Examining Precontact Inuit Gender Complexity and Its
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EXAMINING PRECONTACT INUIT GENDER COMPLEXITY AND ITS DISCURSIVE POTENTIAL FOR LGBTQ2S+ AND DECOLONIZATION MOVEMENTS by Meghan Walley B.A. McGill University, 2014 A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Archaeology Memorial University of Newfoundland May 2018 St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador 0 ABSTRACT Anthropological literature and oral testimony assert that Inuit gender did not traditionally fit within a binary framework. Men’s and women’s social roles were not wholly determined by their bodies, there were mediatory roles between masculine and feminine identities, and role-swapping was—and continues to be—widespread. However, archaeologists have largely neglected Inuit gender diversity as an area of research. This thesis has two primary objectives: 1) to explore the potential impacts of presenting queer narratives of the Inuit past through a series of interviews that were conducted with Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer/Questioning and Two-Spirit (LGBTQ2S+) Inuit and 2) to consider ways in which archaeological materials articulate with and convey a multiplicity of gender expressions specific to pre-contact Inuit identity. This work encourages archaeologists to look beyond categories that have been constructed and naturalized within white settler spheres, and to replace them with ontologically appropriate histories that incorporate a range of Inuit voices. I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, qujannamiik/nakummek to all of the Inuit who participated in interviews, spoke to me about my work, and provided me with vital feedback. My research would be nothing without your input. I also wish to thank Safe Alliance for helping me identify interview participants, particularly Denise Cole, one of its founding members, who has provided me with invaluable insights, and who does remarkable work that will continue to motivate and inform my own. I would like to extend my gratitude to Memorial University of Newfoundland’s Department of Archaeology for admitting me as a Master’s candidate and providing me with an enriching environment for my studies. I would also like to thank the School of Graduate Studies for providing funding during my time spent studying at MUN. I wish to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) for awarding me a Canada Graduate Scholarship, and the J.R. Smallwood Foundation, the Institute for Social and Economic Research (ISER), the Provincial Archaeology Office (PAO), and the Northern Scientific Training Program (NSTP) for funding my research. In addition, I would like to express my gratitude to the Canadian Museum of History for allowing me access to collections, to Dr. Stacey Girling-Christie and Dr. Elise Rowsome for making arrangements for my visit, and to Penny Pine for supervising my work with ethnological collections. Furthermore, I want to thank the Nunatsiavut Government and Memorial University of Newfoundland’s Interdisciplinary Committee for Ethics in Human Research for granting me ethical permissions to carry out this research. ii I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr. Peter Whitridge, who has guided me, sparked creative thought in my research, challenged me, and given me space to develop my own academic voice. This thesis could not have been written in lack of a supervisor who was trusting enough to put faith in queer ideas and blunt enough to reign me in when those ideas (occasionally) ran amok. I would also like to extend my gratitude to Dr. Meghan Burchell, who has supported me unwaveringly, pushed me to achieve things I did not imagine I was capable of achieving, and whose fire as both an academic and a feminist will continue to influence me in years to come. I also want to thank each and every faculty member at MUN’s Department of Archaeology for creating a supportive and challenging environment for student research. I would like to thank Michelle Davies and Kyle Crotty for hosting me when I visited Nain, and Anatolijs Venovcevs for allowing me to sleep on his couch, driving me to interviews, and for always having homemade wine on hand during my visits to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Furthermore, I would like to extend my sincerest gratitude to Robyn Lacy, Natasha Leclerc, and Kayley Sherret for being the most brilliant, driven, and lovingly supportive cohort I could ever ask for. Finally I would like to thank my parents, Patricia and Keith Walley, for supporting me unconditionally. iii Table of Contents ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………………i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………...……………………………….……ii Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………....iv List of Figures……………………………………………………...…………………….vii List of Abbreviations/Glossary………………………………………………………….viii Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..1 Chapter 1: Inuit Gender: Archaeological and Anthropological Approaches……………...8 1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………8 1.2 Gender and Sex………………………………………………………………..8 1.3 The History of Gender Research in Archaeology……………………………..10 1.4 Precontact Inuit or “Thule” Archaeology……………………………………..14 1.4.1 Precontact Gender……………………………………………….....15 1.5 Flaws in the Proxy Approach………………………………………………...18 1.5.1 Fluidity in Inuit Tool Use…………………………………………..19 1.6 Nonbinary Genders…………………………………………………………...21 1.6.1 Inuit Nonbinary Gender……………………………………………22 1.6.1.1 Role Swapping and Fluidity………………………………23 1.6.1.2 Inuit Angakkurniq and Nonbinary Gender……………….27 1.7 Gender and Sexual Complexity in Inuit Storytelling…………………………30 1.8 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………36 Chapter 2: Queer Theory and Decolonization……………………………………………37 2.1 Introduction………………………………………..........................................37 2.2 Queer Theory…………………………………………………………………38 2.2.1 Queer Studies in Archaeology……………………………………...39 2.2.1.1 Mortuary Studies and Nonbinary Gender…………….…..40 2.2.1.2 Other Approaches to Nonbinary Gender…………………41 2.2.1.3 Queer Archaeology as Subject-less Critique……………..42 2.2.1.4: Queer Theory and Structuralism…………………………43 iv 2.3 Queer Indigenous Studies as a Mode of Decolonization……………………...48 2.3.1 Settler Colonialism, Settler Sexuality………………………………49 2.3.2 Ethnography and the Erasure of Gender and Sexual Diversity……50 2.3.3 Third Gender and Anthropological Authority over Indigenous Sexual Diversity……………………………………………………….....51 2.3.4 Contemporary LGBTQ Movements as Neocolonialism…………...54 2.3.5 Colonial Erasure of Queer Indigeneity……………………………..57 2.4 Queer Theory as Subject-less Critique in This Thesis……………………….60 2.5 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………64 Chapter 3: Methodology………………………………………………………………….66 3.1. Introduction………………………………………………………………….66 3.2 Interviews………………………………………………………….…………68 3.2.1 Participants…………….……………………………….…………..69 3.2.2 Social Media……………………………….……………………….70 3.2.3 Interview Methods………………………………………………….72 3.3 Museum Collections………………………………………………………….75 3.3.1 Brooman Point (QiLd-1)……………………………………………77 3.3.2 Skraeling Island (SfFk-4)…………………………………………..78 3.3.3 Qariaraquk (PaJs-2)………………………………………………...78 3.3.4 Materials……………………………………………………………79 Chapter 4: Contemporary Impacts of Queering the Inuit Past……….…………………..82 4.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………..82 4.2 Subaltern Pasts………………………………………………………………..83 4.3 Inuit LGBTQ2S+ Movements…...…………………………………………...85 4.3.1 Heterogeneity of “Community” Perspectives……………………....88 4.4 Christianity…………………………………………………………………...92 4.5 Community Cohesion……………..………………………………………….96 4.5.1 Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Inuit………...…………98 4.5.2 Suicide Prevention…………………..………………………….....102 4.6 Imagining Queer Pasts……………………………...………………...……..104 v 4.7 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..107 Chapter 5: Gender Complexity in Archaeological Materials..…………………………..110 5.1 Introduction…………………………………………………………………110 5.2 Embedding Objects in Culturally-Specific Contexts………………………..112 5.3 Gendered Interaction with Things……………………………..……………114 5.4 Disentangling “Ceremonial” Objects…………………………….…………116 5.5 The Artifacts……………………………………………………………..….117 5.5.1 Figurines…………………………………………………………..118 5.5.2 Gendered Materiality and Symbolism…………………………….127 5.5.2.1 Hybridity of Gendered Attributes………………….……128 5.5.2.2 Gendered Significance of Tattoo Motifs………………..130 5.5.3 Polar Bears as Gender Mediators…………………………………132 5.5.4 Tapshi and Pendants………………………………………………136 5.6 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………..140 Chapter 6: Summary and Conclusion…………………………………………………...141 6.1 Past and Present in Dialogue………………………………………………...141 6.2 Final Conclusion…………………………………………………………….143 Bibliography……………………………………………………………………………148 Appendix A: Interview Participant Biographies………………………………………..166 vi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 5.1 Wooden and ivory human figurines…………………….……………………93 Figure 5.2 Ivory figurine with breasts……………………………………………………94 Figure 5.3 Ivory polar bear effigy………………………………………………………102 Figure 5.4 Modified polar bear canines………………………………………………...107 vii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS/GLOSSARY Angakuq: Inuit shaman (pl. angakkuit). Angakkurniq: Inuit shamanism. Anasik: Gender category that combined masculinity and femininity, documented in St. Lawrence Island, Alaska (Lang 1998: 165-166), often acted as angakkuit. Angutauqatigiik: Term for homosexual males (“two hard/rough things rubbing together”). ‘Aqi: Chumash nonbinary gender category. Aranu’tiq: Described by Kaj Birkett-Smith (1953: 94) makes reference to aranu’tiq, as a gender category that is neither fully masculine nor fully feminine, but an admixture of both. Described in Chugach, Alaska. Atitsiak: Namesake.