Adornments from the Sea: Fish Skins, Heads, Bones, Vertebras, and Otoliths Used by Alaska Natives and Greenlandic Inuit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper investigates the cultural, spiritual, and ecological use and value of fish by-products in the material practices of Alaska Native (Indigenous Peoples are the descendants of the populations who inhabited a geographical region at the time of colonisation and who retain some or all of their own social, economic, cultural, and political institutions. In this paper, I use the terms “Indigenous” and “Native” interchangeably. In some countries, one of these terms may be favoured over the other.) and Greenlandic Inuit women. It aims to uncover how fish remnants—skins, bones, bladders, vertebrae, and otoliths—were transformed through tanning, dyeing, and sewing into garments, containers, tools, oils, glues, and adornments, reflecting sustainable systems of knowledge production rooted in Arctic Indigenous lifeways. Drawing on interdisciplinary methods combining Indigenist research, ethnographic records, and sustainability studies, the research contextualises these practices within broader environmental, spiritual, and social frameworks. The findings demonstrate that fish-based technologies were not merely utilitarian but also carried symbolic meanings, linking wearers to ancestral spirits, animal kin, and the marine environment. These traditions persisted even after European contact and the introduction of glass trade beads, reflecting continuity and cultural adaptability. The paper contributes to academic discourse on Indigenous innovation and environmental humanities by offering a culturally grounded model of zero-waste practice and reciprocal ecology. It argues that such ancestral technologies are directly relevant to contemporary sustainability debates in fashion and material design. By documenting these underexamined histories, the study provides valuable insight into Indigenous resilience and offers a critical framework for integrating Indigenous knowledge systems into current sustainability practices.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".