The Ozette Prairies of Olympic National Park - Natural Resources ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

family burned over its part of the prairie in the spring so that dead ferns would be destroyed, giving way to camas. Generally no outsider would trespass unless he received permission from the family which “owned” the site. (Singh 1966:25-6) Quileute Concepts of Alienable and Inalienable Possession. To suggest that the Quileute did not recognize ownership as exclusive possession overlooks a grammatical feature of their language, which emphatically recognizes the heritable, ascribed nature of land-use holdings. Quileute grammar requires that speakers distinguish between things which are “alienably possessed (i.e. things which can be acquired, lost, given away, or in some way removed from the individual’s ownership) from “inalienable possession” (i.e. things which are inherited and which cannot be taken away from a person or lost to them). The category of alienable things are those that one acquires in life, which are often destroyed at one’s death, e.g. clothing and items of adornment, gear, weapons, and tools. Inalienable things are those ascribed things which one inherits and which aren’t destroyed at death but are passed on to descendants, e.g. names, songs, re-incarnated features and spirit powers, one’s house and (surprisingly) dogs, canoes (and automobiles!) and, especially, rights to tribal and family lands and grounds. The inalienable possessive marker is -lo or -t’ot (for relatives) and the alienable possession marker is -ya’as. So, one says in Quileute, for example: Hix-as kwo’liyot’-lo t’siq’ati. but Hix-as kwo’liyot’-ya’as t’sikbai. This-is (the) Quileute’s-inalienable land. This-is (the) Quileute’s-alienable basket. Quileute grammar clearly appears to indicate that traditional-thinking Quileute conceptualized possession as real and that it implied ownership and control. Permissive Utilization -vs- Users in common. So, the traditional Quileute can be characterized as recognizing tribal territory, and the inheritable exclusivity of use-ownership within their territory. Land and resources that were recognized as use-owned by tribal members could be used by permission of the owners. Thus, to understand Quileute ownership patterns, we must distinguish between permissive users, who are those who use lands (e.g. for hunting, fishing, and gathering) with implied permission of those who have recognized ownership of the land, and users in common, who are those who use lands which are recognized by members to be tribal open areas that nobody has exclusive ownership of, which can be used by tribal members (and their alien guests) without asking permission. Summary: Traditional Quileute Conceptions of Prairie Ownership and Use Rights. Based on the above definitions, we can suggest precisely how traditional Quileute conceptualized the prairies of their territory. The Quileute prairies, then, can be characterized as viewed by the Quileute to be open tribal areas 105
which can be used without permission by tribal members (and their alien guests), and that sites on those prairies may be recognized as inheritably use-owned by tribal members who have built houses or drying racks on particular sites. This clarifies the tribal access to the prairies, and why these resource areas were so consistently and completely utilized by Quileute families in traditional times. The prairies were commonly held tribal resource areas. THE QUILEUTE CONCEPT OF STEWARDSHIP OF THE PRAIRIES Stewardship of the Prairies as a Responsibility – Who was Responsible? As we have characterized or defined Quileute common ownership of the prairies within their traditional lands, we can see that traditional Quileute thought of the prairies as belonging to all of them. One could argue that if the prairies belonged to everyone, then, in fact, they really belonged to no one in particular. That brings up a question with regard to maintenance of the prairies and the stewardship function that motivated the Quileute old people. If the prairies didn’t belong to anyone in particular, who among the tribal members had the responsibility to maintain them? First we have to attempt to clarify the concept of stewardship from a traditional Quileute perspective. Webster’s definition (New Collegiate Dict.) of steward is “…An officer or employee…on a large estate, to manage the…concerns, etc…An administrator, or supervisor; a manager.” What is clear from that definition is that in contemporary English we understand that the concept of a steward and his/her responsibility (i.e. stewardship) is that the person is in charge of outcomes. Stewardship involves managing things and making sure that things work out the way they are supposed to. However, when we use the term stewardship for Quileute “management” of their prairie areas and resources, we will think ethnocentrically unless we bear in mind two aspects of the traditional Quileute belief system. Firstly, the old people believed that outcomes were in the hands of the spirits, and that it made the spirits indignant when mortals arrogated unto themselves responsibility for the outcome of events or for the future in general. (Powell, Aborig.Value Cont., p.12; Quil. Relig, p.27ff) Stewardship assumption #1- Outcomes of activities should be in the hands of the spirits. The following example might illustrate this sense of how traditional Quileute felt that outcomes should be left in the hands of the spirits: I asked Hazel Bright, said to be 90 years old, why she felt the Quileute didn’t maintain the welcoming figures (a T’ist’ilal, “Thunderbird” carving) at the entrance to the village done much earlier by Sixtis Ward. She answered, “It’s our responsibility to put those traditional figures up. It’s the spirits’ obligation 106
Page 1 and 2:
The Ozette Prairies of Olympic Nati
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents List of Figures .
Page 5 and 6:
Figure 35. 1895 Plat Map highlighti
Page 7 and 8:
Acknowledgments The conception for
Page 9 and 10:
many obscure references. Many other
Page 11 and 12:
Figure 1. View of Ahlstrom’s Prai
Page 13 and 14:
Until recently, we were limited by
Page 15 and 16:
zones between forest and prairie).
Page 17 and 18:
The drier east-facing slopes have c
Page 19 and 20:
e important nesting sites for some
Page 21 and 22:
to the sea to the north of Cape Ala
Page 23 and 24:
1928, notes that “tuberculosis an
Page 25 and 26:
Table 1. Timeline for Major Events
Page 27 and 28:
a significant part of the Makah’s
Page 29 and 30:
oxes, spoons, and bowls. Mature con
Page 31 and 32:
Figure 16. T.T. Waterman map. #22 a
Page 33 and 34:
It is possible that the Ozettes vis
Page 35 and 36:
in the wet areas, and salal berries
Page 37 and 38:
Species Uses Plant Part Location Be
Page 39 and 40:
Species Uses Plant Part Location Ti
Page 41 and 42:
32 were small, but they were in abu
Page 43 and 44:
I still gather them [the leaves] ev
Page 45 and 46:
The Makah harvested the leaves of c
Page 47 and 48:
Born on February 2, 1926, eighty-th
Page 49 and 50:
She arrived early enough on the Mak
Page 51 and 52:
Prairie was not surveyed (see Table
Page 53 and 54:
44 Figure 35. 1895 Plat Map. Townsh
Page 55 and 56:
Figure 37. Bracken fern (Pteridium
Page 57 and 58:
48 the [Ozette] prairies. They woul
Page 59 and 60:
Enhance productivity of above-groun
Page 61 and 62:
We do have some evidence that the O
Page 63 and 64: happened “yearly or whenever it w
Page 65 and 66: such as parent material, land form,
Page 67 and 68: to advance onto the Ozette Prairies
Page 69 and 70: near Ozette; their meat and oil are
Page 71 and 72: support their existing flora or par
Page 73 and 74: References Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire Ec
Page 75 and 76: Croes, D.R. and E. Blinman. 1980. H
Page 77 and 78: Howie, S.A., P.H. Whitfield, R.J. H
Page 79 and 80: expanded by G. Peterson and G. Pete
Page 81 and 82: Vanderhoof, M. 1960. Death of pione
Page 83 and 84: num hummocks dominated by Empretum
Page 85 and 86: Linda Kunze’s Survey of Sand Poin
Page 87 and 88: Appendix 3 Evidence of Indian Burni
Page 93 and 94: ear, and elk that graze in there. T
Page 95 and 96: the spiritual world of the prairies
Page 97 and 98: Prairie Animal Resources. The prair
Page 99 and 100: Ram Singh discussed the importance
Page 101 and 102: long by ½” thick. It was found o
Page 103 and 104: Ha’hiba, Trees common around the
Page 105 and 106: Vine maple (t’apsiyoqwpat, “spl
Page 107 and 108: proof), and the stalks were used in
Page 109 and 110: Mint (k’i’ilt’adapat, “cool
Page 111 and 112: THE TRADITIONAL CULTURE OF QUILEUTE
Page 113: property (with the exception of bea
Page 117 and 118: that spirits were just as natural a
Page 119 and 120: ture Spirit, T’siq’ati) rewarde
Page 121 and 122: to the sky and tried to obtain the
Page 123 and 124: 2) Each family had a part of a prai
Page 125 and 126: you waste what you are given, you w
Page 127 and 128: he’ll take it away. And not only
Page 129 and 130: (a) Trail maintenance. Keeping up t
Page 131 and 132: some distance. These level places b
Page 133 and 134: you love. Come with me.” The suit
Page 135 and 136: a place in the prairie where severa
Page 137 and 138: a very good but circuitous trail, w
Page 139 and 140: eye the Olympic peninsula with it g
Page 141 and 142: four such rafters only two were use
Page 143 and 144: more poles. Roots dried in this way
Page 145 and 146: lands and to lack of a road from La
Page 147 and 148: [5:33] [There are prairies in the l
Page 149 and 150: een ancient midden heaps. In some p
Page 151 and 152: [p. 215] Nettle. Common everywhere
Page 153 and 154: inches high and the berries and cro
Page 155 and 156: The Indians knew how to kill an elk
Page 157 and 158: with skink cabbage leaves. The Indi
Page 159 and 160: social activities. The year was div
Page 161 and 162: Everybody worked hard. Must’ve be
Page 163 and 164: ing it up until he got it killed an
Page 165 and 166:
view identified only as “by Dori,
Page 167:
Academy of Sciences. _____ and L.V.
show all

The Ozette Prairies of Olympic National Park - Natural Resources ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?