Human Ecology

, Volume 5, Issue 3, pp 223–259 | Cite as

Subarctic Indian trappers and band society: The economics of male mobility

  • Robert Jarvenpa
Article

Abstract

The spatial organization of economic production in contemporary subarctic Indian society is illustrated by an analysis of geographical mobility and commercial fur trapping among the English River Chipewyan of Patuanak, Saskatchewan. Quantitative comparison reveals the positive linear relationship between selected “performance” variables (numbers of animals captured and cash income) and “locational” variables (trapping area size, distances traveled between settlements and bush camps, and distances between neighboring trappers) for a population of 76 male trappers. At present, trapping performance varies positively with trapping area size and linear distance from the largest settlement. Variable social adaptations in the trapping work force are in part the result of complex compromises and adjustments between traditional familycamp organizations and emerging all-male partnerships. However, the relationship between size and structure of trapping teams, degree of team interaction, and economic efficiency requires further investigation. Finally, the formal analysis of productivity is reappraised in terms of community definitions of trapping success.

Key words

locational analysis fur-trapping subarctic societies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Burton, I. (1968). The quantitative revolution and theoretical geography. In Berry, B. J. L., and Marble, D. F. (eds.),Spatial Analysis: A Reader in Statistical Geography, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, pp. 13–23.Google Scholar
  2. Cooper, J. M. (1938). Snares, deadfalls and other traps of the northern Algonquians and northern Athapaskans.Catholic University of America Anthropological Series, No. 5.Google Scholar
  3. Cooper, J. M. (1939). Is the Algonkian family hunting ground system pre-Columbian?American Anthropologist 41: 66–90.Google Scholar
  4. Dixon, W. J. (ed.) (1970).Biomedical Computer Programs, X-series supplement. University of California Press, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  5. Garner, J. S. (1967). Models of urban geography and settlement location. In Chorley, R. J., and Haggett, P. (eds.),Models in Geography, Methuen, London, pp. 303–360.Google Scholar
  6. Gillespie, B. C. (1975). Territorial expansion of the Chipewyan in the 18th century. In Clark, A. M. (ed.),Proceedings: Northern Athapaskan Conference, 1971, National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. 27, Ottawa, pp. 350–388.Google Scholar
  7. Gould, P. R. (1969). Spatial diffusion.Association of American Geographers Resource Paper, No. 4.Google Scholar
  8. Gould, P. R. (1970). Problems of space preference measures.Geographical Analysis 2: 31–44.Google Scholar
  9. Hallowell, A. I. (1949). The size of Algonkian hunting territories: A function of ecological adjustment.American Anthropologist 51: 35–44.Google Scholar
  10. Helm, J. (1965). Bilaterality in the socio-territorial organization of the arctic drainage Dene.Ethnology 4: 361–385.Google Scholar
  11. Helm, J. (1968). The nature of Dogrib socio-territorial groups. In Lee, R. B., and DeVore, I. (eds.),Man the Hunter, Aldine, Chicago, pp. 118–125.Google Scholar
  12. Hudson, J. C. (1970). Diffusion in a central place system.Geographical Analysis 2: 45–58.Google Scholar
  13. Jarvenpa, R. (1975). The people of Patuanak: The ecology and spatial organization of a southern Chipewyan band. Unpublished doctoral dissertation in anthropology. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, 424 pp.Google Scholar
  14. Jarvenpa, R. (1976). Spatial and ecological factors in the annual economic cycle of the English River Band of Chipewyan.Arctic Anthropology 13: 43–69.Google Scholar
  15. Knight, R. (1965). A re-examination of hunting, trapping, and territoriality among the northeastern Algonkian Indians. In Leeds, A., and Vayda, A. P. (eds.),Man, Culture and Animals, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, D.C., pp. 27–42.Google Scholar
  16. Leacock, E. B. (1954). The Montagnais “hunting territory” and the fur trade.American Anthropological Association Memoir 78.Google Scholar
  17. Lee, R. B. (1972). !Kung spatial organizations: An ecological and historical perspective.Human Ecology 1: 125–147.Google Scholar
  18. Muller-Wille, L. (1974). Caribou never die!The Musk Ox 14: 7–19.Google Scholar
  19. Murdock, G. P. (1949).Social Structure. Macmillan, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Nelson, R. K. (1973).Hunters of the Northern Forest: Designs for Survival Among the Alaska Kutchin. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  21. Nietschmann, B. (1972). Hunting and fishing focus among the Miskito Indians, Eastern Nicaragua.Human Ecology 1: 41–67.Google Scholar
  22. Olsson, G. (1965). Distance and human interaction: A migration study.Geografiska Annaler 47B: 3–43.Google Scholar
  23. Pelto, P. J. (1973).The Snowmobile Revolution: Technology and Social Change in the Arctic. Cummings, Menlo Park, California.Google Scholar
  24. Pernard, Rev. J. M. (1929). Land ownership and chieftaincy among the Chipewyan and Caribou Eaters.Primitive Man 2: 20–24.Google Scholar
  25. Pred, A. R., and Kibel, B. M. (1970). An application of gaming simulation to a general model of locational processes.Economic Geography 46: 136–156.Google Scholar
  26. Rogers, E. S. (1963). The hunting group-hunting territory complex among the Mistassini Indians.National Museums of Canada Bulletin 195, Anthropological Series 63.Google Scholar
  27. Rogers, E. S. (1969). Natural environment—social organization—witchcraft: Cree versus Ojibwa—a test case. In Damas, D. (ed.),Contributions to Anthropology: Ecological Essays, National Museums of Canada Bulletin 230, pp. 24–39.Google Scholar
  28. Rogers, E. S. (1972). The Mistassini Cree. In Bicchieri, M. G. (ed.),Hunters and Gatherers Today, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 90–137.Google Scholar
  29. Savishinsky, J. S. (1971). Mobility as an aspect of stress in an arctic community.American Anthropologist 73: 604–618.Google Scholar
  30. Shimkin, D. B. (1955). The economy of a trapping center: The case of Fort Yukon.Economic Development and Culture Change 3(3): 219–240.Google Scholar
  31. Smith, J. G. E. (1975). The ecological basis of Chipewyan socio-territorial organization. In Clark, A. M. (ed.),Proceedings: Northern Athapaskan Conference, 1971, National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Canadian Ethnology Service Paper No. 27, Ottawa, pp. 389–461.Google Scholar
  32. Speck, F. G. (1915). The family hunting band as the basis of Algonkian social organization.American Anthropologist 17: 289–305.Google Scholar
  33. Speck, F. G., and Eisely, L. C. (1939). Significance of hunting territory systems of the Algonkian in social theory.American Anthropologist 41: 269–280.Google Scholar
  34. Tyrrell, J. B. (Ed.). (1916).David Thompson's Narrative of His Explorations in Western America, 1784–1812. Champlain Society, Toronto.Google Scholar
  35. Usher, P. J. (1971).The Bankslanders: Economy and Ecology of a Frontier Trapping Community, Vol. 2. Northern Science Research Group, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  36. VanStone, J. W. (1963). Changing patterns of Indian trapping in the Canadian subarctic.Arctic 16: 158–174.Google Scholar
  37. VanStone, J. W. (1965). The changing culture of the Snowdrift Chipewyan.National Museums of Canada Bulletin 209.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1977

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Jarvenpa
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyState University of New York at AlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations