summer and fall, to take advantage of the salmon runs and schools of whitefish and grayling, with hunting caribou in the fall, trapping water mammals in the spring, and harvesting vegetable foods (roots and berries) in the spring, summer and fall. The food quest was, of course, much more complicated than that, but the general pattern was very similar throughout the interior.

Variations occurred where the environment was slightly different from the inland wooded riverine environment. Thus, the groups who lived on Cook Inlet took advantage of the abundant source of sea mammals which was available to them. The Ingalik and Lower Koyukon groups which lived along the Lower Yukon where fish runs were large and regular spent a greater part of their year harvesting fish than did those groups farther inland. Finally, people in groups such as the Chandalar Kutchin, who lived in the foothills of the Brooks Range, spent a larger percentage of their time hunting big game animals like caribou and mountain sheep.

Athabascan beliefs and customs

The animistic belief system was common to all Alaskan Athabascan groups. All creatures, and some inanimate objects, had spirits which were active and powerful components of those creatures. The spirits enabled an animal to know more than was immediately apparent to him. Thus, if human beings did something which displeased the animal's spirit, the animal itself would remain aloof from the people, and the people might starve. There were very definite rules which people had to follow in dealing with animals based on this belief in animal spirits. The specific rules differed from area to area, but the general concept was the same.

Material culture was also similar throughout Interior Alaska, again with variations depending on the specific environmental conditions of specific areas. The Ingalik, with their heavy reliance on fish, had many more specialized fishing implements than did other groups. The Tanaina, bordered by Eskimos and close to Tlingits, borrowed various elements of material culture from those cultures.

Winter camp was made up of several households, and although the exact house plan and building materials varied from area to area, the winter houses of many Athabascan groups were similar.

They were semi-subterranean structures made of a wood frame covered by birch or spruce bark, which was itself covered by moss, and topped with dirt. All that was visible of the houses from ground level were mounds of snow with smoke curling out of the centers.

The most obvious variations from this type of winter house appeared in the Cook Inlet Tanaina and Ingalik areas. Tanaina winter houses were also semi-subterranean, but they were larger than the interior Athabascan houses, and housed several families. The outsides of Tanaina houses were composed of wood boards chinked with moss between the boards and then thatched with grass, rather than the bark/moss/dirt combination adopted by most Athabascan bands. They were called "barabaras" by the Russians, and that name has since been adopted to identify Tanaina houses.

Ingalik homes were also semi-subterranean, though they were built on a model which closely resembled Eskimo winter houses more than the "typical" Athabascan model described above. Eskimo influence was also evident in that Ingalik villages contained kashims, or large men's houses, used as men's sleeping quarters and workrooms and as ceremonial centers.

The semi-subterranean house plan used by most Alaskan Native groups in winter is excellent for retaining heat, because there is little surface area through which heat can escape, and cold winds cannot penetrate the structure. In addition, the many layers of insulation used on Interior Athabascan winter houses kept the inside quite warm.

The make-up of an Athabascan household was variable, even within a single band. An extremely charismatic leader, who was usually a good hunter, might house several families in his home. Other households might hold two nuclear families, or might hold an extended family consisting of a man and woman, their young children, a sibling or two, and their aged parents.

Often the core of this traditional group was a woman and her brother. The brother and his sister's husband often became hunting partners for life. Sometimes these hunting partnerships started when a couple married.

In traditional families, the mother's brother takes social responsibility for training and socializing his sister's children so that the children grow up knowing their clan history and customs.

The exception is the Tanaina household, which contained several nuclear families. In almost all cases, more than one set of adults lived in a single house. This had implications for child rearing, since any children in the house benefited from having a variety of role models and protectors, as well as potential step-parents should their own die.

The Athabascans have a matrilineal system in which children belong to the mother's clan, with the exception of the Holikachuk and the Deg Hit'an.

Athabascan Wars and Feuds

Relations between neighboring bands were not always friendly. Wars among people of different bands and between the Indians and neighboring cultures (particularly Eskimo and Tlingit) were quite frequent in pre-contact times. These wars took the form of surprise raids and ambushes rather than open, planned, hand-to-hand combat. A war became a feud when two groups continually raided each other's settlements in retaliation of casualties incurred during previous attacks.

The original motives for wars seem to have been desire for women and for goods, and, in the case of ongoing feuds, revenge. When a member of a person's family was killed, it was his duty to avenge that death. If the murderers were of a different band and totally unrelated, the death of a member of the murderer's family was often the only satisfactory payment for the first murder. On the other hand, a family sometimes accepted payment in goods for the death of a relative, the amount of payment depending on the status of the dead person. People were more likely to accept payment from a close friend or relative than from strangers or members of an enemy group.

Most feuds were basically family or sib affairs, not regional band affairs. It was the family's responsibility to avenge the death of one of its members, although other band members who were not members of the same sib sometimes went along.

Since kin relationships extended beyond the band, often a member of one band might warn a relative in an enemy band that an attack was imminent. This seems to have happened as often as did cooperation among different families within the band. A person could choose whether or not he wished to take part in a raid.

Athabascan Languages

Today there are eleven Athabascan languages in Alaska: Ahtna, Tanaina (also spelled Denaina), Holikachuk, Koyukon, Upper Kuskokwim, Tanana, Tanacross, Upper Tanana, Han, Kutchin (more correctly spelled "Gwich'in"), and Ingalik (more correctly Deg Hit'an). There are other Athabascan languages in Canada, and there are two well known Athabascan languages in the American Southwest: Apache and Navajo.