inuit household

7/29/2019 Inuit Household

1/40

Location and Appropriation in the Arctic: An Integrative

Zooarchaeological Approach to Historic Inuit

Household Economies

Anne S. Henshaw

Soci ology/A nth ropology, Bowdoin Coll ege, 7000 Col l ege Stati on, Brunswi ck, M aine 04011-8470

E-mail : ahenshaw@bowd oin.edu

Received July 24, 1997; revision received July 2, 1998; accepted August 17, 1998

Wit hin eastern Arctic archaeology thereis a long-standing tradition which viewschanging climatic conditions as the prin-ciple driving force behind culture change.Because of this tendency, archaeologicalsubsistence stud ies often narrowl y defi neeconomy in ecological term s, typi call yomitt ing the sociocult ural dim ensions of

human economic production. Whi le cli -mate in the Arctic plays an integral part ofhuman adaptive strategies, this explana-tory framework fails to account for thesocial for ces, both int ernal and external,which also play an important role in hu-man economic behavior. The purpose ofthis paper is to broaden existing theoreti-cal fr ameworks to in clu de these sociocul-tural dim ensions as they apply to historicInu it populations l ocated on southeastBaffin Island, Canada.

In this paper I propose that historicInui t economy can best be understoodthr ough the concept of h ouseholdi ng, oneof the four forms of economi c in tegrationdefi ned by Karl Polanyi (1994). H ouse-

holdi ng not only offers a holistic model f orconceptuali zing Inui t economy in i tsbroadest theoretical terms but also offersi n si gh t i n t o t h e internal mechanismsthrough which historic Inuit maintainedtheir socioeconomi c autonomy from thegrowi ng presence of colonial enti ties i n

the north. The basic premise of house-holding is that people produce for theirown use or a groups own sake (Halperin1994: 147; Polanyi 1944: 53). Accordi ng toPolanyi , householdi ng developed as a wayto coordinate capitalist and non-capitalistprovisionin g processes f or the benefi t ofgroups at various tiers of state stratified

systems. Under this paradigm, goods andservi ces move in ways that uni te di fferentpatterns of economi c organization. Thussome of the defi ning characteri stics ofhouseholding include the coordi nati on,timing and scheduling of economic activ-ity by people who participate in differ-entl y organi zed economi c in sti tut ions.Economic cycles of employment, the sea-sonali ty of specifi c activit ies, the organiza-tion of labor, as well as resource storage,consumption and distri bution, are allshown to be im portant vari ables in und er-standing this mode of integration (Halp-erin 1994: 145149).

H ousehold in g and household -basedproducti on and exchange are not the same

concepts but they do overlap in the con-text of Inuit economic organization. Theyoverl ap because householdin g, in the con-text of the Arctic, often involves domesticunits of production and exchange associ-ated with clusters of individual house-holds. They di ffer because household-

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 18, 79118 (1999)

Article ID jaar.1998.0333, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on

790278-4165/99 $30.00Copyright 1999 by Academic PressAll rightsof reproduction in any form reserved.


2/40

based pr oducti on and exchange, as anexclusive mode of production, has a muchlonger history in the Arctic, which can betraced back to ancestral Thule popula-tions, who mi grated i nto the region nearl y

1000 years ago. Householding is a morerecent phenomenon whi ch developedover the last several centuries as Inuit en-tered the world economy and needed tocoordi nate dif ferent forms of economi c in-tegrati on. As a larger scale economi c phe-nomenon, however, householding is onlypossible if rural economies have longterm, direct access to the means of pro-

duction and if extended families remainintact (Halperin 1994: 144). Thus, centralto this model is the flexible, yet cohesive,role kin relations play as the basis of re-sistance to, and independence from, thelarger economi c system in whi ch they par-ticipated.

These two key elements, access to re-sources and intact extended families, pro-

vide the basis for exploring how house-holdin g developed as a mode of economi cintegration on southeastern Baffin Islandduring the historic period. Central to theapplication of this model are humananimal interactions, the core of Inuit eco-nomic production. An im als representmuch more than food to Inuit, and anunderstanding of the production, distri -

bution, consumpt ion, storage and ex-change of animals and their productstraced through the ethnographic and zoo-archaeological records reflect not only onthe nature of resource utilization but alsoon the strength of economic bonds withinand between extended famil ies. Specifi -cally I explore how the locational and ap-propriational economic movements asso-

ciated with meat sh arin g fo rmed anim portant organizati onal nexus for h ouse-holding to develop. This conclusion isconsidered in light of taphonomic factors,and its significance is interpreted in lightof the role householding played in rein-forcing local autonomy not only in the

context of southeast Baffin Island but inother parts of the Arctic as well.

ECONOMY AND ECOLOGYDEFINED

Economy and ecology form an impor-tan t b asis fo r u n d erstan d in g cu ltu rechange but are rarely considered togetheras a theoretical unit. The substantivi stmodel of economy, set forth by Karl Pola-nyi (1944, Karl Polanyi 1957), and recentlyelaborated on by Rhoda H alp eri n (1989,1994),1 presents a more holistic alternative

to this disunion. Under this cross-culturalparadigm, economy is viewed as themeans by which all cultural systems pro-duce, distribute, consume, store, and ex-change materi al goods and resources.Economy, fr om a substantivist perspec-tive, moves beyond a historical formalistprinciples that emphasize individual be-havior. Instead, human economi c deci-

sion-making processes are interpreted inrelation to other aspects of cultur e in clu d-ing ecology, i deology, t echnology, and so-cial organization.

Accordi ng to H alp eri n (1994: 60, 210211), Polanyi viewed economy not as astatic entity, but as a dynami c, hi stori call ysit uated pr ocess undergoin g constanttransformation; the kind of dynamism

that defi nes Inu it economy i n th e past andthe present. Polanyi defined two analyti-call y distinct typ es of economic movementwhich served to capture this element oftime and transformation. These include:(1) locational movements defi ned as thespatial arrangements of resources and themovements of people across the land-

1 Al though many anthropologists adhere to the

substantivist view of economy, Rhoda H alperin hasprovided the first in-depth analysis of the substan-

tivi st appr oach thr ough a careful exami nation of t he

original writings of Karl Polanyi in her book Cultural

economies: Past and present (1994). It is h er in terpr eta-

tions of the substantivist approach that I use as a

building block for examining hunter-gatherer econ-

omy in the north.

80 ANNE S. HENSHAW


3/40

scape and (2) appropriational movementsthat refer to changes in organization andpeoples access to and control over goodsand resources (Halperin 1994: 50, 59; Po-lanyi 1957: 248). H owever, as H alp eri n

(1994: 5584) and Isaac (1990: 330331)have clearl y demonstrated, these tw omovements have been separated into twodi sti nct sub-fi eld s, ecological and eco-nomic anthropology.

Ecological anthropology focuses on thelocational aspects of economy. Locationalmovements specifi call y include the fol-lowing:

(1) Transfers fr om one physical space to another,

involvi ng (a) physical transfers of goods or of

people from one place to another, as in move-

ment of work crews, or (b) physical transfers of

productive resources, such as t ools; (2) physical

changes in the material stuff of livelihood, for

example in the physical condition of foodstuff

(raw to cooked, whole to divided [butchery],

seeds to plant); (3) energy tr ansfers, such as the

relocation of resources and storage facil iti es

from one place to another or the relocation of avil lage vis-a- vis ecological zones. (Halp eri n

1994: 59)

Often, ecologicall y oriented studi es offoraging societies defi ne economy interm s of the energy t ransfers between hu-mans and their physical envir onments.Optimal foraging theory provides a clearexample of how locati onal movements are

operationalized in an ecologicall y basedanthropology (Winterhalder and Smi th1981). Based on this theory, human eco-nomic decision-making is viewed strictlyin terms of calorie inputs and energy out-puts within a given ecological system andappropriational movements are given li t-tle attention or ignored altogether. In gen-eral terms, ecological anthr opology fails to

place economic acti vit y wi thi n a histori calcontext and therefore neglects one of thedefining elements in the substantive ap-proach. Although locational movementsare important for understanding certainaspects of economic activity, such as therelati onship betw een the avail abili ty of re-

sources on a seasonal basis and humanmobility patterns, they do not account forthat part of economic activity that is em-bedded in other cultural domains.

In contrast to the ecological appr oach,

economic anth ropology often exami nesthe appropriational aspects of economi cactivity at the expense of locational con-sid erations. Appropriational movementsrefer to the social di mensions of economicform ati ons and consist of organizati onalchanges or transfer of rights in economicactivity (Halperin 1994: 59). These move-ments are defi ned as the followi ng:

Organizational changes involve the changes

in the pri nciples allocatin g resources or goods,

e.g., a shift from communal land tenure to pri-

vate property. Butchering game is a locational

movement, but sharing meat is an appropria-

tional movement . . . Transfer of rights change

peoples access to and control over goods and

resources. The ability to control goods and re-

sources used in the production of surpluses to

maintain large populations and the ability to

acquire goods for simple and direct consump-tion by producers are both examples of appro-

pr iational movements (H alperin 1994: 59).

Much of the research in economic an-thropology focuses on the distri butionand exchange of goods, resources and la-bor between people. As H alperin (1994:6668) convincingly demonstrates, much

of the early work in economic anthropol-ogy was non-ecological in nature and in-stead focused on how different economicactivities were organized through variousinstit utional arr angements such as kin-ship di recti ves or class str uctur e. Themore recent M arxist-oriented economi canth ropology also emph asizes in sti tu-tional arrangements often at the expense

of other important locational movements.In M arxist term s, the r elations of produc-tion (i.e., rules of ownership and distribu-ti on process) are given greater attenti on inthe interpretation of economic processesthan are the forces of production (i.e., or-ganization of labor and the means of pro-

81IN UIT HOUSEHOLD ECONOM IES


4/40

ductiontechnology and land) (Halperin1994: 74).

The persistence of the ecological/ eco-nomic dichotomy has been unfortu nate inthat the totality and dynamism of human

economic formations have been lost. Al-though i t is important to separate the spa-tial and organizational components ofeconomy analytically, they are not mutu-ally exclusive and all economic processesinvolve both movements. By only consid-ering one, the diversity and dynamism in-herent to any cultural system can not beful ly disclosed. This is part icularl y tru e in

the more recent past as new forms of eco-nomic integration were being introducedon a global scale (Wolf 1982).

M ore recent theoretical appr oacheshave begun to amalgamate these view-points. For example, historical ecology in-volves a diachronic exami nation of chang-in g h u man lan d scap es th ro u gh t im e(Cruml ey 1994). Accordi ng to the land-

scape paradigm, all mechanisms for tem-poral culture continuity and change havea spatial component which manifests re-lations between humans and their totalenvironment (Marquardt and Crumley1987: 1). By t heir defini ti on, humans in ter-pret the landscape thr ough its sociohis-torical (i.e., political, legal and economic)and physical str uctur es (i.e., cli mate, to-

pography, hydrography, and geology)(M arqu ardt and Crum ley 1987: 7). Be-cause this conceptual framework embedseconomic process within larger ecologicaland sociopoli ti cal processes, it begins toapproach the integrative nature of thesubstantive model.

LOCATION AND APPROPRIATION

IN THE ARCTIC

Ethnographic Perspectives

Ethnographies of Ar ctic peoples, fromeastern Canada, Greenl and, and Alaska,have demonstrated both a concern for lo-

cational and appropriational movementsin their discussions of nort hern economiesalthough rarely are the two fully inte-grated. While some work has tended to-ward the spatial and technological aspects

of economy (Boas 1964; Bri ce-Benn ett1977; Freeman 1976; Kemp 1971; M auss1979; Nelson 1969; Smith 1981), much re-search has emphasized the social dimen-sions of Inui t economy as well (Bali kci1964, 1970; Bordenhorn 1988; Buijs 1993;Cassel l 1988; Dahl 1989; Damas 1969a,1969b, 1972; Ell anna 1988; Wenzel 1981;Worl 1980). In these examples, the signif-

icance of resource all ocati on and meatsharing are central to the discussions ofin tegratin g the organizati onal aspects ofeconomy w it h the ecology of In uitanimalint eractions. Ad dit ionall y, these studi esemphasize the central role kinship playsas the organizati onal nexus of economicintegration.

Tim Ingold (1987) has also considered

appropriational movements of northernhunter-gatherer economi es. H owever, un-li ke other northern ethnographers, heviews economy from an evolutionary per-spective. Ingold (1987: 101, 113126) looksbeyond subsistence as an extractive tech-nologicall y determ in ed behavior andplaces the economic process within a so-cial and cognitive context. Subsistence, in

Ingolds view, involves a social process,namely labor. Labor constitutes the rela-tion required among people to success-fully carry out economic activities in-volved in subsistence production. Ingold,in effect, raises the significance of humanhunting to a higher plane of economicint egration. H umans are considered notsolely as biological pr edators but as social

bein gs that produce, distr ibu te, consume,store, and exchange w ithi n an instit u-tional (socially organized) framework.

Ethnohistorical studies from the Arcticalso provide insight into specific historicInu it cultur al tr ansformations that includediscussions of both locational and appro-

82 ANNE S. HENSHAW


5/40

pri ational movements. The w ork carr iedout by Peter Usher (1970) on the BanksIs-landers provides an excell ent case inpoint. In this monograph Usher not onlyin tegrated biological ecology, economy,

and ethnography into his analysis of theCopper Eskimo fur trapping industry buthe also exami ned the specifi c histori calcon text in wh ich i t d ev elo ped . M arkStevensons (1993, 1997) diachronic studyof Kekertormiut and Umanaqjuarmiut kin-ship stru ctur e wi thi n the context of histor-ical changes and interactions taking placeover t he last few centu ri es in Cumberland

Sound, Baffi n Island also offers a compre-hensive view of the social dimensions ofeconomic change in the north. Other eth-nohistorical contribut ions exami ne theecological and social di mensions of eco-nomic processes but rarely are the twodimensions ful ly in tegrated (Burch 1981;Ross 1975, 1979). With the exception ofJensens (1987) work on bearded seal ex-

ploitation on Greenland, Inuitanimal in-teracti ons, sett lement patterns, and re-source procurement are often consideredseparately fr om the social tr ansform ati onsoccurring at the same time.

Archaeological Perspectives

Locational perspectives have dominated

archaeological interpretations of humaneconomic behavior in the eastern Arctic(Barry et al. 1977; Deki n 1972; Fitzhugh 1972;Jacobs 1985; Jacobs and Stenton 1985, 1990;M axwell 1985; M cCartney 1977; M cCartneyand Savelle 1985; Savelle 1987; M cGhee1969/1970, 1972 1978, 1996; Sabo 1991; Saboand Jacobs 1980; Schledermann 1975, 1976,1980; Stenton 1987, 1989, 1991). These inter-

pretations focus primarily on the spatialecological relationships between humansand their physical environments. Economyis often strictly viewed in terms of settle-ment and subsistence where activiti es offood procurement and the spatial distribu-tion of sites across the landscape are em-

phasized. M any of the early studies analyz-ing prehistoric economy from a zoo-archaeological perspective reduced sucheconomies to a species list of animalspresent at a given site (Schledermann 1975;

Staab 1979; Stanford 1976; Taylor 1972; Tay-lor and McGhee 1979). Although more re-cent researchers have moved beyond thesedescripti ve studies, they also restrict theirinvestigations to locational movements. Forexample, the caloric values of exploited spe-cies, the reconstructions of particular hunt-ing strategies, and seasonali ty studies arethe principle means used to explore prehis-

toric Thule and historic Inuit economies inCanada and Greenland (McCullough 1989;M eldgaard 1983; M orr ison 1983; Rick 1980;Stenton 1983; Spiess 1979). Based on the col-lecting and foraging models proposed byBinford (1980), other more theoretically so-phisticated archaeological studies also limittheir examination of hunter-gatherer econ-omies to locational movements (Savelle

1987; Stenton 1989, 1991). In these studi es,Thule economy is reconstructed in spatialterms and the archaeological record servesas a platform for interpreting various pat-terns of logistic and residential mobil ity.These theories are based on ecological par-adigms which present Thule economy asvariations in the type and distribution ofsettlements across the landscape. Faunal re-

mains from these sites are used to confirmspecific site use, general resource procure-ment and butchery patterns (all locationalmovements); little attention is paid to howeconomic activities relate to socially orga-nized patterns of production, distribution,and consumption.

Clearly, economy is more than food andsite distribution. Nonetheless, investiga-

tions into the organizational aspects of eco-nomic activity in the Arctic have beenscarce, mainl y due to the fact that it is diffi-cult to trace appropriational movements inthe archaeological record. Archaeologicalstudies examining economy in more socialterms, particularly during the historic pe-



6/40

riod, have done so by relying on artifactualevidence whil e Inuitanimal interactionsare limited to the interpretation of locationalprocesses(Gul lv 1985; Hickey 1984; Kaplan1983; Sabo 1979; Savelle 1985). By separatingthe two types of data along these lines, the

potenti al of zooarchaeological data to ad-dress appropriational issues is given a lowprofil e. In this paper, I argue that faunalremains can make important contributionsto understanding the appropriational di-mension. Additionally, when combinedwith material culture studies, zooarchar-

chaeology becomes a powerful tool to re-veal the differential responses indigenousgroups have to colonial encounters. In thepresent study, I bring together the loca-tional and appropriational aspects of econ-omy by discussing the transport of seal car-

casses (i.e., location) and its impli cations forhistoric Inuit meat sharing (i.e., appropria-tion) at three habitation sites in outer Fro-bisher Bay, Baffin Island, in order to tracethe mechanisms through which household-ing developed. This paper represents theinitial phase of interpretation which will be

FIG. 1. Appr oximate terri tory inhabited by Nugumiut in the late 19th century.

84 ANNE S. HENSHAW


7/40

expanded upon once artifactual analysesare complete.

A HISTORY OF NUGUMIUTEUROPEAN INTERACTION ON

SOUTHEAST BAFFIN ISLAND

Oral histori c, ethnohistori c and archae-ological studi es fr om the eastern Arcticshow that Inu it European int eracti onswere not monolithic, but rather a processof interaction and mutual interdepen-dence with varying impacts across time,space, and di fferent sectors of society

(Eber 1989; Gullv 1985; Hickey 1984; ICI1986, ICI 1988a, ICI 1988b; Jord an andKapl an 1980; Kapl an 1985; Ross 1975, 1979;Savell e 1985). Wit hin the sociohi stori calcontext of Frobisher Bay Baffi n Island,Inui t populations, known ethnographi-cally as the Nugumiut,2 maintained a greatdeal of economi c autonomy throughoutthe vari ous p hases of European contact

(Henshaw 1995) (Fig. 1).The history of European activity in this

region spans almost 500 years, althoughearl y contact was generally sporadic whil elater phases of interaction between Inuitand Europeans was more int ense and pro-longed (Fig. 2). The early hi storic phase ofinteractions, beginning with the ill-fatedFr obisher Voyages betw een 1576 and1578, int roduced Nugumiut for the fi rstti me to a new uni verse of goods and id easfrom the western world (Fitzhugh andOli n 1993). A lthough new trade items,such as metal and ceramics, were incor-porated i nto In uit tool ki ts, the overall im -pact of these short-lived voyages on N u-gum iut econ om i c m o vem en t s w er e

negli gible (Gul lason et al. 1993). For thenext two and a half centuries contact wasprobably limited to trade with HudsonBay Company tradin g vessels along thesouth coast of M eta Incognita Penin sula in

Hudson Strait (Barr 1994).In tensive i nteracti on between Nugumiutand foreign entrepreneurs did not beginuntil the mid- 19th century wi th the arr ivalof the Euro-American whalers. Althoughwhaling activity concentrated pri maril y i nCumberl and Sound, Nugumiut, as withother Inui t i n the region, played an i nstru-mental role in shaping the success of the

industry and considered themselves part-ners with many of the Euro-Americanwhalers who worked the region (Eber1989). Duri ng this peri od Nugumiutgainedaccess to new subsistence technologies,such as firearms and whaleboats, whichserved to enhance their own economicpursuits (Ross 1975, 1979). However, thewhaling era was not w ithout negative im-

pacts; European diseases spread through-out Inuit populations during this periodand perhaps even earl ier (Keenleyside1990; M cGhee 1994). In addi ti on to diseaseInu it seasonal rounds were disrup ted dur -ing the height of the whaling period, es-pecially during the fall caribou huntingseason (Ross 1979). N everth eless, Inu itpopulations remained viable enough to

make conscious choices about the d egreeto which they participated in the whalingindustry and maintained direct access tothe land and its resources allowing themto pursue many of their economic activi-ties free from direct coercion.

Wi th the slow decline of commercialmarine mammal hunting and the rise ofthe fur t rapping i ndustry led by the Hud-

son Bay Company (HBC), Nugumiut actedmuch as they had in earlier times; theyonly participated in the profit-orientedenterpr ise as much as they needed to sup-ply themselves with guns and ammuni-tion. Outer Frobisher Bay, in parti cular,was perip heral to tr appi ng areas, isolati ng

2 Nugumiut were one of the seven regional BaffinIsland populations i dentifi ed by Boas (1888) duri ng

his expedition to Cumberland Sound in the early

1880s and by Charles Francis H all (1864) in t he 1860s

when he overwint ered i n Cyrus Field Bay. Nugumiut

territory was thought to span the areas encompass-

ing Cyrus Field Bay as well as the upper and lower

stretches of Frobisher Bay.



8/40

FIG.

2.

Chronology

ofEuropean

presenceon

southeastBaffin

Islan

d.

86 ANNE S. HENSHAW


9/40

Nugumiut from the policies of this power-ful entity in the north. The presence ofAnglican missionaries in outer FrobisherBay had a similar effect. Because much ofthe missionary activi ty was centered in

Cumberland Sound and Lake Harbor,some Nugumiut were trained as chatecistsand evangeli zed themselves (Flemmin g1956). In an effort to extend Canadi an sov-ereignty, the Royal Canadian M ountedPoli ce (RCM P) also tr aveled extensively i nthe Ar ctic, fanning out f rom their posts tooutlying Inuit communities. In the 1920sand 1930s, Frobisher Bay represented a

passing point for RCM P officers who tr av-eled f requentl y between Lake H arbor andPangnirtung. The RCM P generall y feltthat Inuit should be protected and encour-aged not to assimi late into mainstreamCanadi an Society (M orr ison 1974: 88). Thenet result of these interactions left Nugu-miut extended families intact and able tocir culate in and out of their subsistence

based economy and the new market-ori-ented economy in which they were rap-idly becoming embedded (Henshaw 1995;Goldr ing 1986; Damas 1988). Because ofthe peri pheral nature of contact as well asthe kind of attitudes and policies directedat In uit by the Europeans themselves, theseeds of householding began to take root.The internal mechanisms which enabled

householding to continue to grow re-volved around not only the control andaccess Nugumiut maintained to the landand its resources but also thr ough theirhousehold-based production and ex-change systems whi ch revolved aroundthe extended family.

Householding and Inuit Household-Based

Producti on and Exchange in theEthnographic Record

The ethnographic record from this regionis rich with descri pti on of household-basedeconomic production and exchange. Al-though the social composition of individual

domestic units varied amongst differentInuit groups historicall y, on southeast Baffi nIsland they generally consisted of a man, awoman, their unmarri ed childr en, some-times adopted children, and a second wife

(Boas 1964; Hall 1866). Similar to othergroups in the eastern Canadian Arctic,household groupings consisted of two ormore nuclear families who practiced a pat-tern of vir il ocal residence (Damas 1969b).That is, fathers and sons, or male siblings,tended to co-habitate in a single locale in

joint or single-fami ly residential structures(Stevenson 1993, 1997; Hall 1866). In addi-

tion to these basic units, household clustersmay have included widows and their chil-dren. Dogs also formed a component of thebasic household unit and were an intergralpart of Inuit economic production (Damas1988). Betrothal and spousal exchange wereoften practiced within and between house-hold groups (Boas 1964). Together, thesemultifamily groups formed the basic unit of

production in Inuit society (Guemple 1976).During the 19th century, members of eachhousehold cluster generally traveled to-gether on a seasonal basis to procure food,skins, conduct trade and provide labor forvarious foreign entrepreneurs who workedin the area. Other groupings that formed animportant part of Inuit cultural integrationincluded hunting parties, whaleboat crews,

and temporary corporate camps. Similar tohouseholds, these groups persisted through-out the historic period and continue to playan important role in Inuit cultural life.

Within these groupings, formalized sys-tems of meat sharing were practiced, notonly to reduce the risk of famine duringperiods of resource stress, but also to rein-force social bonds. Table 1 shows the vari-

ous forms of meat sharing practices docu-mented by David Damas (1972) for Inuitgroups outside Frobisher Bay. Althoughmeat sharing practices amongst the Nugu-miut have never been analyzed specifically,Charles Francis Hall (1866) descri bed sev-eral village-wide seal feasting rituals



10/40

when he overwintered in Cyrus Field Bay in

the early 1860s. The rituals he described

occurred principally during periods of re-

source stress. The following passage de-scri bes one such seal feast, after a period of

near starvation, in a snowhouse vil lage. The

feast took place on the southwest side of

Rogers Island in Cornelius Grinnell Bay in

January 1861, just north of Cyrus Field Bay.

As Hall recounts (1866: 208209):

The seal was taken into the igloo-the usual

place for a captur ed seal-and the sledge, with i ts

contents, was properly attended to. Of course

the news of Ebierbings arrival with a seal

spread like wildfire , and in our quiet l ittlevillage, consisting of three igloos, all the inhab-

itants with exhausted stomachs-including my

own-were prepared for wide distention. The

seal weighed, I shoul d say, about 200 pound s,

and was wi th young. Accordin g to I nuit custom,

an immediate invitation was given by the suc-

cessful hunters famil y for everyone to attend a

TABLE 1

Copper Inuit, Netslilingmiut, Iqlulingmiut, Kekertormiut, and Umanaqjuarmiut

Food Sharing Practices

Inuktitut term Type of sharing practice Relationships

p iq at igi it , n iq ai tu rvi gi it seal sh ar in g p ar tn er sh ip s - sh ar in g bet ween h ou seh ol dclusters including kin and

non-kin (Netsilik, Copper)

payuktuq, payukalik voluntary meat sharing -sharing between kindred

linked by primary ties but

li ving outside household

cluster (Igloolik)

-sharing within joint family

residences outside seal

sharing partners (Copper)

-sharing within household

cluster (Netsil ik)minnack meat taken from a cache to be

distributed to villagers

-sharing within household

clusters (Netsilik)

ningiq the division of large game

including polar bear, bearded

seal, beluga, narwh al, and

walrus

-sharing between team of

successful hunters (Netsilik)

village wide sharing (Igloolik)

umiaqqatigiit the sharing of meat between

whaleboat crews

-hunting partners (Igloolik)

akpallugit, akpaaqtauyuq -invitation of specifi c people to

an extended family

household for a meal(Igloolik, Netsilik)

nirriyaktuqtuq communal meals -sharing during periods of food

shortages (Igloolik) all

seasons probably during

principal meal of the day

(Copper)

nekaishutu communal meals -vil lage wide sharing of game

(Kekertormiut,

Umanaqjuarmiut)

piutuq meat sharing -restricted distribution of food

between two families

(Kekertormiut,

Umanaqjuarmiut)

88 ANNE S. HENSHAW


11/40

seal feast. This w as speedily done and our

igloo was soon crowded. M y station w as on t he

dais, or bed place, behind several Inuit women,

but so that I could see over th em and watch wh at

was going on.

The first thing done was to consecrate the seal,

the ceremony being to sprinkl e water over it,when the stalwart host and his assistant pro-

ceeded to separate the blanket -that is, the

blubber, wi th skin-fr om t he solid meat and the

skeleton of the seal. The body was then opened

and the blood scooped out. This blood is con-

sidered very precious, and forms an important

type of food largely consumed by Esquimaux.

Next came the liver, which was cut into pieces,

and distributed all around, myself getting and

eating a share . . . Then followed distributing the

ribs of the seal for social pi cking . . .

Directly the feast was ended all the com-

pany dispersed. Tookoolitoo then sent around

bountifu l gif ts of seal blubber for fi relamps; also

some seal meat and blood. This is the usual

custom among Innuits, and, undoubtedly, is a

vir tue to be comm ended. They share each oth-

er s successes, and bear each others wants.

Generally, if i t is found that one is short of

provisions, it may be known that all are. When

one has a supply, all have.

This is just one of m any feasts H allattended while traveling among Inuit.Although the account does lack specificdetails regarding the nature of food dis-tr ibut ion (i.e., whi ch part s were given towhom, etc.), some pieces of informationcan be gleaned from his description.

Based on these and other accounts ofseal feasting during periods of foodshortages, Nugumiut meat shari ng, atleast under these circumstances, appearto have been vi ll agewi de. M eat was dis-tr ibuted in the hut of the successfulhunter not necessarily that of the leader.A woman, in this case Tookoolitoo, wasalso responsible for dividing up the re-

mainder of the meat and blubber afterthe initial feasting was completed.3 Th efeasting described by Hall appears mostsimilar to the nirryaktuqtuq, or commu-

nal meals, described amongst Netsiling-miut and Iqlul ingmiut groups.

Although most of the sharing Hall de-scribed was done with the immediatehousehold cluster, meat was also distrib-

uted to famil y members located in otherareas. For example, after seal meat had beendivi ded amongst the families on Rogers Is-land, Unarng, a successful hunter and campleader, took a portion of the meat to hismother Ookijoxy-Ninooand his sisters livingnear the whaling vessel George Henry4 inCyrus Field Bay (Hall 1866). Thus, meatsharing served as a way not only to reduce

risks from famine but also to reinforce socialties and group solidarity.

Thi s system of meat shari ng often tookpl ace concur rentl y wi th a system of meatexchange betw een Inu it and the Euro-Am eri can whalers livi ng in proximi ty tothem. Nugumiut not only brought freshmeat to the George Henry but also tookcrew into their camps to help prevent

scurvy. For exampl e, when the GeorgeHenryhad to spend an unplanned winteri n Cyr us Fiel d Bay in 1862, Capt ai n Bud -ington sent several of his crew to thewinter Nugumiut camp on Oopungnewing(also known as Wi l low s Island l ocated i nCountess of Warwick Sound) to survivethe threats of scurvy and possible star-vation (Hall 1866: 225). Ethnographically

documented meat sharing practicesd em on st r at e an i m por t an t m ean sthrough which Nugumiut kinship rela-tions served to integrate various levelsof economic activity including resourceall ocati on wi thi n I nui t groups and Euro-peans. These relationshi ps were i mp or-tant not only for reinforcing t ies be-tween extended family members but

also could have provided an anchorthrough whi ch I nuit groups could diff er-entiate themselves from the Otherswith whom they were interacting.

3 The orthography of personal names and place-

names f ollowed here is after C. F. H alls original

spelling as it appeared in his 1866 publication.

4 George Henry was the whaling vessel Hall trav-

eled with to the Arctic (Captain S. O. Buddington).



12/40

While the ethnographic record is rich

with description it does not provide the

kind of temporal depth needed to mon-

itor the development of householdi ng

through time. The archaeological record

aff ords u sthi s di achr onic perspecti ve. I n

outer Frobisher Bay ind ivi dual habita-

tion structures excavated as part of the

present study date to periods not well

documented in the ethnographic record

and therefore can be used to help fill in

some of these im portant tim e gaps. If

householdi ng took hold on southeast

Baffin Island, I would expect household-

level production to emphasize the pro-

curement of animals important to their

means of li veli hood (such as ri nged seal)and n ot necessari ly ani mals im port ant t o

European int erests, and that resource

exchange and distribution, in particular

meat sharing practices, would continue

as an important form of economic inte-

gration.

Zooarchaeological Evidence forHouseholding

The faunal results described in thisstud y are based on assembl ages recov-ered from three historic Inuit habitationsites in outer Frobisher Bay, Baffin Island(Fig. 3). A total of thir teen habitations

were excavated over the course of twosummer field seasons.5 Two general time

5 Each structure was excavated in 2 2 m units

with trowels. All structures were completely exca-

vated, wi th the exception of wall featu res. Excavation

pr oceeded follow in g the natural str ati graphy and oc-

cupation levels evident within each habitation. All

excavated materials were screened through one

quarter inch mesh. One to two kil ogram soil sampl es

were collected from each natural layer and fromorganic rich areas, such as hearth deposits, in order

to sampl e for smaller fauna, entomological speci-

mens and soil pH testing. Faunal remains were col-

lected within each quadrant of the 2 2 m uni ts by

feature and level designation. Articulated elements

and bone concentr ations were collected together

within the unit and labeled with an identification

FIG. 3. Location of historic Inuit habitation sites excavated between 1991 and 1992 by the Meta

Incognita Project in Frobisher Bay, Baffin Island.

90 ANNE S. HENSHAW


13/40

periods of historic Inuit habitation wereidentifi ed i n the region, includ ing: (1) pro-tohistoric Inuit (ca. 13001850 A.D.) char-acterized by intermittent contact betweenInuit and early European explorers; and

(2) late historic Inuit (ca. 18501930 A.D.)6

which consisted of prolonged intense in-teraction between Inuit and the triad fur-trappers/traders, Royal Canadian MountedPolice (RCM P) and mi ssionari es whoworked in the region. Although the chro-nological precision in dati ng these sit es,especially duri ng the protohistoric peri od,limits our ability to address the nature of

Inuit economic transformations in accor-dance wi th specifi c contact situations, itcan be used to distinguish, in generalterms, t wo very different tim e periods ofinteraction.

Kamaiyuk. Kamaiyuk is located ap-proximately three kilometers northeast ofKodlunarn Island, on the southern tip of asmall rocky peninsula on the west side of

N apoleon Bay in Countess of WarwickSound (Fig. 4). The site makes an id eallocation for access to marine resourcesand is in proximi ty to a polynya currentlylocated in the outer reaches of FrobisherBay. On the site are 12 visible culturalfeatur es which overl ay ri ch Paleoeski momidden deposits. The main features in-clude three large bilobate semi-subterra-

nean str uctur es, one single lobe semi -subterr anean stru ctur e, two half-erodedsemi -subterr anean str uctur es on thenortheast bank of the site, fi ve heavilyconstructed tent ri ngs and one cobblestone cache. Kamaiyuk represents thelargest protohistori c Inui t sit e in Countess

of Warw ick Sound. Based on cerami cs andbeads recovered from the site as well asC14 dates, Kamaiyuk was occupied some-time between AD 1300 to 1850 (Henshaw1995: Table 2). Although faunal preserva-

tion was generally very good, soil pH atthe site was fairly acidic and ranged from4.1 to 5.0. In addit ion, erosional forcesfrom the sea i n combination with landsubmergence destroyed entrance tunnelsas well as some house fronts and exteriormidden deposits at the site.

Kuyait. Kuyait is situated on a sagemeadow enclave at the southwestern en-

trance of Wiswell Inlet and is located ap-proximately 12 km northwest of Countess ofWarwick Sound (Fig. 5). The site is also justa few hundred meters from a modern out-post camp currently inhabited by Inuit fromthe town of Iqaluit. The site consists of 12visible structures on the ground surfacewhich overl ay rich Paleoeskimo midden de-posits. The features include: nine semi-sub-

terranean dwellings with heavy stone andsod wall construction, three qarmats similarto type d/ e as defined by Stenton (1989: 156),two tent rings, three caches, and a woodenbox burial which was not disturbed by ourexcavations. At higher elevations (100 m)northwest of the site three other cacheswere identified, in addition to a stone foxtrap, all of whi ch had extensive li chen cover.

In 1990, we tested the site and identifi edseveral cultural components ranging fromDorset to historic Inuit times. Between 1991and 1992 we excavated five structures(Houses 3, 5, 8, 11, and 12) representi ngseveral temporal phases of historic Inuit oc-cupation. House 3 was represented by bothpre-contact and historic period occupations,but due to solifluction processes which de-

stroyed much of the architectural integrityof the house and a poor sample size, faunalremains from this structure were not in-cluded in this analysis. House 5 includedtwo distinct occupations: (1) a protohistoricInuit occupation dating as early as the mid-15th century, and (2) a later historic occupa-

number. Large whale bones were photographed and

mapped but not collected. Both house deposits andexterior features, such as middens and caches, were

tested. Unfort unately few exteri or mi ddens were l o-

cated, and excavations focused primarily on interior

house deposits (some of which may represent post

occupati onal debri s).6 Dates are based on both 14C and ceramic materi-

als recovered from the sites.



14/40

FIG. 4. Site plan for Kamaiyuk.

92 ANNE S. HENSHAW


15/40

tion dating approximately to the 1920s.Houses 11 and 12, both qarmat, date to asimilar time frame as the historic occupa-tion of House 5. House 8, a large bilobatesemi-subterranean structure, dates approx-imately between AD 1850 and 1900.

A combination of land submergence,

coastal erosion and solifluction have causeddeterioration of habitation features andtheir associated midden deposits. Bonepreservation was highly variable at the sitewith soil pH reading between 4.4 and 5.3.Faunal material recovered from late historicqarmat structures was in stable conditionbut bone cortexes were heavily pitted due tothe acidic soils. The prehistoric Thule and

late historic Inuit assemblages were in fairto poor condition.

Kussejeerarkjuan. Ku ssejeerark ju an islocated on the west side of the entrance toDiana Bay, two kil ometers northw est ofKodlunarn I sland in Countess of Warw ickSound (Fig. 6). The area was tested in 1990and returned to in 1992 for excavation be-cause of its rich late 19th/early 20th cen-

tury material culture and good faunalpr eservati on. Kussejeerarkjuan is situatedin an open sage meadow f acing west, wi tha large lake system and two large cariboudrives located several hundred meters upa steep embankment to its north. The siteis in an ideal location for access to inland

caribou resources. Kussejeerarkjuan con-sists of at least 26 cultural features all vis-ible on the ground surface including 11qarmats, 10 standard stone l in e tent ri ngssim il ar to type b defi ned by Stenton (1989:

156), four caches, and one box hearth fea-ture. No Paleoeskimo artifactual remainswere recovered from this site, making itone of the few single component historicInuit sites in the area. During the 1992fi eld season we excavated three of thehabitation str uctures, tw o qarm at (H ouses2 and 3) and one tent ri ng (H ouse 6) all ofwh ich date sometim e between 1910 and

1930. Exteri or mi dden deposit s weretested, but little bone was recovered. Fau-nal preservation at the site was good, al-though due to the short occupation spanof these structures, the total number ofbones recovered fr om these excavationswas less than in the large semi-subterra-nean structures at Kuyait and Kamaiyuk.

Seasonality of Occupation and ResourceProcurement

Based on increment analyses conductedon cari bou molars and r inged seal incisorsevidence of both summer and winter/spri ng season ki ll s w ere revealed at allthree sites (Henshaw 1995: Tables 10 and11). Structures whi ch show evidence of

both summer and winter kill could eitherrefl ect mult ipl e seasons in which thesehabitations may have been occupied orthe delayed consumpt ion of resourcesst or ed d u r i n g t h e su m m er an d f al lmonths. At the very least we can inferfrom these data that each of the sites wasinhabited duri ng the wint er and/or spri ngand perhaps other seasons as well.

In addition to the season of occupation,incremental analyses of r inged seal canineswere used to shed light on Nugumiut hunt-ing practices. Specifically, the results indi-cate an extensive use of the floe-edgehabitat in the procurement of marine mam-mals. Modern ringed seal population stud-

TABLE 2

%MUI/RF Spearmans Rho Correlation Coefficients

Site H ouse r s

Kamaiyuk 1 0.1

Kamaiyuk 2

0.144Kamaiyuk 3 0.164

Kamaiyuk 4 0.191

Kuyait 11 0.2

Kuyait 12 0.236

Kuyait 8 0.103

Kuyait 5 (Thule) 0.182

Kuyait 5 (H ist Inuit) 0.182

Ku ssejeer ar kjuan 2 0.236





16/40

FIG.

5.

Site

plan

forKuayit.

94 ANNE S. HENSHAW


17/40

FIG.

6.

Site

plan

forK

ussejeerarkjuan.

95INUIT HOUSEHOLD ECONOMIES


18/40

ies show that different age classes segregatebetween the floe-edge and landfast ice hab-itats (juveniles concentrate primarily alongthe floe-edge and mature and yearling sealscongregate in the landfast ice) (Smith 1973,

1987). The tooth section analyses fr om eachof the three sites revealed that juvenileswere captured during winter (Henshaw1995: Fig. 35), thus confirming the floe-edgehabitat as an important and predictable en-vironmental feature upon which Nugumiutrelied. Evidence of other open-water spe-cies, such as bearded seals and walrus, alsopotentially further reinforce the importance

of this floe-edge habitat for the economiesof outer Frobisher Bay residents. Together,the seasonality data reveal that this regionoffered a resource rich and predictable en-vironment on which Nugumiutcould depend.

Seal Transport and Consumption

A total of 20,399 bone f ragments w ere

recovered from the Kamaiyuk, Kuyait,and Kussejeerarkjuan, excavated in outerFrobisher bay. Kuyait yielded the greatestnumber of bone (8,857), followed by Ka-maiyu k (8,627), and Ku ssejeerark ju an(2,915). From these three sites 6351 speci-mens were identifi ed to genus and/ or spe-cies repr esenting 31.1% of the total assem-blage. Only bone fragments from specific

proveniences (e.g., fl oor deposits and wallmiddens) were included in the study.Bone recovered from old wall sod and re-cent sod matrices were not included un-less they were associated with more re-centl y occupi ed qarmat7 str uctur es. Theunit of analysis employed in this studywas the household and faunal remainswere quantifi ed using three standard

measures: N ISP (Number of Identifi ed

Specimens), M N I (minimum number ofindividuals) and RF (relative frequency).8

Figure 7 shows the relative percentageof non-cetacean mammalian families rep-resented throughout the peri ods repre-

sented in outer Frobisher Bay. SmallPhocids are the most abundant taxon,throughout the di fferent peri ods i denti-fi ed (rangi ng from 47.4 to 61.2%). Based onthe total NISP counted within the smallPhocids, ringed seal occur most frequentlyand range from 85 to 89.1% (Fig. 8). Eventoday, the ringed seal continues to be themost economically important Phocid spe-

cies harvested by Inu it in thi s region.The frequencies of seal elements recov-

ered wi thin households contexts exca-vated at the three sites are plotted in Figs.9, 10, and 11. Clearl y, appendicular ele-ments (i.e., the forelimbs and hindlimbs)are found in greater proportions relativeto axial elements (i.e., the vertebral col-umn and skull) with the exception of the

7 Qarmaq are above-ground features characterized

by lighter construction than the more substantial Thule

semi-subterranean houses. Qarmaq have low exterior

walls and shall ow interi ors. Entrance passages are less

than a meter in length and are also shallow. They are

typically associated with the historic period.

8 There are many ways to quantify faunal remains

fr om archaeological sites; each w ith i ts own i nherent

set of biases which vary according to the specifi c

research questions being addressed (Grayson 1984;

Ringr ose 1993; Lyman 1994a). Problems associated

with NISP are that it under represents animals that

mi ght not r each th e site whole, namely i n th is study,

large sea m amm als, such as w alr uses and wh ales,

wh ich are often but chered out on t he sea ice. Phocid

taxonomi c abundancies are based on NI SP counts

because of the small number of elements which canbe used to distinguish the different species and be-

cause these animals are believed to have been

brought back whole to individual households. M NI

values are represented by the maximum RF for each

taxon and are used to avoid counting the same indi-

vidual twice. RF values are derived by dividing the

total number of bones (TNB) from a given element

category (i.e., for longbones di stal, pr oximal, shaft,

whole), by t he num ber of t im es they occur naturally

in the skeleton. Age and side are not considered in

calculating the RFs for this analysis. In the presentstudy, faunal remains are aggregated according to

individual household deposits which are believed to

represent chronologically distinct dispositi onal epi-

sodes. Al l quantifi cation analyses were conducted

using a slightly modified version of Quattobone, a

softw are pr ogram developed by Tom M cGovern and

Tom Amorosi (1988).

96 ANNE S. HENSHAW


19/40

head and sacrum . A remarkable featur e of

these data is the similarity of element fre-quencies between the sites. At face valuethese d ata suggest that Inu it cull ed andtransported certain elements back tohouseholds. H owever, as I show below,this interpretation is not supported whenmeat utility indices and taphonomic pro-cesses are considered.

M eat util i ty in dices. Lyman et al. (1992)

created a m eat util i ty index (MUI ), inwhich Phocidflesh weight per associatedskeletal part is refl ected. The study isimportant as it allows archaeologists tointerpret element frequency data in re-lation to the m eat value of cert ain bodyparts found in the archaeological record.

Lyman et al. (1992: 532) used four seals

to calculate these indices, includingth ree harp seals and one hooded seal, al lsim il ar in size and anatomy to th e Phoc-i ds analyzed in this study.9 Based onth eir resul ts, ri bs were found t o have thegreatest meat uti li ty. In general, otheraxial part s w ere found to have greatermeat utility relative to appendicular el-ements.

To account f or t he ri der effect (Bin-ford 1978) in which certain low util i tybones are brought along wi th high util -

9 Recent utili ty indices calculated by M arc Diab

(1998) on r in ged seals reveal th at meat uti li ty in di ces

for thi s species are strongly correlated wi th the anal-

yses conducted by Lyman et al., (1992).

FIG. 7. Chronological comparison of faunal remains recovered from outer Frobisher Bay.

Percentage frequencies are based on MNI values calculated for each of the species (Protohistoric

M N I 116; Late Historic Inuit MNI 113).



20/40

ity bones during the butchery process,Lym an et al . (1992: 537) developed th emod ifi ed meat u t i l i ty in dex (M M UI).Th e M M UI in fl ates certain low meatuti li ty element s to higher valu es because

they are given a m eat weight that repre-sents t he average of their weight plusthe higher uti l i ty element with whichthey are articulated (Lyman et al. 1992:540). Therefore, in the M M UI , certainelements such as the femur, sternum,scapu la and th oracic vertebr ae are giv enelevated meat values relative to thestandard meat u ti li ty i ndex. In a stud y of

contemporary Inuit hunters in ClydeRiver, NW T, Whitr idge (1992: 3) re-ported that heavier ri nged seals weredivi ded up int o four large butchery u nit sat the k il l sit es before t ransport, ethno-graphically validating the importance ofM M UI ethnographicall y.

In Figs. 12, 13, and 14 archaeologicalseal element frequency data from outerFrobisher Bay are plotted in relation tothese utility indices. Ribs were not in-cluded in the analysis because only

proximal ends were i denti fi ed to genus,and therefore would not reflect theirtrue presence in the archaeologicalrecord. Figure 12 shows no correlationbetween element frequency (deri vedfrom RF calculations) and %MUI at Ka-maiyuk (the exclusion of ribs could helpexplain this finding), but reveals a sta-tistically significant negative correlation

between element frequency and its as-sociated %M M UI. Figures 13 and 14show a simi lar pattern in late historiccontexts at Ku yai t and Ku ssejeerark ju an(except at Kuyait , H ouse 8). Followi ngLym an et al . (1992: 534), a Spearmansrho (rs) correlation coefficient is used to

FIG. 8. Breakdown of small Phocidsspecies recovered from each sit e. Percentage frequencies arebased on NISP values (Prothi storic Inu it N ISP 100; Hi storic Inuit NI SP 211). M N I not calculated

due to the f ew number of elements that can be identifi ed to the species level.

98 ANNE S. HENSHAW


21/40

FIG. 9. Element frequencies of Phocidae remains from Kamaiyuk (KfDe-5). The numbers in

parentheses refer to the sum of RF for each house (H1 House 1, etc).

FIG. 10. Element frequencies of Phocidae remains from Kuyait (KfDf-2). The numbers in

parentheses refer to the sum of RF for each house (P.H. Protohistoric Occupation; L.H. Late

Historic occupation).



22/40

interpret seal skeletal part frequency inrelation to th ese in di ces because suchdata only provides ordinal scale resolu-tion, even though it is presented in in-terval scale terms. The correlation coef-fi cient s and tests of signi fi cance (P chisquare) fr om t hese data appear in Tabl es

2 and 3. This pattern is similar to the reverse uti li ty str ategy (Bin ford 1978;Lyman 1992b: 8) found in other easternCanadian A rctic habi tation sit es (Lymanet al., 1992: 544547).

Traditionally, archaeologists have as-sumed that this type of assemblage rep-resents a place where animals werekilled, as elements with low meat value

are found more frequently than thosewith a high meat value (Binford 1978).M ore recen t d ata on con temp oraryhunting practices of hunter-gatherers inA fr ica, however, have al so shown that asim il ar pattern occurs when large car-casses are carr ied long di stances back to

habitation areas by foot (Bunn et al.1988; M arshall and Pi lgram 1990). Be-cause these assembl ages came fr omhabitation sites, I suggest that both highan d low meat u t i l i ty elemen ts weretransported from kil l sites, and thatbut chery of t he whole ani mal w as takin g

pl ace i n the household s.This assertion is supported by bothcon-

temporary and historic ethnographic obser-vations which describe dismembermenttaking place within household contexts(Boas 1964; Nelson 1969; Van de Velde 1976;EA Smith 1991). For example, W hitridges(1992: 2) study of contemporary Inuit hunt-ers showed that 14 of 23 (61%) of the ringed

seals caught were taken home whole. Boasreported simil ar patterns during the time hespent in Cumberland Sound. As Boas de-scribes (1964: 154),

While hunting they usually open the seals

caught early in the morning, to take out a piece

of the fl esh or liver, whi ch they eat raw for lunch.

FIG. 11. Element frequencies of Phocidae remains from Kussejeerarkjuan (KeDe-7). The num-

bers in parentheses refer to the sum of RF for each house.

100 ANNE S. HENSHAW


23/40

The cut is then temporarily fastened until the

final dressing of the animal [is done] at home.

Other, larger sea mammals, such aswhales and walrus, were generally pro-

cessed at ki ll sit es, in most cases on the

sea ice (Hall 1866: 500). Alt hough Boas

(1964: 114) observed that walrus carcasses

were sometimes butchered at kil l sites

FIG. 12. Kamaiyuk seal element frequency plotted in relation to (a) MUI (rs 0.155) and (b)

M M U I (rs 0.736, P 0.012).



24/40

into as many parts as there were partnersin the hunt; . . . every [walrus] part beingrolled up in a piece of skin and carriedhome in i t. If butchery of whole seals was

taking place in the houses what can ex-plain the variation we see in element partfrequency from these sites? In a recentreview by Marc Diab (1998: 2), a wide ar-

FIG. 13. Kuyait seal element frequency plotted in relation to (a) MUI (rs 0.182) and (b) M M UI

(rs

0.8,P

0.007).

102 ANNE S. HENSHAW


25/40

ray of mechanisms could account for thisdiscrepancy ranging fr om age, sex, andtaxonomic differences in fl esh to boneweight ratios to the structured cultural

rules of meat and blubber distri butionpractices. In this study, three taphonomicfactors are exami ned to account for thi sapparent inconsistency: (1) cultural prac-

FIG. 14. Kussejeerarkjuan seal element fr equency plotted in relation to (a) M UI (rs 0.164) and

(b) MM UI (rs 0.764; P 0.015).



26/40

tices revolving around carcass treatment;(2) poor bone preservation, and (3) boneloss from dog scavenging and feeding be-havior (Lyman et al. 1992: 547; for otherarchaeological contexts see Lyman 1985,

1992b).Treatment of carcass. Based on ethno-

graphi c data, the tr eatment of carcasses byInui t is infl uenced by several factors,some of which include the size of the an-imal, the transport mechanism util ized,dog feeding pr acti ces (discussed later),raw material production, food taboo ritu-als, food preferences and meat shari ng

pr acti ces. As already di scussed, becauseof the small size of ringed seals, carcasseswere generally brought home whole.Therefore, some of these other factorsmust have played a role in the seal ele-ment frequency patterns reflected in thesesites. Food taboo rituals and food prefer-ence could have infl uenced these pattern salthough specific data relating these fac-

tors to the sites under investigation havenot been full y analyzed, although theyhave been investigated in other sim il arcultural contexts (see Woollett 1991; Diab1998).

In the present study, meat-shari ngpractices both within and between differ-

ent households are thought to hold themost imp ortant impli cations for interpret-in g element frequency data and m eat ut il -ity indexes. If carcasses were divided andshared between households then one

would might expect element frequenciesto show a random pattern as various ele-ments woul d have been transported out ofth eir in i t ia l h o u seh o ld co n tex ts an dmoved to adjacent households after dis-memberment. Such a pattern would de-pend on the contemporaneity of struc-tures, duration of occupation and thespecific kinds of meat sharing practices in

place at the time. The element frequencydata from the habitation sites in outer Fro-bisher Bay are not random and insteadshow remarkable uniformi ty suggestingmeat may have been shared only withinindi vidual households. This uni formityhowever does not explain why certain el-ements are found in such high propor-tions versus others. Considering the acidi c

nature of the soils in which these assem-bl ages were r ecovered, pr eser vati onalbias may in part account for this discrep-ancy.

Poor bone preservation. Ly man (1994b)and Chambers (1992) addressed the ta-phonomic processes related to bonepreservation by measuri ng the densit yof sealbone using photon densitometry.

In th eir analy si s, bone mi neral densit y i smeasur ed by the absorpt ion of a photonbeam of known strength as it passesthrough a selected part of a bone, and isquantified as g/cm 3 (Lyman 1994b: 238).Based on their analysis, one can predictthat lower densit y bone wit h less stru c-tural integrity is l ess li kely to be pre-served than high density bone. The re-

sults of their studies show that sealskeletal p art s have dif ferin g densit ies. Inorder to correlate the seal meat util ityindi ces of skeletal parts (often repre-sented by complex bone wi th vari abledensities) with specific density values, Ichose the scan site nearest the average

TABLE 3

%MMUI/RF Spearmans Rho Correlation

Coefficients and Tests of Significance

Site H ouse rs P

Kamaiyuk 1

0.648 0.001Kamaiyuk 2 0.702 0.008

Kamaiyuk 3 0.664 0.004

Kamaiyuk 4 0.673 0.001

Kuyait 11 0.818 0.018

Kuyait 12 0.764 0.002

Kuyait 8 0.653 0.001

Kuyait 5 (Thule) 0.691 0.001

Kuyait 5 (H ist Inuit) 0.773 0.021

Kussejeerarkjuan 2 0.764 0.002



104 ANNE S. HENSHAW


27/40

value for that element (Lyman 1994: Ta-bles 7.6, 7.7; Chambers 1992) (Table 4).When the density of bone is plotted ver-sus %M UI and %M M UI (Fi g. 15), no cor-relation exists between density and the

% MUI (rs .027; P .697), but a neg-ative corr elation does exist betweenbone densit y and t he %M M UI (alt houghnot statistically significant at the .05 lev-el; rs .061; P .093). Thus, in general,low er ut il it y bones tend to h ave a hi gherdensity than high util ity bones. In thecase of seals, the lower utility appendic-ular skeleton has a greater chance of

su rviv orsh ip in th e arch aeologicalrecord than the hi gher uti li ty axial skel-eton.

When bone density is plotted againstarchaeological seal element frequency aweak but positive correlation is shownfor 9 of the 12 houses included in thisstudy (Table 5). In these houses, boneswith lower density tend to be found in

fewer numbers than those w ith higherdensit ies. I n li ght of these fi ndi ngs, onecan better interpret the patterns of vari-ation in seal element frequency ob-served in the houses from these sites(Figs. 9, 10, and 11). The hi gher repre-sentation of high densit y appendi cular

bones observed in relation to lower den-sit y axial bones, w it h the excepti on ofthe head, suggests that preservation wasa significant factor influencing the sur-vivorship of certain elements.

Dog feeding practices. What can explainthe element frequencies in the otherhouses where poor preservation can notbe corr elated wit h element frequency?Both contemporary and historic descrip-ti ons of In uit dog feeding p racti ces revealthat the axial elements of sea mammalcarcasses, both large and small, were alsocommonly fed to dogs. As Boas (1964: 109)

observed,The flippers are cut off at the joints, and thus

the whole skin is drawn off in a single piece, in

dressing the animal the natives open the belly

and first scoop out the blood, then the entrails

are taken out, the ribs are separated from the

breastbone and from the vertebrae, the fore fli p-

pers (with the shoulders and t he hind fli ppers)

are taken out, t he only part remaini ng being the

head, the spinal column, and the rump bone.

Generally, these are not eaten, but are used fordog f ood.

Thus, the low presentation of axial el-ements can also be explained by thepresence of dogs at these sites, particu-l ar l y at K am i yu k w her e t he M N I f orthem ranges from 9 to 29% of the i den-tifi ed non-cetacean mammal remains(Fig. 7). Trace buckles associated wi th

dog sleds were also recovered from Ka-maiyuk and Kuyait which lend supportto th e use of dogs at th ese si tes. Sur pr is-ingly, chewed bone is represented inonly small proporti ons (see Table 6).H owever, Boas (1888: 564) describes thatdogs were fed generally outside habita-ti on areas, a pl ace wh ere l it tl e bone waspr eserved i n th e si tes excavated in outer

Frobisher Bay. Another factor that couldaccount for the low representation ofchewed bone in the assemblages is thatdogs could have been eating entirebones. Also, it is not clear whether chewmarks would show up on bone if onlysoft tissue were eaten by dogs (Kent

TABLE 4

Density of Scan Sites Chosen for Correlation

between Utility Indices and Bone Density

Scan site

Corresponding

u ti l ity el emen t cl ass D en si ty

TH 2 TH OR 0.37

LU1 LUM 0.38

AX1 CERV 0.56

FE6 FEM 0.57

RI2 RIB 0.50

SP1 SCAP 0.49

IL2 PELV 0.63

H U3 H UM 0.57

RA1 RAD/ UL 0.63

FI5 TIB/ FI 0.76

DN 2 H EAD 0.84



28/40

1981). Therefore, dogs may have had a

si gnifi cant imp act on th ese assembl ages

but due to the nature of Inuit dog feed-

ing practices and dog chewing behavior,

such factors are invisible in the archae-

ological record.

Based on data documenting the effects

of pr eserv ati onal bi as, dog feedi ng p rac-

FIG. 15. Scatter plot of bone density versus (a) %MUI and (b) %MMUI.

106 ANNE S. HENSHAW


29/40

tices and the implication the uniformityof element frequency data have formeat- shari ng pr acti ces, I concl ude thatInuit brought back whole seal carcassesto indi vidual household contexts and

subsequently divided the meat. If thiswere not the case and In ui t br ought onl yhigh utility elements back to habitationareas, then fewer seal remains wouldhave been recovered overall and lowutility elements would have been absentor f ound i n much l ower fr equencies rel-ative to high utility bones. In fact, con-sidering the small size of seals and the

ability of Inuit to transportcarcasses us-ing kayaks and qamutiik (sl eds),th i s con-clusion is further supported. Addition-al ly , eth nograp hic d escrip t ion s ofgender roles in traditional Inuit societyhelp reinforce this interpr etation. Thedivision of labor amongst historic Inuitgroups, although complim entary, wasclearl y separated along gender li nes

(Guemple 1986). For example, althoughwomen did not normally go on huntingtrips, they were in charge of meat distri-bution once carcasses had been broughtback to habitation areas. It follows thenthat the butchering of meat would takeplace within household contexts at leastd urin g th e win ter mon ths as eth no-graphi c records descri be (Boas 1964:

154). Bearded seal element fr equ enciesshow no marked differences from those

pattern s observed for the small er Phocids(H enshaw 1995), al th ough th ese data arel ess robust. N oneth eless, if the si mi lari ty

of element frequencies is consistent forall the Phocidaeregardless of size, thesedata suggest that both species weretransported whole.10

The suppositi on that whole seal car-casses were brought back to habitationstructur es suggests that appropriationaldecisions regardi ng meat di str ibut iontook place wi thin the household. These

appropriational decisions are im portantwhen consideri ng Inui t social and eco-nomic formations in outer Frobisher Bay. Iargue that Inuit kinship bonds as they re-late to this form of subsistence behavior,

10 As other data suggests, bearded seal may have

been divided into more manageable transport units

at kill sites (Lyman 1992a: 258). In a study by Lyman

(1992a), the butchery of seal species of markedlydifferent sizes along the Oregon Coast may have

differed only in relation to the logistics involved in

divi din g meat i nto convenientl y sized un its for t rans-

port and consump tion. An analysis of butchery could

shed li ght on thi s issue but was not conducted in this

study due t o the poor preservational state of the

assemblage.

TABLE 5

Weak but Positive Correlations RF/Bulk Density

Site H ouse rs P

Kamaiyuk 2 0.534 0.019

Kamaiyuk 3 0.440 0.018Kamaiyuk 4 0.502 0.043

Kuyait 11 0.539 0.011

Kuyait 12 0.517 0.004

Kuyait 5 (H ist Inuit) 0.453 0.074




TABLE 6

Percentage of Chewed Bone Based on the Presence

or Absence of Chew Marks on Bird, Hare, Fox, Dog/

Wolf, Caribou, Polar Bear, Seals, Walrus, Whale, and

Unidentified Bone

Site H ouse % TN B chewed

Kamaiyuk 1 0.54%

Kamaiyuk 2 0.66%

Kamaiyuk 3 0.09%

Kamaiyuk 4 0.00%

Kuyait 11 1.80%

Kuyait 12 0.42%

Kuyait 5 0.49%

Kuyait 8 1.98%

Kussejeerarkjuan 2 2.22%

Kussejeerarkjuan 3 1.76%Kussejeerarkjuan 6 0.92%

Tikkoon 17 0.00%

Note. TNB indicates the total number of bones.



30/40

even during late historic times, remainedthe basis of cultural cohesion in Inuit so-ciety. The household formed the organi-zational nexus for affi rm ing and reaffi rm -i n g soci al r el at i o n s t h at f aci l i t at ed

economic autonomy.Element pair ing analysis. Other prelim-inary findings attempting to trace Inuitmeat shari ng practices through elementpair ing lend some support to these in ter-pretations. The purpose of the analysiswas to m atch ind ivi dual pair s of Phoca sp.astraguli and pelves within and betweenhouseholds from outer Frobisher Bay on

an intra and inter site basis. This type ofanalysis is simi lar to other studies con-ducted on land mammal species from avariety of cultur al contexts (Enloe andDavid 1992; Zeder 1993; Zeder and Arter1996).

The elements used in the matchinganalysis were chosen based on data relat-ing to their individual meat utility values

(Lyman et al. 1992), ethnographic descrip-tions on dismemberment and di stri butionpractices among various Inui t groups(Balikci 1964, Balikci 1970; Birk ett-Smi th1924; Damas 1963, 1972; H olt ved 1967; Vande Velde 1956, 1976), and the distinctivemorphological characteristics of each ele-ment (Glew 1994). Based on these thr eecriteria, the elements initially chosen in-

cluded the pelves, astragali and calcanei.Using the modern Phoca sp. collectionfrom the Museum of Comparative Zool-ogy at H arvard Uni versity, thr ee completeskeletons of Phoca vitul in awere chosen toexami ne the morphological di sti ncti ve-ness of each element (our samp le size waslimited by the availability of skeletons inthe collecti on).

Elements from each of the faunal as-semblages were sorted by site, size, side,and preservational status (Table 7). Pair-in g was conducted by assessin g the de-gree of morphological symmetry betweenspecimens. Each specimen was comparedto all other individual specimens from a

given element class regardless of whethera previous match was thought to havebeen made. Blind testing was conductedfor each of the element classes.

Based on the experi mental nature of the

study, the result s of the analysis raisedmore questi ons than th ey answered. Onl ythree positive matches were made fromthe entire collection that both examinersagreed upon. House 3 at Kamaiyuk con-tained pairs of both astragali and pelves(Plates 1 and 2), and the historic levels ofHouse 5 at Kuyait contained a pair of as-tragali (Plate 1). Because all three of these

matches were found wit hin households(and not between households), the resultslend some support to the inference thatbutchery and meat distribution also tookplace i n household units. Why were sofew matches made either wit hin or be-tw een households? Several factors couldaccount for this discrepancy.

Although distinct morphological char-

acteristics were easily identifi ed in themodern Phoca vitul ina coll ecti on, deter-mining the similarities of morphologicalcharacteristics became a fairly subjectiveassessment in archaeological specimenswhere poor preservation prevented theidentification of certain diagnostic traits.

TABLE 7

Total Numbers of Astragali, Calcanei, and Pelves

Used in Matching Analysis

Site H ouse

Total

astragali

Total

calcanei

Total

pelves

KeDe-7 2 7 1 5

3 6 3 9

6 1 2 12

KfDe-5 1 11 9 4

2 9 6 19

3 29 22 25

4 14 9 11

KfDf-2 5 29 20 20

8 1 3 2

11 16 7 11

12 46 32 39

108 ANNE S. HENSHAW


31/40

For thi s reason, calcanei were quicklydropped as an element that could be con-fidently matched. Metric analyses of a ro-

bust sampl e of modern specim ens mayhelp reduce this degree of subjectivity.

An other reason so few matches weremade may be attributed to the fact thathousehold deposits could represent mid-den material, which accumulated after t heabandonment of the str uctur e (Glew 1994:9). While this may be true for House 8 atKuyait, where mid -19th century historic

materi als were r ecovered from a Thule-li ke large bilobate semi -subterr aneanstructure, it is not likely the case for his-toric qarmatstr uctur es. Also, as Park (1997)has argued, we can not assume that indi-vidual structures w ithi n large vill agesit es were occupi ed contemp oraneously.

Various preservational biases, in clu dingpoor bone preservation and the erosion ofexteri or mi dden deposits, also probably

hampered our ability to make positivematches. Despite the few pairs that wereidentified, it is interesting to note that thematches came from within and not be-tw een dif ferent households, perh aps rein-forcing the notion that meat sharing tookplace at an extremely locali zed level.Some may i nterpr et t hese find in gs to sug-gest t hat th e Nugumiutin habitants of these

sites were not practicing the kind of meatshari ng relationship s well documented forother Inuit groups (Table 1). On the con-trary, I suggest that only one extendedfamily may have been occupying any oneof these sites at a given time (i.e., thestr uctur es may not be contemporaneous

PLATE 1. Astragali matched within House 3 at Kamaiyuk (upper pair) and House 5 (historic

levels) at Kuyait (lower pair).



32/40

and therefore sharing would only be ex-

pected to occur within households). If this

were the case, the population of outer Fro-

bisher Bay must have been very low

throughout the historic period.

Alt hough the results of this analysis are

not conclusive, they are instructive and

hold important implications for future re-

search. W it h good faunal pr eservation

and a combination of metric and morpho-

logical analyses, the appl icabil ity of thi s

method in addressing appropriational is-

sues could impr ove greatly. The impor-tance of such stud ies should not be under-

estimated, as they offer a unique way for

zooarchaeologists to move beyond basic

locational reconstructions and fl esh out

the richness of economi c activit y in the

past.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Nugumiuteconomic tr ansform ati ons can

not be reduced to simple continuity/change i deati onal constr ucts. Rath er,these tr ansformati ons mu st be consideredas a form of economic integration whi ch i sneither t raditional n or modern but a strat-egy used by Nugumiutto accommodate thesocial and economic changes t hey wereexperi encing. I have argued that th is formof economic integration can best be un-

derstood thr ough the concept of house-holding which embodies the holistic na-ture of human economic production. Bytracing the development of householdingthr ough both the zooarchaeological andethnographic records, Nugumiut economicindependence was seen to have persisted,

PLATE 2. A pair of pelves matched within House 3 at Kamaiyuk.

110 ANNE S. HENSHAW


33/40

and even thrived, during a period of un-precedented change. Nugumiut were ableto successfully move in and out of differ-ent forms of economi c in tegration wi thoutlosing the foundation of their own eco-

nomic livelihood.Several factors identified in this studyhelp explain how such a form of eco-nomi c integration could develop. N otonly were Nugumiut peripheral to for-eign enclaves of acti vit y on southeastBaffin Island, but the nature of foreignpolicies and attitudes toward Nugumiutenabled them to participate in the world

economy on their own terms. Because ofthis marginality, Inuit also enjoyed agreater freedom to choose those aspectsof European culture that they them-selves found beneficial. As Nugumiutmaintained direct access to the means ofproduction and to kinship labor, theywere also abl e to p ur sue economi c acti v-ities relatively free of any foreign inter-

venti on. The h ouseholdi ng model pre-sented here parallels the interpretationof all -native communiti es descri bedby Damas (1988) for the contact- tr adi -tional era in the eastern Arctic. In hisstudy, Damas (1988) finds that Inuit, es-pecially during the period when trap-pers, missionari es and RCM P offi cersrepresented the principle agents of

change in the n orth , exhibi t a great dealof local autonomy from outside groups.

Corresponding environmental datashowthat Nugumiut autonomy was alsoreinforced by local environmental con-ditions that supported rich marine re-sources on a year-round basis (Henshaw1995). Envi ronm ental data have shownthat the resource rich polynya, an invari-

ant part of the environmental landscapein outer Frobisher Bay, provided Nugu-miut with a certain sense of predictabil-ity in an ever-changing and variable cli-mate. In this sense, outer Frobisher Bayrepresented a kind of refugia both envi-ronmentall y and cult urally. Thi s pattern

conti nues today, as many of th e outpostresidents who live in outer FrobisherBay utilize this resource-rich territory tohunt mari ne and terr estri al resourcesand live a lifestyle that promotes their

own social and economi c ind ependence.The determination that householdingdeveloped and help ed t o coordi nate var-ious forms of economic integration maynot be a sur pr ise to m any as In ui t h ouse-hold composit ion, form ati on and or gani -zation have been intensively studied inthe Ar ctic. What is interesting is that thisform of socioeconomi c int egrati on (as

refl ected through faunal remains) be-came reinforced despit e the changingcontexts of interaction that occurredwith the arri val of Europeans. Whenzooarchaeological data is combi ned w ithartifactual data, it will be interesting tosee wh ether or not thi s ki nd of resil iencyis noted within the material culture re-covered from these sites. What kinds of

goods were Nugumiut acquiring? Howwere they being used and in what con-texts? One might expect in light of thezooarchaeological data that as raw ma-terials and manufactured items enteredNugumiut households they may havebeen used and interpreted in ways thatreinforced their unique way of life.

Based on the f aunal and ethn ohistori -

cal evidence presented here, how do N u-gumiutcompare wi th other mobil e hunt-er-gatherer groups in the Arctic whowere also perip heral to contact? H owunique i s Nugumiut householding com-pared with other strategies used byn or t her n gr ou ps t o accom m od at echange? To what extent did Nugumiutpersist as a set of in dependent house-

holds or part of larger Inuit cultural en-tit y? It is diffi cult to compare the resultsof this research to other archaeologicalstud i es i n the A rcti c, as few researchershave directly explored the economic as-pects of colonial encount ers th rough theanalysis of faunal remains. Al though



34/40

based on artifactual and ethnohistoricalstudies, other northern groups in theeastern A rcti c di d demonstr ate a si mi larkind of economic independence by ac-tively participating in trade relations

with foreign groups that benefited theirown economi c desir es and needs. Forexample, the presence of Dutch whalerson west Greenland in the 18th centuryserved to reinforce an elaborate Eskimoexchange network alr eady in place inthat area and without disrupting Eskimotradit ional sett lement patterns andhu nt ing str ategies (Gul lv 1985). In con-

trast, on the nearby Labrador coast, Su-san Kaplan (1983, 1985) showed howInuit population increase and a longstanding European presence in the areabetween the 16th and 18th centuries hadsignifi cant im pacts on Inu it settl ementlocations and hunting strategies as theacquisition and control of Europeangoods became central to their economic

and political life. Stephen Loring (1992),in a study of Innu cultural transforma-tions over the past 2000 years in interiorLabrador and Quebec, revealed howNaskapi-M ontagnais groups repro-duced and sustained their group iden-tity during periods of interaction withEuropean groups through being flexibleand by maintaining direct access to ter-

r i tor y, r esources and exchange netw ork sthrough time.

What about indigenous groups in thewestern Arctic? Much of what is knownin the w estern A rcti c is based largely onethnohistori cal studi es and contempo-rary ethnographies. Along the northslope of Al aska, contact was, in largepart, domi nated by the 19th Eur o-A mer-

ican Whaling industry. In this region,Inupiat, similar to Nugumiut, pl ayed anactive role in the overall success of theind ustr y. Furt herm ore, th e Inupiatwhal-ing tradition today continues as an im-portant appropriational activity used toreinforce social ti es wi thi n communi ti es

(Burch 1987; Spencer 1959;Worl 1980;Ell anna 1988; Cassell 1988). A nothermajor foreign player was Russia, whosemercanti l ist and reli gious acti vi ti es werelargely concentrated in the western

sub-Ar ctic beginni ng in the 18th cen-tu ry. The natur e of in teracti ons Russianshad with local populations are just re-centl y beginn in g to unfold i n the archae-ological and ethnohistorical li terature(Crowell 1992, 1997; M cCart ney et al .1991; W oodhou se-Beyer 1998). In con-trast to Nugumiut, Al euts and Koniagsexperienced colonial p oli cies th at served

to undermine much of their economicindependence. In this context then,independent householding may nothave had the opportunity to evolve inthis region to the extent it has in otherareas.

One of the most important impli ca-ti ons the householdi ng concept holds forArctic archaeology and anthropology is

that it emphasizes the internal mecha-nisms through which Inuit adapted tochanging circumstances and lays an im-portant foundation through which thetotality of economic production, both lo-cation and appropriation, can be con-ceptualized and appl ied in a wi de arr ayof cultural contexts. Wi thout a doubt,Inuit were not passive victims but active

part icipants in creati ng and recreati ngtheir culture in ways that enabled themto reinforce a disti nct cultur al identit y i nthe past and no doubt as they will con-tinue to do into the future.

REFERENCES CITED

Bali kci, Asen

1964 D evelopment of basic socio-economi c uni ts in

tw o Eski mo commun i ti es. N ational M useum ofCanada Bull etin 202, Ottawa.

1970 The Netsil ik Eskimo. The N atural History

Press, Garden City, NY.

Barr, Wi lliam

1994 The eighteenth centur y trade between the

ships of the H udsons Bay Company and the

Hudson Strait I nuit. Arctic47(3):236246.

112 ANNE S. HENSHAW


35/40

Barry, R. G., Wendy Arundale, J. T. Andrews, Ray-

mond Bradley, and Harvey Nichols

1977 Environmental change and cult ur al change

in the eastern Canadian Arctic During the

last 5000 years. Arctic and Al pine Research9(2):193210.

Binford, Lewis1978 Nunamiut ethnoarchaeology. Academi c Press,

New York.

1980 Wi llow smoke and d ogs t ail s: Hun ter-gath-

erer settlement systems and archaeological

site formation. Ameri can A ntiquity 45:420.

Bir kett-Smi th, Kaj

1924 Ethnography of the Egedesmi nde D istrict,

with aspects of the general culture of West

Greenland. M eddelelser om Grnl and 66.

Copenhagen.Bishop, Charles

1984 The first century: A daptive changes amongst

the Western James Bay Cree between the

early seventeenth and early eighteenth centu-

ries. In The subarctic fur trade, edited by Shaprd

Krech III, pp. 2154. University of British Co-

lumbia Press, Vancouver.

Boas, Franz

1964 The Centr al Eskim o. University of Nebraska

Press, Li ncoln. (Originally publi shed as partof t he Sixth An nual Report of t he Bureau of

Ethnology, Smi thsonian Institut ion, Wash-

ington, DC, 1888.)

Bord enhorn, Barbara

1988 Whales, souls, childr en, and other things

that are good to share: Core metaphors in a

contemporary whaling society. Cambridge

Anthropology 13(1):119.

Brice-Bennett, C.

1977 Our footsteps are every wh ere: Inui t l and use andoccupancy in Labrador. Labrador Inuit Asso-

ciation, N ain.

Buijs, Cunera C. M.

1993 Di sappearance of traditi onal meat-shari ng

systems among the Tinitekilaamiut of

Greenland and the Arviligjuarmiut and Ig-

lulingmuit of Canada. In Continui ty and dis-

continuity in Arctic cultures: Essays in honor of

Gertie Nooter, edited by Cunera Buijs, pp.

108135. N ational M useum of Ethnologyand Centre of Non-W estern Studies, Lei-

den, The Netherlands.

Bunn, H. T., L. E. Bartram, and E. M. Kroll

1988 Variability in bone assemblage formation

from Hadza hunting, scavenging, and car-

cass pr ocessing. Journal of Ant hropological

Archaeology 7:412457.

Burch, Ernest S.

1981 The traditional Eskimo hunters of Point Hope,

Alaska. North Slope Borough, Point Barrow,

Alaska.

Cassell , M ark

1988 Farmers of the Northern Ice: Relations of

production in the traditional North AlaskanInupiat whale hunt. In Research in economic

anthropology, edited by Barry Isaac, pp. 89

116. JAI Press Inc., Greenwich, CT.

Chambers, Annette

1992 Seal bone mi neral density: I ts eff ect on speci men

surv i val i n ar chaeologi cal si tes. Unpublished

honors thesis, Departm ent of Ant

inuit household

Documents