Zen Fish: a Consideration of the Discordance Between Artifactual and Zooarchaeological Indicators of Thule Inuit Fish Use
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 20, 3–72 (2001) doi:10.1006/jaar.2000.0368, available online at http://www.idealibrary.com on Zen Fish: A Consideration of the Discordance between Artifactual and Zooarchaeological Indicators of Thule Inuit Fish Use Peter Whitridge Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, 301 Alumni Bldg., CB# 3115, Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-3115 Received February 27, 1998; revision received February 4, 2000; accepted June 30, 2000 Despite fish bone being rare in even the best preserved Classic Thule Inuit (ca. A.D. 1000– 1400) faunal assemblages from the Canadian Arctic, it has often been assumed that fish played an important role in Thule economies. This is due to the prominent place of fishing in the harvesting practices of the Historic Inuit and the ubiquity of fishing implements in Thule artifact assemblages. Based on an evaluation of potential taphonomic, sampling, and interpretive biases and the artifactual and zooarchaeological evidence for harvesting of sea mammals, land mam- mals, fish, and birds, it appears that fishing was of generally limited importance in the eastern parts of the Canadian Arctic and before about A.D. 1400, likely due to resource scheduling conflicts. The nonetheless widespread occurrence of fishing gear invites consideration of alter- native scenarios for the place of fishing in Thule society, in which a minor dietary role is not inconsistent with important cultural roles. © 2001 Academic Press Key Words: Thule; Inuit; economy; zooarchaeology; fish; taphonomy; site formation; Arctic, Nunavut. I have fished everywhere; but I have not really fished at all.—Iglulingmiut hunter INTRODUCTION ing the discordant evidence up to tapho- nomic and recovery biases, there has been Thule archaeologists are favored with a no review of the artifactual or zooarchaeo- tremendously rich faunal record, the re- logical evidence for fishing, nor any sus- sult of a conjunction between hunting so- tained consideration of the possibility that cieties that derived virtually their entire the faunal lacuna is really just an indica- diet from animals and a cold, dry arctic tion that fishing was much less important environment that ensures good preserva- for Thule than later Inuit groups. tion of near-surface faunal remains and The sample of sites with published fau- perfect preservation of any bone or soft nal and artifactual data now appears suf- tissue that becomes enclosed in perma- ficient to attempt a critical evaluation of frost. Despite fish bone being rare in even Thule fish use. This necessitates assem- the best preserved faunal assemblages, it bling data from later Inuit sites as well, has often been assumed that fish played since the conventional importance at- an important role in Eastern Thule econ- tached to fish is linked to the reliance on omies. This is due to the prominent place direct historic analogy for interpreting of fishing in the harvesting practices of the (and patching over gaps in) the Thule ar- Historic Inuit and the ubiquity of fishing chaeological record. Although the termi- implements in Thule artifact assemblages. nology in use is inconsistent, archaeolo- Although arctic archaeologists have often gists working on sites belonging to the briefly puzzled over this situation, chalk- Neoeskimo cultural tradition, spanning 3 0278-4165/01 $35.00 Copyright © 2001 by Academic Press All rights of reproduction in any form reserved. 4 PETER WHITRIDGE FIG. 1. Canadian Arctic place names and historic distribution of major Inuit regional groups. ZEN FISH 5 the past millennium of Canadian Arctic protohistoric period that began close to prehistory, tend to recognize three major 1800 in many areas and represent an im- chronological subdivisions: the Classic portant chronological marker. Because Thule, Modified Thule (or, in the western Greenland and Labrador are not included Canadian Arctic, Late Prehistoric), and in this analysis, nor any archaeological Historic periods. The Classic Thule period components dating predominantly to the conventionally encompasses one or more 20th century (a period of accelerating so- phases of migration of North Alaskan cial and economic change), it is conve- groups into the Canadian Arctic and their nient to crudely delineate the major Neo- subsequent expansion throughout the eskimo chronological subdivisions for the Eastern Arctic (Fig. 1). However, the ear- remainder of the Eastern Arctic as follows: liest or “Pioneering” migration dating to Pioneering/Classic Thule, A.D. 1000–1400; around A.D. 1000 is poorly documented Modified Thule/Late Prehistoric, A.D. and may not represent the direct anteced- 1400–1800; and Historic, A.D. 1800–1900. ent of the widespread Classic Thule cul- This article considers the proposition ture, which appears to have become es- that fish use did not remain static over the tablished closer to about A.D. 1200 course of Neoeskimo settlement in the (Whitridge 1999, 2000a; one Pioneering Canadian Arctic. While this would seem Thule faunal assemblage is included in to be an almost absurdly straightforward the following analyses, but for termino- task, problems related to quantification, logical convenience it is subsumed within and the regional, temporal, and seasonal Classic Thule in the rest of this article). representativeness of available samples, Based on the most recent review of Thule seriously complicate the matter. There are carbon-14 dates (Morrison 1989), the ter- a host of taphonomic and sampling issues mination of Classic Thule occurred rather peculiar to the interpretation of icthyofau- abruptly around A.D. 1400, coincident nas and others that bear on the interpre- with the onset of the Little Ice Age (LIA). tation of harvesting gear assemblages. At- The subsequent Modified (sometimes tempting a relatively comprehensive “Developed” or “Postclassic”) Thule pe- evaluation of these problems for the Ca- riod may have begun slightly earlier in nadian Neoeskimo case exposes the depth some areas, but by A.D. 1400 is widely of the taphonomic predicament in zooar- evidenced by regional abandonments, a chaeological analysis and the difficulty of profound reorganization of subsistence- analytically conjoining faunal and artifac- settlement systems, and changes in mate- tual data sets. Following brief overviews rial culture. The Historic period techni- of Thule subsistence-settlement systems, cally begins at different times in different arctic fish resources, and historic fish use, parts of the Arctic, depending on local the potential effects of taphonomy, sam- contact histories. Greenland and Labrador pling, and artifact assemblage interpreta- Inuit experienced repeated contact with tion are outlined. Some factors that may explorers, whalers, traders, and mission- have promoted a low level of fish utiliza- aries in the 17th and 18th centuries, but tion by some groups are then advanced with the exception of ephemeral contacts and evaluated with respect to the assem- with Frobisher and later explorers, pro- bled faunal and artifactual data from Clas- longed Inuit–White contact generally be- sic Thule, Modified Thule/Late Prehis- gan in the mid- to late 19th century in the toric, and Historic Inuit sites. Although rest of the Eastern Arctic. However, Euro- meaningful trends can be discerned in the pean goods were increasingly incorpo- two datasets, there is lingering ambiguity rated into Inuit material culture during a with respect to the absolute importance of 6 PETER WHITRIDGE fish in Classic Thule economies. This issue have been critical nodes in a larger inter- would likely be clarified by more detailed action sphere. Whaling helped to under- taphonomic analyses of fish bone assem- write settlement in nonwhaling areas, blages, but the hint that fish may be through the promotion of an interregional swamped by inadequately quantified sea trade that leveled some resource imbal- mammals leads us back into the analytic ances (Whitridge 2000b). cul-de-sac. One way of moving forward is Although faunal identifications are oc- to turn the problem over and consider casionally provided in earlier site reports, fishing in its social and cultural contexts. the details of Thule and Historic Inuit sub- In the final section, alternative scenarios sistence economies really began to for Thule fishing are proposed that em- emerge in the late 1970s (Schledermann brace not only variability in the availabil- 1975; Stanford 1976; Binford 1978; Mc- ity and relative utility of fish resources, Cartney 1979a; Staab 1979; Rick 1980), and but aspects of harvesting practice that are reporting of faunal analyses has now be- only partially or indirectly related to eco- come standard procedure. Zooarchaeo- nomic utility. It is thus ultimately possible logical investigations have variously fo- to argue that fishing may have made a cused on the harvesting of seals (Morrison negligible caloric contribution to diet 1983; McCullough 1989; Park 1989; Hen- while performing invaluable cultural shaw 1995, 1999), bowhead whales functions. (Savelle 1987, 1996, 1997; Savelle and Mc- Cartney 1988, 1991, 1994, 1999; McCartney THULE SUBSISTENCE and Savelle 1985, 1993; Whitridge n.d.), beluga and narwhal (Friesen and Arnold Beginning around A.D. 1000, the so- 1995; Savelle 1994) caribou (Morrison phisticated Neoeskimo open-water hunt- 1988, 1997a; Morrison and Whitridge 1997; ing technology introduced into northern Stenton 1989), and muskoxen (Will 1985), Alaska during Birnirk times spread and faunal data have been integrated into throughout the North American Arctic. ecological models