Hubbry Logo
Alaska NativesAlaska NativesMain
Open search
Alaska Natives
Community hub
Alaska Natives
logo
8 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Alaska Natives
Alaska Natives
Alaska Natives
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Key Information

Part of a series on
Native Americans in the United States
Native America
History
Culture
Wars
Political movements
Religion
Groups
Ethnic subdivisions
Languages
Demographics
Geography
by region
by state
Lists
Aleut islander (19th Century)

Alaska Natives (also known as Native Alaskans, Alaskan Indians, or Indigenous Alaskans) are the Indigenous peoples of Alaska that encompass a diverse arena of cultural and linguistic groups, including the Iñupiat, Yupik, Aleut, Eyak, Tlingit, Haida, Tsimshian, and various Northern Athabaskan, as well as Russian Creoles. These groups are often categorized by their distinct language families. Many Alaska Natives are enrolled in federally recognized Alaska Native tribal entities, which are members of 13 Alaska Native Regional Corporations responsible for managing land and financial claims.

The migration of Alaska Natives' ancestors into the Alaskan region occurred thousands of years ago, likely in more than one wave. Some present-day groups descend from a later migration event that also led to settlement across northern North America, with these populations generally not migrating further south. Genetic evidence indicates that these groups are not closely related to the Indigenous peoples of South America.

Evidence from archaeology indicates that the ancestors of Alaska natives migrated from Asia. Anthropologists have proposed that their journey to Alaska from Asia was made possible through the Bering land bridge or by traveling across the sea.[2] Across the Arctic and the circumpolar north, the ancestors of Alaska Natives established a variety of indigenous cultures that developed and changed over time. These cultures demonstrated considerable ingenuity in adapting to harsh climates and environments.

Historically, the defining characteristic of Alaska Native groups has often been their languages, which belong to several major language families. Currently, Alaska Natives or Native Alaskans constitute more than 20% of Alaska's population.[3]

List of peoples

[edit]
Alaska Native Languages
American Indians and Alaska Natives in Alaska

Below is a full list of the different Alaska Native or Native Alaskan peoples, who are largely defined by their historical languages (within each culture are different tribes):

Demographics

[edit]

As of 2018, Alaska Natives constituted 15.4% of the overall Alaskan population.[4] Earlier data from the Alaskan Natives Commission estimated approximately 86,000 Alaska Natives residing in Alaska in 1990, with an additional 17,000 living outside of the state.[5] More recently, a 2013 study conducted by the Alaska Department of Labor and Workforce Development documented over 120,000 Alaska Native Individuals within Alaska.[6] While a significant portion of the Alaska Native populations resides in smaller villages or remote regional hubs such as Nome, Dillingham, and Bethel, there has been a notable increase in the percentage living in urban areas. According to the 2010 census, 44% of Alaska Natives lived in urban areas, a rise from 38% recorded in the 2000 census.[4]

History

[edit]

The modern history of Alaska Natives began in the eighteenth century with the initial contact between Alaskan First Nations and Russian explorers sailing from Siberia. Subsequently, in the nineteenth century, British and American traders, coming mostly from eastern settlements in North America, arrived in the region. In some areas of Alaska, the active presence of Christian missionaries did not occur until the twentieth century.

Russian colonial period

[edit]

Vitus Bering spotted Alaska during an expedition.[7] Subsequently, in the 18th century, Alaska Natives encountered Russians, with the timing of this contact varying among different Native groups across Alaska.[8] Arriving by ship from Siberia, in the mid-eighteenth century, Russians established trade with Alaska Natives, particularly in the Aleutian Islands. They founded settlements around their trading posts, which included Russian Orthodox missionaries. These missionaries were the first to translate Christian scripture into Native languages, such as Tlingit. The lasting impact of this period is evident in the 21st century with numerous Russian Orthodox Christian congregations in Alaska composed predominantly of Alaska Natives.

The Sibero-Russian promyshlenniki, rather than engaging in hunting and harvesting marine life themselves, coerced the Aleuts into performing this labor, enserfing the Aleuts.[9][10] As news for the fur trade spread, competition among Russian companies intensified. Catherine the Great, upon ascending to the throne in 1763, expressed goodwill towards the Aleuts and encouraged fair treatment. However, the increasing competition between trading companies, which eventually consolidated into larger and more powerful corporations, led to conflicts that worsened relations with the indigenous populations. Over time, the situation became dire for the Aleuts and other Native Alaskan people affected by Russian contact.[11]

As the animal populations declined, the Aleuts, already dependent on the new barter economy driven by the fur trade with the Russians, faced increasing pressure to take greater risks in the dangerous waters of the North Pacific to hunt for more otter. The Shelikhov-Golikov Company, and later Russian-American Company developed as a monopoly, using skirmishes and systematic violence as tools for the colonial exploitation of the indigenous people. When the Aleut revolted and won some victories, the Russians retaliated with deadly force, destroying their boats and hunting equipment, leaving them no means of survival.[12]

The most devastating impact on the Aleut population during the initial two generations of Russian contact (1741/1759-1781/1799 AD) was the introduction of new diseases from Eurasia. Approximately 80% of the Aleut population perished from these infectious diseases, to which they had no immunity, unlike Europeans among whom these diseases have been endemic for centuries.[13]

Effects of Russian colonization

[edit]
Yupik mother and child, Nunivak Island, c. 1929; photographed by Edward S. Curtis.

The Russian Tsarist government expanded into Indigenous territory in present-day Alaska for its own geopolitical reasons. It consumed natural resources of the territory during the trading years, and Russian Orthodoxy was evangelized.[14] Their movement into these populated areas of Indigenous communities altered the demographic and natural landscape.

Historians have suggested that the Russian-American Company exploited Indigenous peoples as a source of inexpensive labor.[14] The Russian-American Company not only used Indigenous populations for labor during the fur trade, but also held some as hostages to acquire iasak.[14] Iasak, a form of taxation imposed by the Russians, was a tribute in the form of otter pelts.[14] It was a taxation method the Russians had previously found useful in their early encounter with Indigenous communities of Siberia during the Siberian fur trade.[14] Beaver pelts were also customary to be given to fur traders upon first contact with various communities.[15]

The Russian-American Company used military force on Indigenous families, taking them hostage until male community members produced furs for them.[14] Otter furs on Kodiak Island and Aleutian Islands enticed the Russians to start these taxations.[14] Robbery and maltreatment in the form of corporal punishment and the withholding of food was also present upon the arrival of fur traders.[16] Catherine the Great dissolved the giving of tribute in 1799, but her government initiated mandatory conscription of Indigenous men between the ages of 18 and 50 to become seal hunters strictly for the Russian American Company.[14] This mandatory labor gave the Russian American Company an edge in competition with American and British fur traders.[14] But the conscription separated men from their families and villages, thus altering and breaking down communities.[17] With able-bodied men away on the hunt, villages were left with little protection as only women, children, and the elderly remained behind.[17]

In addition to changes that came with conscription, the spread of disease also altered the populations of Indigenous communities.[18] Although records kept in the period were scarce, it has been said that 80% of the pre-contact population of the Aleut people were gone by 1800.[18] The Alaska Native population was first recorded in the 1880 United States census, and it was estimated that the population had declined from 80,000 in 1741 to 33,000 due to disease.[19] The population continued to decline until 1910 and it was not until 1947 that this number surpassed the 1880 figure.[19]

Relationships between Indigenous women and fur traders increased as Indigenous men were away from villages. This resulted in marriages and children that would come to be known as Creole peoples, children who were Indigenous and Russian.[17] To reduce hostilities with Aleutian communities, it became policy for fur traders to enter into marriage with Indigenous women. The Creole population increased in the territory controlled by the Russian American Company.[17]

The growth of the Russian Orthodox Church was another important tactic in the colonization and conversion of Indigenous populations.[20] Ioann Veniaminov, who later became Saint Innocent of Alaska, was an important missionary who carried out the Orthodox Church's agenda to Christianize Indigenous populations.[20] The church encouraged Creole children to follow Russian Orthodox Christianity, while the Russian American Company provided them with an education. Many Orthodox missionaries, like Herman of Alaska, defended Natives from exploitation.[20] Creole people were believed to have high levels of loyalty toward the Russian crown and Russian American Company.[20] After completing their education, children were often sent to Russia, where they would study skills such as mapmaking, theology, and military intelligence.[20] In the 1850s Russia lost much of its interest in Alaska.[7]

American colonialism

[edit]
Metlakahtla brass band

Alaska's abundance of natural resources, particularly gold, drew the interest of the United States.[7] In 1867, the United States bought Alaska from Russia. This purchase happened without considering the opinions of the Native Alaskans, who were not regarded as citizens at the time.[21] The land traditionally belonging to Alaska Natives was treated as "open land," allowing white settlers to claim it without providing any compensation or recognition to the Native people living there.[21] The only educational opportunities available for Alaska Natives were in schools established by religious missionaries.[22] Many white settlers failed to appreciate the complex and well-developed cultures that Alaska Natives had created to thrive in their challenging environment. Instead, they viewed them as inferior to European Americans, which aligned with white supremacist ideologies.[23]

The Klondike Gold Rush of 1896–1898 led to increased white settlement in Alaska and brought discriminatory practices against indigenous peoples.[24] American settlers imposed racial segregation and discriminatory laws similar to Jim Crow laws, which severely limited Alaska Natives' opportunities and cultural practices, effectively treating them as second-class citizens.[25] This segregation manifested in various ways, including "whites only" signs that prevented natives from entering certain buildings. Educational discrimination was also prevalent. In an 1880 court case, a child was barred from attending school with Americans because his stepfather was native.[clarification needed] Children of mixed heritage could only attend American schools if their families abandoned their native culture. Simultaneously, the U.S. government implemented policies to disrupt Alaska Native family structures. Federal records show[26] that disrupting native family units was a deliberate part of Federal Indian policy aimed at assimilating indigenous children.[27] The Federal Indian Boarding School Initiative[28] played a major role in creating intergenerational trauma by removing children from their native villages and placing them in off-reservation boarding schools alongside children from other tribes. This system created artificial communities of indigenous children throughout the boarding school network, resulting in new indigenous family structures depending on whether children returned to their native villages or settled elsewhere after completing their education.[29] These policies prohibited Alaska Native children from speaking their native languages, wearing traditional clothing, associating with other natives, consuming traditional foods, or practicing their religions. The resulting family separation and cultural eradication caused significant intergenerational trauma.[30][31]

In 1912, the Alaska Native Brotherhood (ANB) was formed to help fight for citizenship rights.[32] The Alaska Native Sisterhood (ANS) was created in 1915.[33] Also in 1915, the Alaska Territorial legislature passed a law allowing Alaskan Natives the right to vote – but on the condition that they give up their cultural customs and traditions.[34] The Indian Citizenship Act, passed in 1924, gave all Native Americans United States citizenship.[34]

ANB began to hold a great deal of political power in the 1920s.[35] They protested the segregation of Alaska Natives in public areas and institutions, and also staged boycotts.[36] Alberta Schenck (Inupiaq) staged a well-publicized protest against segregation in a movie theater in 1944.[37] With the help of Elizabeth Peratrovich (Tlingit), the Alaska Equal Rights Act of 1945 was passed, ending segregation in Alaska.[38]

In 1942, during World War II, the United States forced evacuation of around nine hundred Aleuts from the Aleutian Islands.[39] The idea was to remove the Aleuts from a potential combat zone during World War II for their own protection, but European Americans living in the same area were not forced to leave.[39] The removal was handled so poorly that many Aleuts died after they were evacuated; the elderly and children had the highest mortality rates.[40] Survivors returned to the islands to find their homes and possessions destroyed or looted.[39] Civil rights activists such as Alberta Schenck Adams and Elizabeth Peratrovich protested discriminatory laws against Native Alaskans with what were effectively sit-ins and lobbying.[41]

The Alaska Equal Rights Act of 1945, the first anti-discrimination state law in the U.S., occurred as a result of these protests.[42][43] It entitled all Alaskans to "full and equal enjoyment" of public areas and businesses,[44] a ban on segregating signs,[44] with discriminatory actions punishable by a $250 fine and up to 30 days in jail.[45]

Alaska became part of the United States in 1959 upon President Dwight D. Eisenhower recognizing Alaska as the 49th state.[7]

ANCSA and since (1971 to present)

[edit]
A Koyukon man in traditional tribal dress

In 1971, with the support of Alaska Native leaders such as Emil Notti, Willie Hensley, and Byron Mallott, the U.S. Congress passed the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), which settled land and financial claims for lands and resources which the Alaska Natives had lost to European-Americans. It provided for the establishment of thirteen Alaska Native Regional Corporations to administer those claims. Similar to the separately defined status of the Canadian Inuit and First Nations in Canada, which are recognized as distinct peoples, in the United States, Alaska Natives or Native Alaskans are in some respects treated separately by the government from other Native Americans in the United States. This is in part related to their interactions with the U.S. government which occurred in a different historical period than its interactions during the period of westward expansion during the 19th century.

Europeans and Americans did not have sustained encounters with the Alaska Natives until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when many were attracted to the region in gold rushes. The Alaska Natives were not allotted individual title in severalty to land under the Dawes Act of 1887 but were instead treated under the Alaska Native Allotment Act of 1906.[46]

The Allotment Act was repealed in 1971, following ANSCA, at which time reservations were ended. Another characteristic difference is that Alaska Native tribal governments do not have the power to collect taxes for business transacted on tribal land, per the United States Supreme Court decision in Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (1998). Except for the Tsimshian, Alaska Natives no longer hold reservations but do control some lands. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, Alaska Natives are reserved the right to harvest whales and other marine mammals.

Climate change

[edit]

Four indigenous tribes in Alaska—the Shishmaref, Kivalina, Shaktoolik, and Newtok tribes—are considered America's first climate refugees due to the impacts of sea ice melting and increased wildfires in their regions.[47] Climate change has created extensive challenges for Alaska's native peoples, including increased vulnerability to disease, mental health issues, physical injuries, and food and water insecurity.[47] According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), coastal erosion from sea ice loss is displacing native communities. This melting also disrupts the migration patterns of animals that tribes depend on for sustenance, while eliminating traditional places to store harvested food.[48] As permafrost thaws, existing infrastructure becomes unstable, leading to the collapse of native villages.[48]

The Shishmaref, Kivalina, Shaktoolik, and Newtok tribes are situated on Alaska's west coast, where rising sea levels have intensified storm surges that erode their coastlines.[47] These communities face forced migration because there is no suitable nearby land to relocate to, requiring them to abandon their traditional ways of life.[47] Predictions indicate that a significant climate event could completely submerge these tribal lands in less than fifteen years.[47]

The changing climate has heightened safety risks for Alaska natives. While thick ice layers were historically present year-round, warming temperatures have thinned the ice, increasing incidents of people falling through—a dangerous situation that leads to additional health concerns even for survivors.[47] Water insecurity and deteriorating infrastructure have created sanitation problems, contributing to an increase in respiratory illnesses across Alaska. In 2005, pneumonia became the leading cause of hospitalizations in these regions.[47] Many affected communities experience significant psychological stress due to both the immediate impacts of climate change and the complex challenges of relocation without established policies or pathways.[47] Additional stress comes from infrastructure damage caused by thawing permafrost, with minimal regulatory guidance beyond the Alaskan government's recommendations to avoid building on permafrost or to use extra insulation on foundation walls.[48] Food security has also deteriorated as animals relocate to more suitable habitats.[47] Traditional underground ice cellars, once frozen year-round, now thaw during summer months, rendering food supplies inedible.[49]

Subsistence

[edit]
See also: Subsistence economy

Gathering of subsistence food continues to be an important economic and cultural activity for many Alaska Natives.[50] In Utqiaġvik, Alaska, in 2005, more than 91 percent of the Iñupiat households which were interviewed still participated in the local subsistence economy, compared with the approximately 33 percent of non-Iñupiat households who used wild resources obtained from hunting, fishing, or gathering.[51]

But, unlike many tribes in the contiguous United States, Alaska Natives or Native Alaskans do not have treaties with the United States that protect their subsistence rights,[50] except for the right to harvest whales and other marine mammals. The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act explicitly extinguished aboriginal hunting and fishing rights in the state of Alaska.[52]

Ethnicity by region

[edit]

Census 2010.[53]

American Indian and Alaska Native Tribe/Tribal grouping American Indian and Alaska Native alone American Indian and Alaska Native in combination with one or more other races American Indian and Alaska Native alone or in any combination1
One tribe/tribal grouping reported Two or more tribes/tribal groupings reported1 One tribe/tribal grouping reported Two or more tribes/tribal groupings reported1
American Indian and Alaska Native (300, A01-Z99) Tallied1 101 595 6 582 31 572 3 766 143 515
American Indian and Alaska Native (300, A01-Z99) Total population 101 595 3 276 31 572 1 869 138 312
American Indian (Continental USA) 5 070 628 6 273 1 046 13 017
Alaskan Athabascan tribal grouping (M52-N27) 12 318 594 3 398 355 16 665
Tlingit-Haida tribal grouping (N28-N55, N59-N66) 8 547 526 3 796 317 13 186
Tsimshian tribal grouping (N56-N58) 1 449 136 269 85 1 939
Inupiat tribal grouping (N67-P29, P33-P37) 20 941 565 3 899 282 25 687
Yup'ik tribal grouping (P30-P32, P38-R10) 27 329 577 2 741 221 30 868
Aleut tribal grouping (R11-R98, S01-S99) 7 696 496 2 715 309 11 216
Alaska Native, not specified (M44-M51)3 17 051 16 8 127 3 25 197
American Indian or Alaska Native tribes, not specified (300)4 2 708 - 921 - 3 629

According to the 2010 census this was the ethnic breakdown of Alaska Natives by region, the total is 100% for each region:

Region % of Alaskan Athabascan % of Aleut % of Inupiat % of Tlingit-Haida % of Tsimshian % of Yupik % of other tribes
Aleutians East Borough 0.63% 95.58% 0.25% 0.13% 0.00% 0.76% 2.65%
Aleutians West Census Area 1.74% 83.03% 2.72% 1.85% 1.31% 3.37% 5.98%
Anchorage Municipality 16.28% 14.97% 22.94% 8.42% 0.83% 18.17% 18.39%
Bethel Census Area 1.44% 0.34% 3.29% 0.18% 0.01% 93.65% 1.09%
Bristol Bay Borough 1.74% 35.43% 1.74% 0.22% 0.00% 54.13% 6.74%
Denali Borough 38.30% 5.32% 6.38% 0.00% 0.00% 9.57% 40.43%
Dillingham Census Area 1.08% 3.34% 2.67% 0.22% 0.00% 91.16% 1.53%
Fairbanks North Star Borough 48.79% 2.77% 17.37% 3.45% 0.12% 7.06% 20.44%
Haines Borough 0.00% 1.42% 1.77% 75.53% 0.35% 2.13% 18.79%
Hoonah-Angoon Census Area 1.48% 1.17% 3.28% 84.85% 0.00% 1.06% 8.16%
Juneau City and Borough 2.34% 3.65% 3.42% 75.13% 2.24% 2.22% 11.00%
Kenai Peninsula Borough 29.02% 17.81% 13.88% 5.03% 0.54% 11.54% 22.18%
Ketchikan Gateway Borough 3.36% 5.71% 1.55% 62.37% 14.74% 0.97% 11.29%
Kodiak Island Borough 2.29% 78.11% 1.80% 2.19% 0.05% 5.11% 10.46%
Lake and Peninsula Borough 18.41% 54.27% 1.59% 1.59% 0.18% 21.59% 2.38%
Matanuska-Susitna Borough 16.61% 15.31% 17.88% 6.57% 0.41% 13.00% 30.21%
Nome Census Area 1.03% 0.32% 67.46% 0.33% 0.05% 29.60% 1.21%
North Slope Borough 0.83% 0.20% 95.72% 0.36% 0.00% 1.37% 1.52%
Northwest Arctic Borough 0.75% 0.29% 96.52% 0.29% 0.14% 1.08% 0.93%
Petersburg Census Area 0.72% 2.87% 2.01% 82.09% 0.43% 0.14% 11.75%
Prince of Wales-Hyder Census Area 0.79% 1.63% 1.94% 41.43% 47.38% 1.50% 5.33%
Sitka City and Borough 2.36% 4.03% 3.72% 72.98% 3.40% 3.14% 10.37%
Skagway Municipality 0.00% 15.22% 4.35% 47.83% 13.04% 0.00% 19.57%
Southeast Fairbanks Census Area 77.20% 1.05% 6.49% 1.88% 0.00% 2.41% 10.98%
Valdez-Cordova Census Area 42.61% 29.24% 5.16% 3.95% 0.70% 4.14% 14.20%
Wade Hampton Census Area 0.52% 0.31% 13.13% 0.05% 0.00% 85.65% 0.34%
Wrangell City and Borough 1.23% 7.80% 1.23% 72.07% 4.11% 0.41% 13.14%
Yakutat City and Borough 6.62% 3.48% 6.27% 77.70% 0.00% 2.44% 3.48%
Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area 95.51% 0.25% 1.78% 0.08% 0.00% 1.20% 1.18%

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Alaska Natives

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia

Alaska Natives are the of , encompassing diverse ethnic groups such as the , , Unangax̂ (Aleut), Athabascans, , Haida, and , who have inhabited the region for thousands of years through specialized adaptations to , , and Pacific coastal environments reliant on subsistence , , and gathering. These groups developed distinct cultures shaped by geographic isolation and resource availability, with technologies including kayaks, umiaks, snowshoes, and sophisticated oral traditions for knowledge transmission. Alaska's indigenous languages belong primarily to two major families—Inuit-Aleut and Athabascan-Eyak-Tlingit—with at least 20 distinct languages spoken historically, many now endangered due to historical disruptions. In the 2020 United States Census, approximately 133,311 individuals identified as Alaska Native alone, representing a growth of 10.9% from the previous decade, while the alone-or-in-combination population exceeded 229,000, constituting about 19% of 's total residents. Pre-contact societies were organized into semi-nomadic bands or more sedentary villages, emphasizing , , and trade networks extending across . European contact beginning in the introduced diseases, exploitation, and missionary influences that decimated populations and eroded traditional practices, though resilience is evident in modern assertions of sovereignty via the of 1971, which established for-profit corporations to manage ancestral lands. Today, Alaska Natives maintain vital roles in subsistence economies, , and cultural revitalization efforts amid ongoing challenges like climate change impacts on traditional resources.

Peoples and Linguistic Groups

Major Ethnic Groups

The major ethnic groups among Alaska Natives are categorized primarily by linguistic and cultural affiliations, falling into two principal language families: the Eskimo-Aleut family, encompassing , , and Unangax̂ (Aleut) peoples; and the Na-Dene family, including Athabascan, , and groups, with additional Northwest Coast peoples such as Haida and who speak isolate or unrelated languages but share regional cultural traits. These groups number approximately 133,000 individuals identifying as Alaska Native alone in the 2020 U.S. Census, comprising about 15.7% of Alaska's total population, though self-identification can vary due to intermarriage and multiracial reporting. The , part of the branch, form one of the largest groups with around 33,900 members as of 2021 estimates, concentrated in southwestern along the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and regions, where they traditionally relied on hunting, fishing, and seasonal migrations adapted to wetlands. Subgroups include Central (the most numerous), Pacific Yup'ik (Sugpiaq or in the Kodiak and areas), and Siberian Yup'ik on , speaking mutually intelligible but distinct dialects. Closely related are the Iñupiat (also spelled Inupiaq), numbering about 33,400, who inhabit northern and northwestern from the North Slope to the , with extensions into Arctic Canada and under the broader umbrella; their culture emphasizes , caribou hunting, and igloo construction suited to Arctic tundra environments. The Unangax̂ (Aleut), speaking an Eskimo-Aleut language, total fewer than 2,000 and reside in the and western Alaska's , historically adapted to maritime hunting of sea otters, seals, and whales using kayaks and open-sea skills, though populations declined sharply post-Russian contact due to and exploitation. Interior Athabascans, part of the Na-Dene family, include subgroups such as , Gwich'in, Tanana, and Ahtna, numbering around 15,000-20,000 collectively, occupying central and interior Alaska's boreal forests and rivers, with subsistence economies centered on salmon fishing, moose hunting, and birch-bark technologies. Southeast Alaska hosts the Tlingit, with approximately 10,000-15,000 members speaking a Na-Dene language, known for totem pole carving, potlatch ceremonies, and salmon-based coastal economies in the Alexander Archipelago; nearby Haida (about 2,000 in Alaska, transplanted from ) and Tsimshian (around 1,500, also migrants to Metlakatla) represent Northwest Coast traditions with plank-house villages and clan-based social structures, though their languages are isolates. The Eyak, a small Na-Dene group near Eyak Lake, numbered fewer than 100 fluent speakers by the 2000s and are considered nearly extinct as a distinct linguistic entity. ![Aleut in festival dress](./assets/Tikhanov_-Aleut_in_Festival_Dress_in_Alaska18181818

![Koyukon Athabaskan](./assets/Will_Yaska_of_Pueblo%252C_Colorado%252C_a_Koyukon_anAlaskaNativeAthabaskanpeoplean_Alaska_Native_Athabaskan_people

Languages and Cultural Diversity

Alaska Native languages belong to four primary language families: the Eskimo-Aleut (also known as Inuit-Yupik-Unangan), the Na-Dene (specifically ), Haida, and , encompassing at least 20 to 23 distinct languages that developed independently over millennia. These languages are not mere dialects but represent separate linguistic systems tied to specific cultural practices, with variations reflecting geographic isolation and adaptive needs in , , and coastal environments. The Eskimo-Aleut family predominates in western and northern , including (spoken by in the ), various such as Central Alaskan (with around 10,000 speakers as of recent estimates), St. Lawrence Island , and Siberian , as well as Unangax̂ (Aleut) in the and /Sugpiaq along the southcentral coast. These languages feature polysynthetic structures, where words incorporate multiple morphemes to convey complex ideas efficiently, supporting oral traditions of and environmental knowledge essential for hunting and seasonal migrations. In contrast, the Na-Dene family covers interior and some southern regions, with 11 Athabascan languages like Ahtna, Dena'ina, , and Gwich'in, each adapted to riverine and forested subsistence economies focused on fishing, hunting, and trapping. , an Eyak-Athabascan relative or distinct branch, is spoken in the southeast panhandle, alongside the isolate-like Haida and the more recent migrant language; became functionally extinct with the death of its last fluent speaker in 2008. Cultural diversity among Alaska Natives mirrors this linguistic fragmentation, with 11 major ethno-linguistic groups including , , Unangax̂, Sugpiaq, Athabascan (), Tlingit, Haida, , and , each exhibiting unique social organizations, art forms, and technologies shaped by . Northern and emphasize communal whaling and skin-boat construction, while southeast Tlingit and Haida developed hierarchical clans with totem poles and copper-based status symbols for ceremonies. Interior Athabascans relied on birch-bark canoes and seasonal camps for caribou and berry harvesting, fostering egalitarian kinship systems. Most Alaska Native languages are severely endangered, with the majority having fewer than 100 fluent speakers and no children acquiring them as first languages, a decline accelerated by 19th- and 20th-century assimilation policies but rooted in low population densities and contact-induced shifts to English. Revitalization efforts, including immersion schools and the 2024 AYARUQ Action Plan by the Alaska Native Language Preservation Council, aim to document and teach these languages, though success varies; for instance, Central Yup'ik retains relative vitality due to community programs, while others like Haida have under 20 speakers. This linguistic erosion threatens associated cultural knowledge, such as place names encoding ecological histories and oral laws governing resource use.

Demographics

In the 2020 U.S. , 133,311 individuals identified solely as Native, comprising approximately 18.2% of 's total of 733,391; this marked a 10.9% increase from the 120,199 recorded in the 2010 . The category of Native alone or in combination with other races showed substantially faster growth of 45.6% over the same decade, consistent with national patterns where multiracial identifications among American Indian and Native (AIAN) groups surged due to expanded self-reporting options and demographic shifts. Historical data indicate a gradual recovery and expansion from early 20th-century lows, when epidemics and colonial impacts had reduced numbers to around 29,000 in 1900. By 1990, the alone approached 94,000, growing 28% to over 120,000 by 2010 amid higher rates relative to non-Natives, though net out-migration began exerting downward pressure. Post-2010 growth moderated, with the alone category's 10.9% decennial rise lagging the state's overall 3.3% increase, attributable to converging birth rates (now near replacement levels) and persistent rural-to-urban outflows.
Census YearAlaska Native Alone PopulationPercent Change from Prior Decade
2010120,199-
2020133,311+10.9%
Demographic profiles reveal a younger median age for Alaska Natives (around 29 years in recent estimates) compared to the state average, supporting potential for future growth despite challenges like higher rates (24% in 2020) and lower (83% high school completion). Projections suggest continued modest expansion through 2050, tempered by economic factors and migration, with the alone population potentially reaching 150,000–160,000 absent major policy shifts.

Geographic Distribution and Urbanization

Alaska Natives constitute the majority of the American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) population in , with 77% of the U.S. Alaska Native alone population of 133,311 residing there as of the 2020 . Their geographic distribution aligns closely with ancestral territories shaped by ecological adaptations: groups predominate in the North and Northwest Arctic regions, Yup'ik and Cup'ik in the Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta and areas of southwestern , Unangax̂ (Aleut) along the and , Eyak and Tlingit-Haida-Tsimshian in the coastal southeast panhandle, and Dena'ina, Ahtna, and other Athabascan subgroups in the vast interior and southcentral highlands. High-density concentrations occur in rural boroughs and census areas, such as Bethel Census Area (84% Alaska Native alone), North Borough (over 80%), and Yukon-Koyukuk Census Area (around 70%), where populations cluster in over 200 remote villages averaging fewer than 500 residents each. Urbanization among Alaska Natives has accelerated since the mid-20th century, driven by economic factors including limited rural , access to and healthcare, and infrastructure development post-ANCSA. As of , a slight majority resided in urban centers like Anchorage (home to approximately 40,000 Alaska Natives, comprising 12% of the city's population), Fairbanks, and Juneau, compared to rural villages. Recent estimates indicate roughly 50% now live in urban or semi-urban settings statewide, though this varies by subgroup— and Athabascan peoples remain more rural-bound due to subsistence dependencies, while southeast groups show higher urban integration. Rural-to-urban migration persists but has slowed since the 1990s, with many maintaining ties through seasonal returns or village corporations, amid challenges like elevated urban poverty rates (around 25% for Alaska Natives versus 10% statewide). This shift reflects causal pressures from resource extraction economies favoring urban hubs, though over half of Alaska Natives overall retain rural residences, underscoring persistent cultural and economic attachments to village life.

Historical Origins

Pre-Colonial Migrations and Societies

Human entry into Alaska occurred via , the exposed connecting and Alaska during the , with archaeological evidence indicating initial occupation around 14,000 years () during the Eastern Beringian . Sites such as Swan Point in the Tanana River basin yield microblade tools, atlatl spear points, and faunal remains of , , and mammoth ivory, suggesting small mobile groups of big-game hunters adapted to steppe-tundra environments. This migration aligns with broader , though debates persist on whether interior ice-free corridors or submerged coastal routes facilitated dispersal, as rising sea levels post-glaciation have obscured potential early coastal sites. By approximately 12,900–7,000 , the American Paleoarctic Tradition (including the Denali Complex) dominated , featuring continued microblade technology for composite tools and early consumption evidenced at 11,500 in sites like Upward Sun River, where child burials with antler artifacts indicate ritual practices. These populations adapted to warming through diversified subsistence, hunting caribou and smaller game while exploiting anadromous fish, marking a shift from megafauna reliance amid extinctions. Coastal adaptations emerged concurrently, with the Early Anangula phase in the Aleutians (9,400–7,000 ) showing burins, stone lamps, and maritime focus, precursor to Unangan (Aleut) societies. Mid- to late-Holocene developments saw regional specialization: the Northern Archaic Tradition (8,000–2,500 BP) in the interior emphasized caribou drives with notched points, evolving into the Athabaskan Tradition by 1,700 BP, which introduced bow-and-arrow, copper tools, and intensified salmon weirs for semi-sedentary bands ancestral to modern Athabaskans. In the , the Ocean Bay Tradition (8,600–4,000 BP) transitioned to Kachemak and Koniag phases, featuring toggling harpoons, large shell middens, and multi-room houses for sea mammal and salmon storage, linking to /Sugpiaq groups. Northern coastal areas hosted the Arctic Small Tool Tradition (ca. 2,500–1,000 BP), with small lithics for engraving and hunting, followed by culture expansion around 1,000 BP—employing umiaks, dogsleds, and —displacing prior groups and establishing Inupiaq and societies through technological superiority in open-water hunting. Pre-colonial Alaska Native societies comprised egalitarian, kin-based bands of 20–100 individuals, with seasonal between coastal and interior camps to optimize resource availability, fostering oral knowledge transmission and cooperative labor in hunts or fish camps. Evidence from middens, house pits, and artifacts reveals inter-group trade in and shells, occasional conflict indicated by defensive sites, and spiritual elements like shamanistic burials, though population densities remained low (estimated <1 person/km²) due to harsh climates constraining . These adaptations underscore causal links between environmental variability—such as Neoglacial cooling—and innovations in storage and mobility, enabling persistence until European contact.

Traditional Adaptive Strategies

Alaska Natives developed diverse adaptive strategies to exploit regional resources in harsh and environments, emphasizing mobility, seasonal resource cycles, and technologies optimized for survival. Archaeological evidence indicates early inhabitants, such as those of the Eastern Beringian Tradition around 14,000–12,000 years ago, relied on atlatls and spears for like and , as evidenced by osseous spear tips at Swan Point site dated to 13,800 years ago. Later interior groups, including Athabaskans from approximately 1,700 years ago, shifted to bow-and-arrow of caribou and —comprising 75% of faunal remains at sites like those in the Copper River basin—and fishing, supplemented by gathering plants and small game. Coastal and maritime adaptations, seen in traditions like Norton (2,500–1,000 years ago) and (from around 1,000 AD), centered on marine mammals such as seals, , and whales, using toggling harpoons and open-skin umiaks for , with netted in rivers. At sites like Nunalleq in , pre-contact subsistence balanced , caribou, and marine mammals, demonstrating resilience to climatic shifts like the through diversified harvesting. Housing emphasized thermal efficiency, with semi-subterranean pit houses common across regions for insulation against extreme cold. Interior Athabaskan villages featured large house pits in river valleys for winter occupancy, while coastal groups constructed sod-roofed, oval structures with hearths and sleeping benches, as in Kachemak Tradition sites (4,000–950 years ago) on . Aleutian Islanders evolved from ephemeral camps around 9,000 years ago to multi-room, stone-lined semi-subterranean dwellings by 4,000–3,000 years ago at Margaret Bay, incorporating whalebone frameworks. Temporary snow or skin tents facilitated seasonal mobility for hunting migrations. Technological innovations included microblades for cutting tools in early maritime traditions (e.g., Denbigh phase, 5,500–2,300 years ago) and ground slate ulus for processing hides and meat in later coastal economies. Kayaks enabled solo hunting in waters, while dog traction for sleds, adopted by peoples, enhanced overland transport of heavy loads like whale meat. from caribou, seal, and furs provided layered insulation, with evidence of processing at Northern Archaic sites (6,000–2,500 years ago). These strategies, grounded in empirical knowledge of animal behaviors and seasonal patterns, sustained populations through environmental variability prior to European contact.

Colonial Encounters

Russian Colonization (1741–1867)

The Russian colonization of Alaska began with the Second Kamchatka Expedition led by Vitus Bering, which sighted the Alaskan mainland in July 1741 under the command of Aleksei Chirikov, marking the first European contact with the region. Bering's death later that year did not deter Russian interest, as reports of abundant sea otters fueled the promyshlenniki—independent fur traders—who ventured into the Aleutian Islands starting in the 1740s to exploit the maritime fur trade. These traders coerced Unangan (Aleut) men into hunting sea otters and fur seals through violent means, including taking women and children as hostages (amanaty) to ensure compliance, while establishing temporary outposts. This exploitation devastated Alaska Native populations, particularly the and (Sugpiaq), who bore the brunt of forced labor, intertribal raids instigated by , and introduced epidemics like and . Pre-contact Aleut numbers, estimated at 12,000–18,000 across the Aleutians, plummeted to fewer than 1,500 by 1820–1821 due to these factors, representing an over 90% decline. Conflicts erupted, such as the 1763–1766 uprising in Unalaska where destroyed four Russian vessels and killed around 175 traders, prompting retaliatory raids that further reduced native autonomy. The first permanent Russian settlement was established on in 1784 by Shelekhov, who massacred villagers resisting encroachment, solidifying Russian claims but intensifying native subjugation. In 1799, Tsar Paul I chartered the as a monopoly to regulate the fur and , centralizing operations from New Archangel (Sitka) after conflicts with in 1802 and 1804. The company continued relying on native labor under iasak tribute systems, though it introduced some reforms like hospitals in Sitka, Kodiak, and Unalaska by 1821 and Russian Orthodox missions that baptized thousands of natives, offering limited protections against abuse. Inland Athabaskans and experienced less direct control, trading sporadically or resisting incursions, but coastal groups remained economically dependent on the declining fur resources. By 1867, amid fur depletion and administrative costs, Russia sold to the for $7.2 million, ending formal without consulting native inhabitants.

American Acquisition and Early Administration (1867–1959)

The acquired Alaska from through the Treaty of Cession signed on March 30, 1867, for $7.2 million, equivalent to roughly two cents per acre, without consulting or recognizing the aboriginal land claims of Alaska Natives, who occupied nearly all the territory. The treaty explicitly subjected "uncivilized native tribes" to future U.S. laws but made no provisions for treaties, reservations, or Native sovereignty, treating the region as unoccupied except for Russian interests. Formal transfer occurred on October 18, 1867, at Sitka, where U.S. Secretary of State William Seward raised the American flag amid minimal ceremony and sparse initial settlement. Early governance fell under military jurisdiction from 1867 to 1877, followed by Treasury Department oversight until the of 1884 established a basic civil administration with a and judicial , though enforcement remained limited due to the territory's remoteness and low non-Native of fewer than 1,000 in 1880. Alaska Natives, comprising about half of the total estimated residents circa 1880, faced neglect in policy, with U.S. officials prioritizing revenue from fur seals and customs over Native welfare or rights. The absence of formal treaties left unresolved, allowing gradual encroachment on Native lands through resource extraction without compensation or legal recourse. Diseases introduced or exacerbated by American contact accelerated Native population declines already underway from Russian-era epidemics, with the 1918-1919 alone killing up to 60% in some communities like Nome and one-third in Unalaska. By 1939, the Native population had fallen to around 25,000 from pre-purchase estimates exceeding 50,000, driven by , , and against which Natives lacked immunity, compounded by inadequate medical . These mortality rates stemmed from increased mobility of traders and miners disrupting isolation, rather than deliberate policy, though federal response was slow and underfunded. Economic transformations intensified after the of 1896-1899, drawing over 100,000 non-Natives and shifting control of fisheries, furs, and minerals away from Native subsistence systems toward commercial exploitation. Natives were barred from staking mining claims or owning under territorial laws until amendments in the early , forcing many into low-wage labor for white operators and eroding traditional economies based on seasonal harvesting. Overharvesting of seals and by American companies further depleted resources vital to Native survival, with little regulatory protection until the . Federal policies emphasized assimilation over autonomy, led by Presbyterian missionary , appointed General Agent for Education in 1885, who established over 20 mission schools by 1900 to teach English, Christianity, and vocational skills while discouraging Native languages and customs. To address famine risks from declining caribou herds, Jackson imported 1,280 from and starting in 1892, distributing them to and communities; by 1900, herds numbered over 10,000, providing a partial buffer against but introducing herding dependencies and interspecies competition. The 1906 Nelson Act extended some Bureau of Education oversight but denied Natives full citizenship rights until the 1924 , leaving them ineligible to vote in territorial elections or access allotments without congressional approval. By the 1950s, unresolved land claims and cultural erosion fueled Native organizing, though federal administration persisted without resolving , setting the stage for post-statehood activism; territorial data showed Natives at 18% of Alaska's 128,000 residents in , reflecting ongoing demographic shifts from migration and mortality.

Modern Political and Economic Transformations

Path to Statehood and Native Activism (1959–1971)

Alaska achieved statehood on , 1959, granting it the right to select up to 103 million acres from the federal public domain for transfer to . However, longstanding aboriginal claims by Alaska Natives, which covered vast portions of the , remained unresolved and encumbered federal transfers, as the Statehood Act preserved these claims in status quo without extinguishing them. This created immediate tensions, as the new state sought to assert control over resources while Native groups asserted overlapping rights based on historical occupancy and use, prompting early organizational efforts among Natives to protect their interests. In the mid-1960s, Native activism coalesced around land claims , with regional associations emerging to coordinate responses to state and federal land selections. The pivotal development occurred in October 1966, when the Alaska Federation of Natives (AFN) was established in Anchorage through a three-day convention organized by Athabascan leader Emil Notti, drawing over 400 representatives from 17 Native organizations statewide. The AFN aimed to unify Native voices in lobbying for a comprehensive settlement that recognized , filed lawsuits to assert claims, and pressured federal officials amid growing state encroachments. In November 1966, U.S. Secretary of the Interior responded by issuing Public Land Order No. 4582, which withdrew approximately 80 million acres from selection to maintain the status quo pending resolution of Native claims. The discovery of massive oil reserves at Prudhoe Bay on March 12, 1968, by dramatically escalated the stakes, as the field held an estimated 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil, spurring plans for the from the North Slope to Valdez. Native groups, led by the AFN, strategically filed land claim lawsuits overlapping the proposed pipeline route, effectively stalling federal right-of-way approvals and construction under the Mineral Leasing Act, which required clear title. This activism, combined with congressional hearings and negotiations, underscored the economic imperative of settlement, as unresolved claims threatened billions in potential revenue, ultimately propelling federal momentum toward legislation by 1971.

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and Corporate Formation

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), signed into law by President Richard Nixon on December 18, 1971, resolved aboriginal land title claims asserted by Alaska Natives against the federal government by providing a comprehensive settlement in lieu of reservations or tribal trust lands. The legislation extinguished all native claims to land in Alaska, including associated subsistence hunting and fishing rights derived from aboriginal title, and transferred title to approximately 44 million acres of federal land—about 11% of the state's total area—along with $962.5 million in cash payments, derived from mineral leasing revenues and appropriations. These assets were allocated exclusively to for-profit corporate entities rather than governmental or communal structures, marking a departure from prior indigenous land settlements in the contiguous United States. ANCSA mandated the formation of 12 regional corporations, each corresponding to a geographic region encompassing native communities with shared linguistic or cultural ties, and over 200 village corporations tied to specific settlements. Regional corporations received the bulk of the cash settlement—$462.5 million initially, plus 70% of future resource revenues from federal lands—and subsurface mineral rights across designated areas, while village corporations obtained surface rights to 1.58 million acres per community and $462.5 million in shared funds. A 13th regional corporation, established in 1973 for Alaska Natives residing outside the state, received cash but no land. Corporations were required to enroll eligible shareholders—Alaska Natives born before December 18, 1971, with at least one-quarter Alaska Native blood quantum—and issue 100 shares per enrollee, granting ownership stakes in the entity's land and revenues without direct individual land allotments. Formation of these corporations proceeded rapidly following ANCSA's passage, with regional entities incorporating under Alaska state law by mid-1972 and village corporations organizing thereafter, often amid logistical challenges in remote areas. Shareholders elected boards of directors to manage assets, develop resources such as timber, , and fisheries, and distribute dividends, with initial restrictions prohibiting share sales or transfers for 20 years to preserve native control. The corporate model emphasized private enterprise and economic self-sufficiency, enabling natives to participate in market-driven development while federal oversight ensured compliance through the Bureau of Land Management's patenting of lands between 1973 and 1994. By design, ANCSA avoided enhancing tribal , treating corporate-held lands as fee-simple subject to state and taxes, though subsurface estate separations preserved native control over minerals.

Post-ANCSA Developments and Sovereignty Debates (1971–Present)

The (ANCSA) of 1971 led to the rapid formation of 12 regional corporations and over 200 village corporations by Native shareholders, with initial cash distributions commencing in 1975 totaling $962.5 million and conveyance of approximately 44 million acres of land completed by September 1979. These for-profit entities, structured under Alaska and federal corporate law rather than tribal governance frameworks, received fee-simple title to lands, extinguishing aboriginal claims and most reservations except Metlakatla. The 1991 amendments allowed corporations to issue shares to Natives born after 1971, expanding enrollment to over 138,000 by fiscal year 2018, though six regional corporations opted against this, limiting eligibility for younger generations. Economically, the corporations capitalized on oil revenues from federal leases enabled by ANCSA, diversifying into sectors like construction, healthcare, and government contracting under the Small Business Administration's 8(a) program. By 2023, 22 of Alaska's top 49 revenue-generating businesses were Native corporations, with examples including Calista Corporation achieving $969 million in gross revenue, a 23% increase from 2022. Cumulative dividends exceeded $3 billion since inception, with fiscal year 2018 payouts ranging from $300 to $3,700 per 100 shares, alongside over $107 million in scholarships awarded to more than 54,000 recipients since 1977. Section 7(i) profit-sharing mandates supported $352 million in economic activity and 2,300–2,800 jobs in fiscal year 2015 alone, contributing to broader state growth despite early bankruptcies among some village corporations in the 1980s oil downturn. Sovereignty debates emerged as ANCSA's corporate model clashed with traditional communal and , prioritizing over reservation-style to avoid perpetuating dependency, per congressional design. Critics, including tribal advocates, argue it fragmented communities by enabling land sales—over 20% of selected acres alienated by the 1990s—and subordinated Native priorities to shareholder profits, undermining cultural continuity and subsistence rights. Proponents counter that the model fostered , with corporations amassing billions in assets and employing tens of thousands, far outperforming many lower-48 tribal enterprises mired in bureaucracy. Proposals to transfer corporate lands to tribes for trust status have surfaced repeatedly, as in 1987 discussions, to restore jurisdictional authority, though implementation has stalled amid corporate resistance and federal reluctance. A pivotal ruling in Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (1998) held that ANCSA fee lands do not constitute "" under federal law, as they were neither set aside by the government nor formed a dependent Indian community post-settlement, thereby invalidating the Venetie Tribe's business activity tax on a state-funded school project. This decision curtailed tribes' ability to regulate nonmembers on former reservation lands, exacerbating debates under Public Law 83-280, which mandates state criminal jurisdiction in absent federal delegation. Post-Venetie, the recognizes 229 Alaska Native villages as tribes with inherent powers over members—such as in and domestic relations—but territorial jurisdiction remains membership-based, excluding outsiders from villages. Contemporary developments include self-governance compacts with the federal government for over 20 tribes, enabling administrative flexibility in services like health and education, though without expanded land rights. Litigation persists on subsistence hunting protections under Title VIII of ANCSA, prioritizing rural Natives amid resource competition, while economic disparities—corporate wealth versus village poverty—fuel calls for hybrid models blending corporate assets with tribal authority. Federal recognition affirms tribes' existence but limits immunity and taxation powers, reflecting ANCSA's enduring tension between economic pragmatism and sovereignty aspirations.

Cultural Practices and Subsistence

Subsistence Harvesting and Traditional Knowledge

Subsistence harvesting remains a cornerstone of Alaska Native economies and cultures, involving the customary and traditional use of wild resources for food, materials, and cultural practices. This includes fishing for salmon and other species, hunting marine mammals like seals and whales, terrestrial mammals such as moose and caribou, and gathering berries, plants, and eggs. Federal law under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 prioritizes subsistence uses by rural residents, including Alaska Natives, on federal lands, recognizing these practices as integral to community sustenance and identity. Recent data indicate that rural Alaska residents, predominantly including Native communities, harvest approximately 295 pounds of wild foods per person annually, far exceeding non-rural consumption rates of about 19 pounds per person. Aggregate subsistence harvests across rural total around 36.9 million edible pounds yearly, with fish comprising 53%, land mammals 23%, and marine mammals 14% of the yield. These activities are regulated through the Federal Subsistence Management Program, which employs regional advisory councils to recommend harvest limits and ensure sustainability based on population data and customary practices. Traditional knowledge, accumulated over generations through empirical observation and adaptive strategies, underpins these harvesting practices, enabling sustainable resource use in harsh and environments. This knowledge encompasses seasonal migration patterns, animal behaviors, and dynamics, often validated by long-term and integrated with modern in collaborative efforts. For instance, Alaska Native insights have informed U.S. Geological Survey studies on and , demonstrating the empirical rigor of these systems comparable to Western . Such facilitates efficient harvesting while minimizing waste, as guided by cultural protocols like sharing first catches with elders and respecting animal spirits. However, evolving regulations for migratory birds and marine mammals, such as those under 50 CFR Part 92, balance Native customary uses with conservation, allowing sales of certain byproducts while restricting live animal . Climate variability and resource pressures challenge transmission of this , yet programs like those from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game promote its documentation to support ongoing viability.

Cultural Continuity Amid Modern Influences

Alaska Natives maintain cultural continuity through persistent subsistence practices that integrate traditional harvesting with modern technologies, such as snowmobiles and rifles, enabling efficient pursuit of , game, and plants central to their identity. In rural communities, tens of thousands of Alaska Natives annually harvest millions of pounds of wild resources, including , , and berries, with subsistence prioritized over commercial uses by federal and state laws enacted since the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980. A study of over 1,000 Alaska Natives found that 75% regularly consume , 42% , and 41% as traditional foods, with women reporting higher intake rates, underscoring the ongoing nutritional and cultural role of these practices amid imported food availability. Language revitalization efforts represent a key domain of cultural preservation, though challenged by endangerment affecting most of the 20 distinct . Organizations like the Sealaska Heritage Institute conduct immersion programs and produce fluent speakers, but legislative testimony in 2012 noted that many initiatives yield only basic vocabulary rather than conversational proficiency, highlighting the difficulty in reversing intergenerational transmission loss. Federal funding, including $5.7 million awarded in 2023 to tribes for Native language projects, supports community-driven curricula and media, yet fluency rates remain low, with fewer than 2% of Head Start-enrolled children primarily speaking at home as of 2015. Traditional arts, dances, and festivals blend historical motifs with contemporary expressions, fostering intergenerational knowledge transfer in urban and rural settings. Performances of drum dancing and occur at events like the Alaska Native Heritage Center gatherings, where carvings in ivory, wood, and depict ancestral themes using both ancient techniques and modern tools. Alaska Native Corporations, formed under the 1971 , allocate dividends to fund cultural centers, scholarships, and events, such as language classes and burials honoring traditional rites, thereby institutionalizing support for practices in a . National Park Service partnerships since the early 2000s document oral histories and subsistence patterns, aiding adaptive strategies that sustain customs like seasonal camps despite climate variability and development pressures.

Economic Structures

Alaska Native Corporations: Achievements and Operations

Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs), established under the of 1971, function as for-profit entities owned by Native shareholders, managing approximately 44 million acres of land and investing in diverse sectors including , , government contracting, fisheries, , and . These corporations operate through subsidiaries and joint ventures, leveraging federal programs like the Small Business Administration's 8(a) initiative to secure contracts, which contributed over $11 billion in federal revenue for ANCs in 2021. Regional corporations, numbering 12, focus on broad across Alaska's regions, while over 200 village corporations handle local resource management and smaller-scale enterprises. ANCs have achieved substantial , with regional corporations reporting combined revenues exceeding $10.5 billion in 2018, representing nearly half of Alaska's top rankings by revenue. By 2022, standout performers like (ASRC) attained $4.8 billion in revenue, marking its highest in 50 years, while Bering Straits Native Corporation reached a record $500 million. Doyon Limited, representing over 20,000 shareholders across 12.5 million acres in , has sustained profitability through strategic investments in contracting and resource development, distributing dividends and employing thousands. These operations have generated over 15,700 jobs for Alaskans in 2018, including significant Native employment, and facilitated Section 7(i) that injected $352 million into other ANCs in 2015. Key achievements include transforming ANCSA's initial $962.5 million cash settlement and land conveyances into multi-billion-dollar enterprises that enhance shareholder wealth via annual dividends—such as Koniag Corporation's $71.9 million on $821 million in sales for 2023—and support community reinvestment programs. ANCs' diversification has bolstered Alaska's , with revenues from regional corporations alone reaching $9.1 billion in fiscal year 2017, funding , , and cultural preservation initiatives while mitigating reliance on subsistence alone. Despite operational challenges like remote , successes in federal contracting and resource extraction have positioned ANCs as engines of Native-led economic , with total assets growing to support long-term stability.

Economic Challenges and Dependency Critiques

Despite substantial revenues generated by Alaska Native Corporations (ANCs) established under the (ANCSA) of 1971, Alaska Natives continue to experience elevated rates. During 2015–2019, approximately 29.8% of Alaska Natives lived in , an increase of 2.2 points from 2009–2013, with regional variations ranging from 15.6% to 34.9% across Tribal health regions. This rate exceeds the national average and reflects persistent disparities, even as ANCs reported collective assets exceeding $25 billion by the 2010s. among Alaska Natives remains disproportionately high, with the 2024 Alaska state government report indicating a 15.8% rate for those identifying as Alaska Native or American Indian, the highest among racial groups in the state. Remote village locations exacerbate these challenges, limiting access to diverse employment opportunities and contributing to labor underutilization beyond official metrics. Critiques of economic dependency highlight how ANCSA's corporate model, while fostering aggregate wealth, has failed to translate into broad-based self-sufficiency for many shareholders, particularly in rural areas. Tribal governments and villages often lack independent bases, relying heavily on federal for operations, which critics attribute to ANCSA's elimination of traditional communal land holdings in favor of privatized corporate shares. This structure has led to disparities in benefits, with urban-based ANCs accruing profits from federal contracts—often employing non-Natives—while remote villages receive minimal dividends, perpetuating and outmigration. ANCs' heavy dependence on set-aside contracts, comprising a significant portion of their , raises concerns about vulnerability to policy shifts and insufficient incentives for market-driven innovation. Further critiques argue that ANCSA's emphasis on shareholder dividends and corporate profits has inadvertently encouraged welfare and transfer dependency over entrepreneurial or subsistence-based independence. Statewide, government transfers accounted for 20.6% of total income in 2022, a sharp rise from 3.7% in 1970, with Alaska Natives facing amplified exposure due to higher baseline and . Observers, including Native scholars, contend that the imposition of a capitalist framework on communal societies disrupted traditional economies without adequate cultural safeguards, resulting in social fragmentation and sustained reliance on external rather than endogenous development. Empirical outcomes underscore this: despite ANCs' economic contributions, individual Alaska Native households exhibit welfare receipt patterns where higher education yields diminished returns against dependency compared to other groups, signaling structural barriers to labor market integration. These patterns prompt calls for reforms prioritizing village-level autonomy and diversified revenue to mitigate critiques of perpetual subsidization.

Tribal Sovereignty and Federal Recognition

Alaska Native tribes possess a form of tribal sovereignty derived from their status as federally recognized entities, with the (BIA) acknowledging 229 such tribes as of 2024, enabling a government-to-government relationship that includes inherent self-governance rights and eligibility for federal services, funding, and trust responsibilities. This recognition affirms tribes' authority to enact laws, maintain courts, and manage internal affairs for tribal members, rooted in pre-existing sovereign powers predating U.S. formation, though subject to plenary federal authority under the Indian Commerce Clause. Unlike tribes in the contiguous states, Native sovereignty operates without widespread reservations; the (ANCSA) of 1971 conveyed land titles to 13 regional and over 200 village corporations, extinguishing aboriginal claims and prioritizing corporate economic structures over territorial reservations, which limits tribal jurisdiction primarily to member-based matters rather than geographic domains. Federal recognition processes for Alaska tribes, formalized through BIA listings and administrative acknowledgments, do not follow the same petition-based procedures as in other states due to historical treaties, , and statutes unique to the region, including the and the adaptations. Tribes exercise sovereignty through village councils governing enrollment, child welfare under the , and limited criminal over Native offenders in certain areas, as affirmed in cases like Native Village of Venetie v. Alaska (1998), where the ruled that post-ANCSA lands lack "Indian country" status, curtailing federal enclave protections and exposing tribes to greater state oversight on public lands comprising 98% of . This member-focused jurisdiction contrasts with territorial models elsewhere, fostering debates on sovereignty's efficacy, with some analyses noting ANCSA's corporate model as diluting traditional by separating economic from political authority. In 2022, Alaska's state government advanced formal acknowledgment by enacting House Bill 123, signed into law by Governor Mike Dunleavy on July 28, recognizing the 229 federally recognized tribes and facilitating cooperative agreements on public safety, child welfare, and resource management, though this does not confer additional federal sovereignty or override state supremacy on non-Indian country matters. Ongoing tensions arise from state assertions of regulatory primacy, as in John v. Baker (1995, affirmed by ), which confined tribal court authority to disputes involving only tribal members, excluding non-Natives and prompting federal clarifications via the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 to bolster prosecutorial powers in Native villages. These dynamics reflect a hybrid sovereignty model, where federal recognition provides foundational self-rule but ANCSA's legacy and vast state-controlled lands constrain territorial autonomy compared to reservation-based tribes.

Interactions with State Authority and Land Rights Litigation

The unique structure of the of 1971, which transferred approximately 44 million acres of land and nearly $1 billion to Alaska Native corporations rather than to tribal reservations, fundamentally shaped interactions between Alaska Native tribes and state authority by extinguishing and emphasizing fee-simple ownership integrated into state and local tax systems. Unlike tribes in the , Alaska Native villages lack extensive "Indian country" designations, leading to persistent jurisdictional disputes where the state asserts broad authority over lands and non-member activities. This framework has prompted litigation testing tribal sovereignty, with federal recognition of 229 Alaska Native tribes affirmed by the since the 1990s, yet contested by state claims of plenary jurisdiction under Public Law 83-280, which partially delegates federal criminal authority to Alaska. A landmark case, Alaska v. Native Village of Venetie Tribal Government (1998), addressed whether ANCSA lands retained "Indian country" status for jurisdictional purposes. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that 1.8 million acres owned in fee simple by the Venetie tribe did not qualify as Indian country under 18 U.S.C. § 1151, as ANCSA conveyed full property rights without federal superintendence or set-aside restrictions, allowing the state to impose taxes on non-Native contractors operating there. This decision curtailed tribal taxing authority over non-members and affirmed state regulatory reach, influencing subsequent rulings that limited tribal civil jurisdiction on non-Indian country lands while preserving inherent powers over internal tribal matters. Critics, including tribal advocates, argued it undermined self-governance, but the ruling aligned with ANCSA's intent to promote economic assimilation over perpetual federal dependency. In contrast, John v. Baker (1999) affirmed tribal adjudicative authority in domestic matters. The held that federally recognized tribes retain inherent ty to resolve disputes between tribal members, even absent , requiring state courts to accord full faith and credit to tribal decrees under principles established in Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez (1978). The case stemmed from a custody battle between Anita John and John Baker, both Yup'ik Natives, where the tribal court awarded primary custody to John; the state was directed to enforce it, recognizing tribes' pre-existing powers not divested by ANCSA or statehood. This preserved tribal courts' role in over 200 villages for internal , though state criminal jurisdiction under PL 280 remains concurrent for major offenses. Land rights litigation continues, particularly over federal authority to place ANCSA-derived or other lands into trust under the . In 2023, a court initially ruled that the Department of the Interior could take land into trust for tribes like the Central Council of the Tlingit & Haida, potentially creating new , but this was vacated on appeal in 2024 amid state challenges asserting ANCSA's bar on such designations. Alaska's 2022 enactment of House Bill 123 marked a partial thaw, with Mike Dunleavy signing legislation formally recognizing the existence of federally recognized tribes and pledging cooperative government-to-government relations, though without conceding exclusive jurisdiction. These developments reflect ongoing tensions, where empirical data on high rural crime rates—such as Alaska's rate exceeding the national average by over 50% in Native villages—underscore debates over whether state authority enhances public safety or erodes tribal .

Social Challenges

Health Disparities and Life Expectancy

Alaska Natives experience significant health disparities compared to the U.S. general population, including higher mortality rates from chronic conditions, injuries, and . Leading causes of death among Alaska Natives include heart disease, cancer, unintentional injuries, , and , with rates exceeding national averages. For instance, mortality rates for American Indians and Alaska Natives were substantially higher than for in 2022, reflecting elevated prevalence driven by factors such as and limited preventive care access in remote areas. stands at 9.2 deaths per 1,000 live births, above the U.S. rate, while rates are markedly elevated, ranking as a top particularly among younger Alaska Natives. Life expectancy for Alaska Natives averages around 73 years, approximately 5.5 years lower than the U.S. all-races figure of 78.5 years, though regional variations exist, with some areas like the reaching 74.4 years. Official statistics may underestimate this gap due to racial misclassification in death records, which inflates reported by nearly four years; corrected analyses place American Indian and Alaska Native at 72.7 years nationally, with Alaska-specific data aligning closely amid geographic isolation exacerbating outcomes. The further widened disparities, dropping to as low as 65.2-68 years in 2021 for affected groups. These disparities stem from a combination of socioeconomic factors, including high and rates, rural inaccessibility limiting healthcare delivery, and behavioral risks such as elevated (higher than national averages despite reported figures) and alcohol-related . Empirical data from sources like the highlight that Alaska Natives face 600% higher rates and over 200% higher motor vehicle crash mortality compared to other , underscoring causal links to environmental hazards, subsistence lifestyles, and underfunded rather than solely historical narratives. Efforts to address these through tribal health consortia have shown localized improvements, but systemic challenges persist in bridging the expectancy gap.

Crime, Substance Abuse, and Family Structures

Alaska Native communities face elevated rates of compared to national averages, with , , and disproportionately affecting these populations. In 2023, Alaska's overall rate stood at 728 per 100,000 residents—double the U.S. rate of 364 per 100,000—while the state's rate reached 161.9 per 100,000, over four times the national average of 42.6 per 100,000. Rural and smaller communities, which include many Alaska Native villages, exhibit higher rates than urban areas like Anchorage. Among American Indian and Alaska Natives (AI/AN), lifetime experiences of affect 58% of women and 51% of men, with 44% of AI/AN women reporting ; rates for AI/AN are nearly five times higher than for . In jails, including those in Alaska Native villages, has consistently been the leading violent offense, accounting for 380 inmates in 2023, while drug offenses rose 170% from 2013 to 2023. Substance abuse exacerbates these crime patterns, with over two-thirds of Alaska inmates reporting drug or alcohol problems as of 2024 assessments. AI/AN populations exhibit the highest rates at 10%, surpassing other ethnic groups, including 7.1% with alcohol use disorders and past-month at 25%; methamphetamine use is over three times higher than in any other demographic. Prenatal alcohol exposure contributes to fetal alcohol disorders (), with Alaska's prevalence estimated at 65 per 1,000 live births and fetal alcohol specifically at 1.7 per 1,000 (2007–2013 data), rates historically elevated in Native communities due to persistent alcohol misuse patterns. Family structures among Alaska Natives reflect instability linked to these social challenges, with 50% of AI/AN children residing in single-parent households—second only to children nationally at 63%. Detailed breakdowns show 39% of AI/AN children living with married parents, 12% with unmarried cohabiting parents, 28% in single-mother families, 9% in single-father families, and 12% with no parents (e.g., kin caregivers). AI/AN women are less likely to marry and more prone to than the general population, patterns that correlate with higher child welfare involvement and intergenerational cycles of substance abuse and in rural Native settings. These dynamics, compounded by substance-related impairments, undermine community cohesion and perpetuate vulnerability to .

Education, Employment, and Welfare Dependency

Alaska Natives exhibit lower compared to the general U.S. population. The high school graduation rate for American Indian and Native students in public schools stood at 74 percent in 2019, an improvement from 67 percent in 2012, though this lags behind the national average of approximately 86 percent. In Alaska specifically, Native and American Indian individuals face persistent challenges, with graduation rates in rural and village settings often below state averages due to geographic isolation, limited school resources, and cultural disruptions. Among those aged 25 and older, only 16.8 percent of American Indian and Native residents held a or higher as of recent data, up slightly from 13.4 percent in 2010, compared to over 30 percent nationally. Employment outcomes reflect these educational gaps and structural barriers. In 2024, the unemployment rate for Alaska Natives and American Indians in reached 15.8 percent, significantly higher than the state's overall rate of around 4.8 percent. In remote Native villages, rates are even more acute, with historical data indicating exceeding 50 percent for Native men in one-eighth of villages and over 32 percent in one-third, driven by seasonal subsistence economies, lack of local industry, and inadequate infrastructure. Labor force participation among American Indians and Alaska Natives remains below the U.S. average, at around 60 percent versus 62-63 percent nationally, compounded by geographic remoteness and skill mismatches in a resource-dependent . Welfare dependency is correspondingly elevated, correlating with rates over 25 percent for American Indians and Alaska Natives—more than double the national figure—and high utilization of programs like SNAP and TANF. In Alaska, where Native households predominate in rural areas, SNAP participation reaches eligible individuals at 81 percent, with Native usage rates exceeding those of non-Natives in similar states due to food insecurity and limited options. Over half of American Indian and Alaska Native households receive some form of welfare benefits, the highest rate among racial groups, reflecting intergenerational patterns tied to low and policy incentives that may discourage workforce entry. These dynamics persist despite federal transfers and Native corporations, underscoring causal links from educational deficits to chronic and reliance on public assistance.

Environmental Dynamics

Climate Change Impacts on Communities

Alaska Native communities, many situated in remote and sub-Arctic regions, experience amplified effects from regional warming, which has proceeded at approximately twice the global average rate since the mid-20th century, leading to thawing that destabilizes foundations of homes, roads, and utilities. This thaw contributes to ground and damage, with over 70 of Alaska's more than 200 Native villages facing significant threats from , flooding, or permafrost degradation as documented in a 2019 state assessment. Coastal rates have accelerated, particularly along permafrost-laden shorelines, where loss of protective exposes villages to intensified wave action and storm surges; for instance, 29 communities were reported in 2019 to endure substantial directly linked to these changes. Several villages have initiated relocation efforts due to untenable . The Native Village of Shishmaref, on the coast, has lost over 30 feet of shoreline in single storm events, such as in 1997, prompting the relocation of multiple homes and ongoing planning for full community evacuation after decades of incremental threats. Similarly, Newtok, situated on eroding riverbanks, faces annual land loss of up to 70 feet from thaw and flooding, driving a multi-agency relocation process to a site 9 miles away, though progress has been hampered by funding and logistical challenges since planning began in the early . These cases illustrate broader vulnerabilities, with 31 rural communities identified as imminently threatened by combined , flooding, and temperature rises, necessitating adaptive measures like elevated or berms, though such interventions often prove temporary. Subsistence practices, central to cultural and nutritional resilience for many Alaska Natives, are disrupted by shifts in wildlife patterns and environmental predictability. Declining sea ice extent and duration, alongside warmer ocean temperatures, have altered marine mammal migrations, such as those of bowhead whales and seals, reducing access for hunters and elevating risks during travel over unstable ice; these changes have been tied to broader Arctic food insecurity, with traditional foods comprising up to 70-90% of diets in some communities. Unpredictable weather, including more severe storms, further complicates harvesting, while thawing landscapes affect berry availability and salmon runs, prompting reliance on costly store-bought alternatives that strain household economies and contribute to nutritional shifts. Peer-reviewed analyses confirm that these alterations, observed since the 1990s, heighten vulnerability without diminishing the adaptive capacity demonstrated through community-led monitoring and diversified harvesting strategies.

Resource Development Conflicts and Opportunities

The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 established 12 regional corporations and over 200 village corporations to manage approximately 44 million acres of land and associated subsurface resources, enabling Alaska Natives to participate directly in resource extraction for economic gain. These entities have leveraged oil, , and mineral development to generate substantial revenues; for instance, in 2018, Alaska Native corporations collectively reported over $10.5 billion in revenues, positioning them as key economic drivers in the state. Provisions under ANCSA direct 70% of mineral revenues from regional corporation lands to shareholders, fostering dividends, job creation, and investments in community services such as health, education, and cultural preservation. Resource opportunities have been particularly pronounced in the energy sector, where Native corporations hold significant leases and contracts; activities alone provided royalties, employment for shareholders, and business opportunities across all corporations, contributing to broader economic multipliers in rural areas. Indigenous-led energy projects further enhance by streamlining development and directing benefits locally, as seen in efforts to develop gas and renewables on Native lands. However, these gains are uneven, with persistent challenges in profit generation due to the conglomerate structure of corporations, which sometimes prioritizes diversification over focused extraction. Conflicts arise from tensions between economic development and subsistence-based lifestyles, particularly in projects threatening fisheries and wildlife habitats central to Native communities. The proposed Pebble Mine in , which could yield vast copper and gold deposits, has faced opposition from local tribes citing risks to salmon runs essential for , leading to an EPA veto in 2023 under the Clean Water Act, though challenged by the state and some Native corporations seeking economic returns. Similarly, the Willow oil project on Alaska's North Slope, approved in 2023 despite Native concerns over air quality, caribou migration disruptions, and cumulative health effects, highlights divides where corporations view it as a revenue source while villages emphasize lost access to traditional foods. These disputes often pit Native corporations, incentivized toward profit, against tribes prioritizing , as ANCSA's corporate framework can align interests oppositely on land use. Empirical data underscores that while extraction has reduced in some regions through jobs and royalties, unresolved conflicts stem from inadequate mitigation of ecological impacts, with studies indicating potential long-term subsistence losses outweighing short-term gains in vulnerable ecosystems. Pro-development Native entities argue regulatory barriers stifle opportunities, as evidenced by lawsuits against federal vetoes, whereas anti-development voices, often from subsistence-dependent groups, stress irreversible cultural and biological costs without sufficient local consent. Balancing these requires case-specific assessments, given the heterogeneity of Native interests under ANCSA's profit-oriented model.

References

  1. https://nativefederation.org/alaska-native-peoples/
  2. https://www.nps.gov/locations/alaska/native-culture.htm
  3. https://www.pbs.org/harriman/1899/native.html
  4. https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/languages-move/languages.php
  5. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/indigenous-languages-of-alaska-inupiaq.htm
  6. https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/10/2020-census-dhc-a-aian-population.html
  7. https://www.fs.usda.gov/r10/natural-resources/arch-cultural/brief-timeline
  8. https://askabiologist.asu.edu/Alaska-Natives
  9. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/ethnic-and-cultural-studies/alaska-natives-indigenous-peoples-alaska
  10. https://www.ncoa.org/article/american-indians-and-alaska-natives-key-demographics-and-characteristics/
  11. https://education.alaska.gov/canl/Languages
  12. https://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?session=33&docid=14313
  13. https://www.uaf.edu/anlc/languages-move/pop.php
  14. https://alutiiqmuseum.org/alutiiq-people/language/lessons/alutiiq-and-other-alaskan-languages/
  15. http://www.alaskool.org/language/languagemap/index.html
  16. https://alaskamagazine.com/authentic-alaska/alaska-native-cultural-groups-and-regions/
  17. https://acf.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ana/1_ak_cultures_11.pdf
  18. https://alaskapublic.org/news/2024-05-01/alaska-native-languages-at-crucial-juncture-biennial-report-says
  19. https://education.alaska.gov/canl
  20. https://magazine.firstalaskans.org/issue/fall-2022/strengthening-alaska-native-languages/
  21. https://www.epi.org/blog/how-trends-in-american-indian-and-alaska-native-population-growth-impact-employment-data/
  22. https://depts.washington.edu/moving1/Alaska.shtml
  23. https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/trends-magazine/2013/April/alaska-s-native-population
  24. https://epi.anthc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/AN_Health_Status_Report_Sociodemographics.pdf
  25. https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/projections/pub/popproj.pdf
  26. https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/estimates/pub/chap2.pdf
  27. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00168-024-01298-7
  28. https://iseralaska.org/static/legacy_publication_links/statusaknatcandp.pdf
  29. https://adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/subsistence/Trends_in_Population_Summary_2019.pdf
  30. https://minorityrights.org/communities/alaska-natives/
  31. https://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/oha/publications/oha173overviewofalaskaprehistory.pdf
  32. https://www.nps.gov/articles/aps-17-1-2.htm
  33. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.263.5147.660
  34. https://www.nps.gov/articles/astt.htm
  35. https://www.uaf.edu/museum/collections/archaeo/online-exhibits/paleo-eskimo-cultures/thule/
  36. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-antiquity/article/multiscalar-consideration-of-the-athabascan-migration/FBC0A9851DBF4C3B69E9547FD9CD9888
  37. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268332700_Thule_Subsistence
  38. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618218311315
  39. https://www.loc.gov/collections/meeting-of-frontiers/articles-and-essays/alaska/russian-discovery/
  40. https://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/expedition-feature/23svyatoy-nikolai-features-russian-america/
  41. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/636.html
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC379174/
  43. https://sites.kpc.alaska.edu/jhaighalaskahistory/timeline/
  44. https://www.alaska.gov/Kids/learn/russianheritage.htm
  45. http://alaskaweb.org/russam/interactions.htm
  46. https://history.state.gov/milestones/1866-1898/alaska-purchase
  47. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/october-18/u-s-takes-possession-of-alaska
  48. https://alaskahistoricalsociety.org/about-ahs/special-projects/150treaty/150th-resource-library/new-articles/how-the-treaty-of-cession-led-to-the-alaska-native-claims-settlement-act/
  49. https://www.uaf.edu/tribal/academics/112/unit-1/earlyyearsinalaskaafterpurchase.php
  50. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/alaska-natives/
  51. https://digitalcommons.law.utulsa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2599&context=tlr
  52. https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/pop/estimates/pub/pophistory.pdf
  53. https://www.rockmatsu.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/TIMELINE-POSTER-low-res.pdf
  54. https://publichealthpost.org/mental-behavioral-health/life-after-colonization/
  55. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/why-russia-gave-alaska-americas-gateway-arctic-180962714/
  56. https://old.novacolorpaint.com/libweb/NsD1k2/6OK111/sold_american_the-story__of__alaska__natives_and__their_land-1867_1959.pdf
  57. https://www.uaf.edu/news/archives/news-archives-2002-2010/featured/04/reindeer/history.php
  58. https://foresthistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Blegen-2007_Willis-Roxanne.pdf
  59. https://nativefederation.org/history/
  60. https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/regional-information/alaska/land_transfer/state-entitlements
  61. https://nativefederation.org/
  62. https://www.sullivan.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/alaska-senators-honor-50-years-of-the-alaska-federation-of-natives
  63. https://www.uaf.edu/tribal/academics/112/unit-2/alaskastatehoodandbuilduptoalaskanativelandclaims.php
  64. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/march-12/oil-discovered-alaska-prudhoe-bay
  65. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/519.html
  66. https://alaskapublic.org/ancsa50/2021-12-07/a-historic-settlement-turns-50-but-questions-linger-over-whether-it-was-fair
  67. https://www.blm.gov/alaska/public-room/fact-sheet/ancsa-50-infographic
  68. https://gov.alaska.gov/50th-anniversary-of-the-alaska-native-claims-settlement-aqct/
  69. https://ancsaregional.com/about-ancsa/
  70. https://alaskapublic.org/ancsa50/2021-10-14/cheat-sheet-alaska-native-claims-settlement-act-101
  71. https://www.uaf.edu/tribal/academics/112/unit-3/alaskanativeclaimssettlementactancsa1971.php
  72. https://cedar.wwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=envs_facpubs
  73. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/R/HTML/R46997.html
  74. https://www.blm.gov/programs/lands-and-realty/regional-information/alaska/land_transfer/ancsa
  75. https://www.mysealaska.com/news/item/mysealaska-content/about-ancsa-ancsa-settlement/the%2520100
  76. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/522/520/
  77. https://ancsaregional.com/economic-impacts/
  78. https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/september-2024/2024-ancsa-regional-corporation-review/
  79. https://www.ciri.com/category/business-news/
  80. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1060&context=alr
  81. https://ancsa.lbblawyers.com/hirshfield-note.htm
  82. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/models-sovereignty-and-survival-alaska
  83. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1997/96-1577
  84. https://www.law.alaska.gov/pdf/opinions/opinions_2017/17-004_JU20172010.pdf
  85. https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1644&context=alr
  86. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/realities-tribal-federal-relationship
  87. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1408&context=mjrl
  88. https://www.thinkglobalhealth.org/article/survival-subsistence-and-food-sovereignty-alaska
  89. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=subsistence.hunting
  90. https://www.blm.gov/programs/natural-resources/subsistence
  91. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11271962/
  92. https://www.doi.gov/subsistence/federal-subsistence-management-program
  93. https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1345/
  94. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6371761/
  95. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-50/chapter-I/subchapter-G/part-92
  96. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629625001628
  97. https://www.culturalsurvival.org/publications/cultural-survival-quarterly/alaska-native-subsistence-matter-cultural-survival
  98. https://www.bia.gov/service/alaska-subsistence-program
  99. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6834783/
  100. https://www.fs.usda.gov/about-agency/features/alaska-where-nature-people-and-tradition-come-together
  101. https://www.akleg.gov/basis/get_documents.asp?session=27&docid=7177
  102. https://nativenewsonline.net/currents/native-language-revitalization-gets-5-7m-boost
  103. https://headstart.gov/policy/im/acf-im-hs-15-02
  104. https://www.travelalaska.com/things-to-do/alaska-native-culture/arts-traditions
  105. https://alaskapublic.org/ancsa50/2021-08-17/the-modern-treaty-protecting-alaska-native-land-values
  106. https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/aps-22-1-2.htm
  107. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-13-121.pdf
  108. https://www.schwabe.com/publication/evolving-federal-requirements-may-affect-alaska-small-businesses-native-corporations/
  109. https://ictnews.org/news/alaska-native-corporations-homegrown-engines-of-the-economy/
  110. https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/october-2023/the-2023-top-49ers/
  111. https://www.akbizmag.com/magazine/the-big-twelve-alaska-native-regional-corporations/
  112. https://www.doyon.com/about/history/
  113. https://ancsaregional.com/
  114. https://digital.akbizmag.com/issue/january-2020/how-ancsa-revenue-sharing-works/
  115. https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/sites/default/files/trendsArt/jun84art1.pdf
  116. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1395327704067493/posts/3955505688049669/
  117. https://www.akrdc.org/alaska-native-corporations
  118. https://scholarworks.alaska.edu/bitstream/handle/11122/12503/corpfinance.pdf?sequence=1
  119. https://doa.alaska.gov/dop/fileadmin/Equal_Employment/pdf/2024ProgressReportEEOAA.pdf
  120. http://ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-detail?chartId=81129
  121. https://dansrd.community.uaf.edu/2021/12/02/an-outsiders-thoughts-on-ancsa-by-emeritus-professor-jenny-bell-jones/
  122. https://digitalcommons.law.seattleu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1240&context=ailj
  123. https://www.propublica.org/article/villages-testify-to-disparity-in-benefits-alaska-native-corporations
  124. https://www.contragenix.com/articles/alaska-native-corporations/
  125. https://lastfrontiernews.com/alaska-saw-16-9-increase-in-transfer-dependency-percentage-between-1970-and-2022/
  126. http://www.alaskool.org/projects/ancsa/articles/mthomas/ancsa_conflict.htm
  127. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11870663/
  128. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/01/08/2024-00109/indian-entities-recognized-by-and-eligible-to-receive-services-from-the-united-states-bureau-of
  129. https://www.bia.gov/faqs/what-federally-recognized-tribe
  130. https://www.bia.gov/faqs/what-does-tribal-sovereignty-mean-american-indians-and-alaska-natives
  131. https://www.uaf.edu/tribal/academics/112/unit-4/federalrecognitionofalaskatribesandrelationswiththestateofalaska.php
  132. https://www.uaf.edu/tribal/academics/112/unit-4/alaskatribalsovereigntyandjurisdictionmajorcaselawaffectingalaskatribaljurisdiction.php
  133. https://www.tananachiefs.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/ANCSA-a-complete-of-incomplete-story-of-tribal-governance.pdf
  134. https://gov.alaska.gov/dunleavy-signs-tribal-recognition-bill-to-formally-recognize-alaskas-tribes/
  135. https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/inherent_tribal_authority_in_alaska_memo_10-24-2023_final_word_version.pdf
  136. https://law.justia.com/cases/alaska/supreme-court/1999/s-8099-1.html
  137. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ak-supreme-court/1415485.html
  138. https://alaskabeacon.com/briefs/alaska-appeals-federal-court-ruling-that-was-a-step-toward-new-indian-country-here/
  139. https://www.swlaw.com/publication/court-vacates-decision-to-take-downtown-juneau-land-into-trust-for-tlingit-and-haida-tribe/
  140. https://www.ihs.gov/newsroom/factsheets/disparities/
  141. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4035867/
  142. https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/diabetes-and-american-indiansalaska-natives
  143. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/american-indian-health.htm
  144. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2602931/
  145. https://epi.anthc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/AN_MortalityReport_web.pdf
  146. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2835392
  147. https://www.statnews.com/2025/06/18/life-expectancy-native-americans-alaska-natives-lower-than-thought-study-says/
  148. https://ncuih.org/2024/06/07/life-expectancy-rates-for-american-indian-and-alaska-native-people-dropped-drastically-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/
  149. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39531390/
  150. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11152578/
  151. https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco-health-equity/collection/aian-health-burden.html
  152. https://www.ruralhealth.us/getmedia/d9a22bca-00ef-4a0f-bca6-c7dd62557993/AmericanIndianandAlaskaNativeHealthPolicyPaperFeb2016.pdf
  153. https://www.ajc.state.ak.us/datacommission/docs/reports/DAC_2024_Annual_Report.pdf
  154. https://www.cdc.gov/injury-tribal/media/pdfs/2025/06/Violence-Against-Native-Peoples-Fact-Sheet.pdf
  155. https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/tcdca25.pdf
  156. https://americanaddictioncenters.org/rehab-guide/addiction-statistics-demographics/native-americans
  157. https://health.alaska.gov/media/biahirb5/fasdcoremessages.pdf
  158. https://www.aecf.org/blog/child-well-being-in-single-parent-families
  159. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/american-indian-alaska-native-diverse-family-structures
  160. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233091/
  161. https://www.niea.org/native-student-data
  162. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/coi/high-school-graduation-rates
  163. https://pnpi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/NativeAmericanFactSheet-Nov-2023.pdf
  164. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/caa/young-adult-attainment
  165. https://usafacts.org/answers/what-is-the-unemployment-rate/state/alaska/
  166. https://aidsetc.org/sites/default/files/resources_files/nmaetc_IndianAlaskaNative.pdf
  167. https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2019/article/american-indians-and-alaska-natives-in-the-u-s-labor-force.htm
  168. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2567901/
  169. https://www.cbpp.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/snap_factsheet_alaska.pdf
  170. https://www.glitc.org/2020/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/SNAP-Utilization-Factsheet_GLITECNov2018.pdf
  171. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/9719/chapter/8
  172. https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/migrated_legacy_files/130446/report.pdf
  173. https://toolkit.climate.gov/arctic-peoples-and-ecosystems
  174. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104241
  175. https://insight.dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1465&context=fac_works
  176. http://toolkit.climate.gov/case-study/relocating-native-village-shishmaref-alaska-due-coastal-erosion
  177. http://toolkit.climate.gov/case-study/relocating-village-newtok-alaska-due-coastal-erosion
  178. https://www.nativefederation.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/AFN-AKDayErosion-December2018-ONLINE.pdf
  179. https://www.mmc.gov/wp-content/uploads/Climate-Change-Alaska-Native-Subsistence-Factsheet-11.20.2023.pdf
  180. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5757232/
  181. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/22423982.2017.1419678
  182. https://live.laborstats.alaska.gov/sites/default/files/2023-10/HB%2520124%2520Reseach%2520EconomicPotential_of_AKs_Mining.pdf
  183. https://www.alaska.edu/bor/files/120412Ref02_AK_Mining_Industry_Economic_Benefits.pdf
  184. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629623003845
  185. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.17730/humo.48.4.f766v65j10412231
  186. https://narf.org/cases/pebble-mine-bristol-bay/
  187. https://pacificlegal.org/press-release/alaska-native-corporations-sue-to-stop-epas-pebble-mine-veto/
  188. https://www.nativemovement.org/willow-project
  189. https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2015/09/14/arctic-oil-drilling-deluding-communities-about-the-benefits-of-resource-extraction/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.