北方樹林の愛鳥家 : 内陸アラスカにおける動物を殺す/生かすこと

This paper is an attempt to figure out why elders used to take care of migratory songbirds left behind in a small Alaskan Athabascan community. The practice of keeping wild birds has been reported in some Athabascan groups, but the prior studies did not elucidate the mystery of the seemingly contradictory beliefs and practices surrounding the care of "leftover" migratory birds. On one hand, most wild animals are not supposed to be kept in Athabascan cultures because treating them as pets may jeopardize the proper behavioral codes towards non-humans, which can bring misfortunes to the violators. On the other hand, however, some Alaskan Athabascan groups used to keep wild birds in order to receive benefits from the birds in custody, or just to protect them. The review of prior studies and my data suggest that three research questions need to be investigated: (1) Why were those migratory songbirds that were left behind allowed to be kept, while those black bear cubs unexpectedly awakened from hibernation were killed? (2) Why was the practice of keeping songbirds allowed only during the fall and winter? (3) The keeping of birds from the Strigadae, Corvidae, or Anatidae families was believed to bring benefits to the keepers, while such an idea does not seem to apply to birds from the Emberizidae family. If so, why do they keep those small songbirds, knowing that they do not bring any benefits? It is important to note that stranded black bears and migratory songbirds that were left behind share the trait of not being able to survive the winter in Interior Alaska. However, black bears are game animals whose relationship to humans is dictated by the cycle of "spotting-killing-using-disposing." On the other hand, migratory songbirds are a non-game animal; some occasionally build reciprocal relations with humans. The different treatment of black bear cubs and migratory songbirds can be explained by the existence of different principles governing the human-game relationship, on the one hand, and the relationship between humans and non-game animals, on the other. In order to answer the second research question, human interpersonal relationships can give us a clue. In Athabascan communities, it is considered impolite to force one's idea on others. However, when someone is apparently in need of help, people do offer it. In 1899, when Chief Sesui rescued U.S. Army Lieutenant Heron's expedition party after it was stranded in the middle of a boreal forest, he offered an extremely generous service to it. Considering that the relation between humans and non-game animals is similar to human interpersonal relations in the community under study, I argue that keeping migratory birds can be justified during the season of the year when they need help, while it cannot be justified in those seasons when they are self-sufficient. Lastly, in contrast to other birds, migratory songbirds are not necessarily believed to pay back the debt that they incur through the rescue. My point is that the elders probably did not expect to be compensated by the songbirds that they saved, just as Chief Sesui worked for Lieutenant Heron without a definite promise to be fully compensated.