SEASONAL ROUND

During 1978 to 1984, the hunting, fishing, and gathering activities of Tyonek residents followed a regular seasonal round determined primarily by resource presence, environmental conditions, and hunting and fishing regulations. . . .

The start of a new seasonal round of resource harvest activities was marked by the conclusion of the observation of Lent in April or early May. During the seven weeks of Lent, it is customary for many households in the village to refrain from resource harvest activities. These households abstained from consuming red meat during Lent, following proscriptions of the Russian Orthodox Church. Because of this, stores of smoked, canned, and frozen salmon, and clams were consumed and largely depleted by the beginning of spring.

After Lent, and during years of high populations, hunting small game species such as ptarmigan, spruce grouse, and hares resumed in April and May. A few households trapped beaver in nearby streams and lakes. As soon as Cook Inlet cleared of flow ice, groups of Tyonek residents organized by "clamming [sic] leaders" traveled south in dories to Redoubt Bay and Harriet Point to dig clams. This usually occurred during the first series of very low or minus tides in mid April and continued during the minus tides of May and June.

Spring was also the season when other marine oriented activities took place, such as harvesting hooligan and hunting harbor seals and belukha. The beaches near Tyonek and along Beshta Bay were used for placing hooligan nets, or for collecting hooligan by the bucketful after they had been beached by strong surfs created by high winds and storms. Harbor seal and belukha were hunted during trips by dory to river mouths near the Susitna River and Trading Bay where these animals congregate while feeding on hooligan and salmon. Also, seal and belukha were taken while people were subsistence set netting for salmon.

Before the subsistence and commercial fishing seasons each spring, the owners of fish camps along Beshta Bay south of Tyonek, as well as other fishermen, repaired their boats, motors, and nets and ordered needed supplies, usually from Anchorage. Many households gathered wood for immediate and later use at the camps, and a few gathered coal for heating fish camp cabins or for smoking fish. At their camps, some people planted small gardens of strawberries, potatoes, turnips, carrots, and other vegetable crops. At the end of the school year in May, about ten families usually moved from their permanent winter residences in the village to their fish camps. . . .

The major spring harvest activity in Tyonek, as measured by levels of household participation and harvest size was subsistence set netting for king salmon. As established by Department of Fish and Game regulations, the subsistence king salmon season began in mid May and continued to mid June. In these spring months nearly the entire village (82 percent of the households in 1983) was involved in catching and processing king salmon. Sockeye salmon were incidentally caught while fishing for kings.

Commercial fishing usually was opened in the Tyonek area around June 25, after king salmon had passed and concentrated on runs of red, pink, and chum salmon throughout the summer. Almost all of the catch was sold; but, occasionally, some fish were kept for home use or were shared with other families. In recent years, there have been two 12-hour commercial fishing periods each week. During August and September, runs of silver salmon were harvested for subsistence use. Silvers were taken with set net on the beaches, and with rod and reel in local streams They were added to winter fish supplies. Freshwater fish species such as Dolly Varden and rainbow trout were harvested in nearby streams with rods and reels throughout the summer and fall. Spring and summer were the most active seasons because of subsistence and commercial fishing, and most people were busy catching and preserving salmon for home use by smoking, canning, or salting.

Between subsistence and commercial fishing periods, several groups of people hunted belukhas. Usually, trips were made north to the mouths of the Beluga and Susitna Rivers.

A number of additional wild food species were harvested in summer. In particular, berries became very important beginning in August. Those species of berries commonly harvested included high-bush and lowbush cranberries, salmonberries, blueberries, and crowberries. A few households harvested wild celery and wild rhubarb while the young shoots were still tender in late spring and early summer. In late summer, rosehips were harvested.

During the first part of September, another major subsistence activity commended, hunting moose. Moose hunting usually involved around two-thirds of the village households. Hunters formed groups which traveled south by boat along the inlet to hunt up the McArthur and Middle Rivers. Or, hunting parties used trucks to hunt along old logging and oil-and-gas roads around Tyonek and to the south near the Chakachatna River. While on hunting trips, family groups also gathered berries, hunted spruce grouse, and fished for silver salmon and rainbow trout. Occasionally, porcupine and beaver were also taken for food during moose hunting trips.

Black bear were occasionally taken incidental to moose. The preferred black bear were those which had been feeding on berries away from salmon streams and the local dump. Additionally, harbor seal and belukha were sometimes incidentally harvested while hunters were travelling to moose hunting areas through Trading Bay and in Redoubt Bay. Waterfowl hunting took place at this time on the flats in Trading and Redoubt Bays, and near the Theodore and Lewis Rivers.

Some moose hunters waited until after the leaves had fallen from the alder, birch, and willow trees in late September to hunt because the animals were much easier to locate. Also, because moose start to rut at that time. They were more readily attracted with calls. Other people found the meat of bull moose to taste strong in late September during the rut and, therefore, put their effort into earlier or later hunts.

Berry picking continued until the last fruit had withered and fallen in late September. By October, wood gathering was common among most households as supplies needed replenishing. During wood collecting trips, spruce grouse were taken when encountered. Shelf fungi found growing on birch trees were collected by many households, burnt into a power, and used as an ingredient for making snuff. As freeze-up and the first snowfall drew near, fishing gear, boats, and motors were stored, and fish camps were closed for winter.

In mid November, a few trappers set out lines for marten, mink, red fox, and weasel. Traditionally, moose hunting continued throughout the fall and early winter as moose populations moved from high ground west of the village toward the coast. . . .

After good snowfalls in winter, a few trappers ran trap lines with snowmobiles. Without snow, only those people using trucks to check traps near the road system tended their lines. Trapping continued during seasons set by regulations into February and March for beaver. Small game species hunted in winter included ptarmigan during years of deep snow at higher elevations, and snowshoe hare when their populations were high. . . .

When the ice on lakes and streams was adequately thick, several households fished with hook and line through the ice for Dolly Varden and rainbow trout, reaching the fishing locations by snowmobile or by truck. Occasionally, in October or later, tomcod were harvested by a few households near the mouths of the Chuitna River and Robert's Creek. Also, as winter days grew longer during February and March, large quantities of wood were gathered to last into spring and summer. Much of the winter was devoted to Russian Orthodox holiday activities. The seasonal round completed its cycle with the observance of Lent and Easter in March, April, and early May.

It must be noted that small variations occurred from year to year in the timing of harvests of most resources. Several environmental and manmade factors shaped the general availability of fish and game. Environmental factors included weather conditions, timing of resource presence (e.g., salmon runs, movements of moose) and, for some resources such as clams, fluctuations in tidal periodicity and height. . . . Finally, each household's conformance with the village annual round was shaped by such factors as age, health, wage employment, available equipment, and other individual and household characteristics. . . .

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION OF RESOURCE HARVESTING ACTIVITIES

Resource harvesting activities by Tyonek residents during the study period was largely shaped by kinship. That is to say, the people who cooperated together to harvest and process resources were most commonly kinsmen. The organization of groups by principles of kinship was apparent in moose hunting parties, salmon harvesting and processing groups, and claming parties. These groups were usually composed of members of closely related households, with leadership provided by experience, senior members of the extended family.

The extended family composed of several household units was the social group of primarily significance in resource harvest and use. These cooperative groups formed of related households were most visible during subsistence salmon fishing. . . .

Extended families provided a pool of individuals of different sexes, ages, and levels of experience and skill to perform the roles essential to subsistence production. It was also within these extended families that major staples such as salmon were shared. Some households, especially larger ones, tended to harvest salmon independently, but even these cooperated with others in moose hunting and claming. Also, each extended family and household was usually linked to others through networks of sharing, and sometimes members of different extended family production units formed partnerships or otherwise cooperated in resource harvest activities.

Fish camps and smokehouses were said to be "owned" by particular individuals or households. These facilities commonly were shared with related households for harvesting and processing fish. . . . In some other cases, unrelated households not part of the fish camp owner's work groups were permitted to use the camp after the owners had processed their catch.

RESOURCE SHARING

. . . The fish or game harvested by a household often was received by a large number of other households, flowing out along lines of kinship. . . . As was common in Tyonek throughout the study period, this extended family, multi-household group provided a pool of individuals to perform resource harvesting and processing roles. . . . Individuals' roles within the extended family shifted from year to year depending upon involvement in wage employment and health. Resources were shared every year with all members of the eight-households extended family. Products from all resources were distributed from the leader's household. This extended family also shared its harvests with other village households. . . .The family harvested three moose during 1983, which were shared among 13 households. The distribution took place from the leader's home. . . . The leader determined the amount and type of product to be given to each household. Her decision was based largely on the size and perceived needs of each household. Consequently, the successful hunters did not necessarily receive the largest portions of the harvest. . . .

. . . Razor clams were the most widely distributed resource. Approximately, 2500 clams were harvested by households during three trips by dory to Redoubt Bay in 1983. The clams were shared with 17 households including the households of married siblings and married nieces and nephews. In contrast with clams, the 150 king salmon taken and processed . . . were mostly shared within the extended family of married sons and daughters, although other village households were permitted to use this family's fish camp and equipment to harvest their own salmon. . . . It should be noted that 1983 was the only year in the last six that members of this extended family failed to harvest a belukha. Distribution of belukha meat and blubber would have undoubtedly extended well beyond the 18 households. . . .

LEVELS OF PARTICIPATION

During the current study period, most Tyonek households participated in the harvest of fish and game resources. . . . Over 82 percent of Tyonek's households harvested salmon, 69 percent hunted moose, and 64 percent gathered berries and other plants. These high participation rates for these resource categories were most likely related to the relatively high productivity of these activities and the high accessibility of the resources to most households. For example, harvesting salmon required only a low monetary investment for equipment, transportation, and processing supplies. Even households without means could borrow harvesting equipment and contribute their labor to the other fishing groups in exchange for supplies and transportation. While cash requirements were low, harvesting kings required a substantial investment of time to process the catch. Labor was usually supplied by members of a kinship group. With a limit of 70 kings (about 1,250 pounds edible weight) each household could procure a large portion of the family's annual food supply.

Moose hunting required a larger monetary investment in transportation costs and equipment, and similarly, substantial amounts of time. The potential return was high; however, up to about 500 pounds of meat for a single moose. Another motive for moose hunting was social obligation. Involvement in resource sharing networks obligated people to hunt and fish in order to reciprocate for past gifts of fish and game.

Plant gathering did not supply large amounts of food, but it was an activity in which most households and family members could take part. Harvest areas were close to village homes, and expensive equipment was unnecessary. Thus, it was very popular. . . .

Clams were a favorite food in the village during the study period, consumed by 36 percent of the households. However, only a few families in the village harvested most of the clams, and then distributed them widely in the community. This was because the distances involved in reaching the clam beds, the consequent large expenses for fuel, the need for expensive equipment such as dories and outboard motors, and the skills demanded to make the trip safely.

Hunting marine mammals appears to be a special case in the seasonal round of activities. Belukha and harbor seals were major sources of food in Tyonek in the past. These resources, especially belukha, are still highly prized today; yet, harvest levels dropped in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. Several factors may account for this. An alternate resource, moose, became available in the 1940s, one that required less travel and expense and was less likely to be lost or unretrievable. As a consequence of federal bounty programs and other introduced forms of commercial exploitation, marine mammals in Cook Inlet probably were less abundant in the mid twentieth century than earlier, again encouraging a shift in effort to other species. Marine mammal hunting, except as an incidental activity to clam harvesting and boat travel, became relatively expensive compare to salmon fishing and moose hunting. . . . Belukha hunting was regaining popularity in the village during the study period and at least one was taken every year. At least one third of the village received belukha products in 1983. It seems likely that marine mammal hunting will continue as a subsistence activity in the village and possibly will increase. . . .

MODE OF PRODUCTION

In the 19th century, the primary production unit of the Upper Inlet Dena'ina was the multifamily household headed by a senior male kinsman called a qeshqa. The principles of matrilineal kinship and clan membership were replaced by bilateral kinship and nuclear family residence by the early 20th century (Fall 1981). Although its principles of organization had changed, kinship continued to organize groups within which fishing and hunting occurred.

. . . A "domestic mode of production" (Sahlins 1972; Wolfe 1982:257-259; Wolfe et al. 1984) for harvesting fish and game for subsistence prevailed within the community during the study period. As in other Alaskan communities with a subsistence-based socioeconomic system, principles of extended kinship structured resource harvesting and processing. A common production unit was a group of related households which shared fish camps, processing facilities, and hunting and fishing equipment. Within these units, harvesting and processing roles were assumed largely based on age, sex, and experience. The operation of these extended family units was most visible during subsistence salmon fishing. The size and composition of production units differed according to the type of harvesting activity. Many hunters often formed "partnerships" which crossed the kinship boundaries of the extended family groups; although members of these units commonly hunted together, as well. Some activities, such as claming, were organized by experience leaders. Such harvesting groups were also organized by experienced leaders. Such harvesting groups were also organized according to kinship principles, but again were extended to include many households.

Within this domestic system of production, leadership was very important. Leaders were almost always older, experienced men or sometimes women. They were commonly commercial fishermen and "owners" of fish camps. In some cases, leaders themselves did not directly participate in the harvest of resources such as salmon or moose. Rather, they organized the activity, deciding when the harvest would take place and which roles each family member would perform. Leaders decided when supplies of food were sufficient, and with whom to share resources. In organizing a group of kin, "owning" camps and facilities, and controlling the distribution of food products, leaders in Tyonek retained some of the characteristics of the traditional qeshqa. Correspondingly, older people in the community who have been successful hunters and fishermen, who also exhibit skills in commercial enterprises such as commercial fishing, and who shared their "wealth" in the form of food products, or, for example, contributions to the church were highly respected in the community and have occupied roles of political leadership in the village. Clearly, other skills are required for village leaders today, such as familiarity with government bureaucracies and education; nevertheless, demonstrable knowledge and skills in regard to hunting and fishing remained important to achieving respect and influence in the village.

Finally, the domestic mode continued to provide a context for the education of the young. Hunting and fishing skills and processing skills were learned while observing and accompanying family members to fish camps, on moose hunting trips, and in claming parties.

NETWORKS OF DISTRIBUTION AND EXCHANGE

In subsistence-based socioeconomic systems, wild resource harvests are distributed throughout the community along non-commercial networks of exchange (Wolfe 1982:264; Wolfe et al. 1984). . . . The sharing of fish and game harvests in Tyonek was extremely common and extensive during the study period. As in the past, distribution and exchange were organized according to kinship and seniority, and provided another means by which social relationships in the community were expressed and by which community cohesiveness and integration were maintained.

The extent of sharing resources that occurred varied according to the resource. Salmon harvests were used mostly by the household, or, more commonly, the extended family group that processed the fish. A noteworthy exception was that village elders sometimes received smoked products, as well as most other types of subsistence folds. Most extended family units harvested their own salmon either by using their own equipment or borrowing from others. Resources that were harvested in large quantities by fewer households or extended family units, such as clams and marine mammals, were shared likely throughout the community. Harvesting these resources required special knowledge and the ownership of expensive equipment that was possessed by only a few people in the community. It is likely that in return for the distribution, the harvesters received the respect of the village and thus enhanced their overall standing in the community.

Moose were generally shared within more limited networks of households which regularly exchanged their successful harvests. Village elders were usually included in these networks, although they themselves did no harvesting. Moose sharing networks expanded when harvests of this resource were low. Resources harvested in small amounts such as small game, waterfowl, or freshwater fish were not shared extensively.

The distribution of resources in Tyonek was largely governed by the principle of generalized reciprocity (Sahlins 1972) whereby the successful harvesters shared their catch with no expectations of an immediate return. There was little or no "bartering," "swapping," or direct exchange ("balanced reciprocity"). With moose hunting (and possibly also bear) households with active hunters were included in the exchange networks of a successful hunter. This created an obligation of return in the future when the recipients themselves took a moose. . . .