ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE EVIDENCE FOR THE PREHISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF ESKIMO CULTURE: AN ASSESSMENT
DOUGLAS D. ANDERSON
ABSTRACT
Differing views of scholars concerning given and the interrelations of various Eskimo origins and the prehistoric developdevelop- arctic traditions discussed. Population ment of Eskimo culture are presented~presented, and an and linguistic interpretations are difdif- attempt is made to assess the degree to which ferentiated from technological ones and the artifactural evidence fits each parti-parti indications given as to what kind of inin- cular view. With this <::tim,aim, an outline of ferences justly can be drawn from the the archaeological complexes in question is evidence we have.
INTRODUCTION interpreting the entire span of arctic prepre- history. Still others content themselves to The prehistoricprehi~toric developmentnevelopmen~ o~of E~kimo Eskimo cul cul- mR.kemake only r-u1culturalturR.1 interpretations of artiarti- ture has been a subject of continuing interest factualf actual materials, thereby precluding the for years. Each decade of archaeological exex- opportunity of saying anything definitive cavation has brought to light new discoveries, about the origins of a population or a and our understanding of local sequences language from archaeological data except throughout the Arctic is steadily growing. We under some isolated.isolated, rigorously defined concon- are at the point where we no longer need to ditions thR.t that occur very rarely. One who rely on linking archaeological assemblages or accepts the premise that artifact styles-styles - artifact styles through time and space by the regardless of antiquity--areantiquity - are markers of once common appeal to "cultural survivals" linguistically and racially identifiable or correspondences in widely separated areas, populations will make different conclusions and instead can now usually find contempocontempo- from one who rejects such a premise. raneous counterparts in neighboring archaeoarchaeo- In the following outline of the current logical sequences. Despite these advances, thinking on the prehistoric development of disagreement continues on even the most basic Eskimo culture, I present views of scholars outline ufof Eskimo cultural development. Much representing several types of theoretical of this disagreement, I believe, is a result stances. I shall attempt to assess the degree of the investigators'investigators1 different theoretical to which the artifactual evidence fits each viewpoints which temper the kinds of analyses particular view (i.e., the particular they attempt andand. the conclusions they propro- metaphormetaphor), ) , e.g., population movement,movement , pound. It sccmsseems to me that most of the con con- linguistic spread, diffusion of ideas, that flicting views, where theyLhey are basedbaseu on the archaeologist has chosen as a means of detailed data, cannot be disproved by those presenting his data. who accept the premises on which they were founded; rather, they can only be countered by those who accept another set of premises. THETEE SEQUENCES For example, in reviewing the writings by arctic archaeologists of the last two decades, Summarized below and in Fig. 1 is a brief I find that several influential scholars feel outline of the archaeological complexes in comfortable in utilizing archaeological data question. Fig. 1 itself is a distillation of to make conclusions about racial (population) the vA.riousvarious interpretive sr-hemesschemes as presented history; others see no apparent logical inin- by those archaeologists who have been most consistencies in utilizing present day active in the region, and includes my own linguistic distinctions as a framework furfor interpretation of the archaeological
Arctic Anthropology XVI-XVI-1, 1, 1979 16 Anderson: Prehistoric E'skimoEskimo Culture 17
...
~ 1000 .1-.-.. -.,-1T!u . .. ~ ...... , ,.. t':"~_'~'~'~r,nhk ~i"" I1rnlr"'~~~~'!l''J.nUI.!!''~/77/Tj~ ~ ISO!) '" •••• .::' ---- Iplllt.Jtl; [/:0 lutna • vo 0 ...... I--r-l ./' /h)ed --..--.... "'\' t. Aldp" .. I h.d•• 60,. 7000 ",00_ -n..n;1I1 <000. Fig. 1. Chronological Chart for the Western American Arctic (Based on Radiocarbon Dated Sequences) . 18 Arctic Anthropology XVI-1 relationships in northwestern Alaska. Cook Inlet, and several (termed "periods") The most recent of the archaeological tratra- along Brooks River and Naknek River drainagcsdrainages dition::;;ditions has been termedl..ermed theLhe NorthernNor·l.henl MaritimeMarltllll€ on the northern side of theLhe Alaska Peninsula tradition (Collins 1964:91),1961+:9l) , characterized (Dumond 1911a).1971a). The earliest tradition to be primarily by culturescultures1 1 adapted to arctic sea discussed below, dated about 9000 to 10,000 mammal hunting in open water and, where years ago, is the American Paleo-Arctic,Paleo-Arctic , practicable, from fixed ice or an ice edge. originally defined from complexes in north-north Spanning the last two millennia, it contains western Alaska (Anderson 1910a1970a and b), but the archaeological complexes known as Okvlk,Okvik, now reported in several olher other regions of Old Bering Sea, Punuk, Birnirk, and ~hule,Thule, all Alaska (Dumond, Henn and ::ltuckenrathStuckenrath 1915).1975 )• of which exhibit rather clear relationships to each other. The next earlier tradition is the Arctic Small Tool tradition, defined by ESKIMOS AND THE NOKl'HERNNORTHERN Irving (1957, 1962) on the basis of his and MARITIME TRADITION Gldelings'Giddings1 collections of the Denbigh Flint complex in Alaska (Giddings 1949, 19^9, 1967) and 'l'heThe distribution ot·of Eskimo language and contemporaneous complexes of Independence I culture from Greenland to Chukotka Chukot ka and from (Knuth 1954,195^, 1967) and Pre-Dorset (Taylor Labrador to the Pacific coast of Alaska 1962, 1968) in the eastern North American Peninsula and adjacent areas during the Arctic. Strictly spcaking, speaking, it is comprised of historic era has been characterized as rere- only these three com1Jlexescomplexes (including Sarqaq, markably coincident: "No other· other primitive the Greenland variant or of Pre-Dorset), dating people anywhere in the world occupy so wide between about 4000 UOOOand 3000 B.P. ± 200 years a territory and at the same time exhibit (Irving 1968).1968).' However, I favor the inclusion such remarkable uniformity of language, in the west~est of such complexes as Choris culture, and physical type" (Collins 1954: 195^: (Giddings 1957), Norton (Giddings 1964)196U) and 12). Although few archaeologists seriously IpiutakIplutak (Larsen and Rainey 1940)19^-8) and treat question the "Eskimoness" of thelhe people each as a phase within the tradition. ::lomeSome responsible for the Northern Maritime traditradi- archaeologists do not regard one or all three tion, particularly since the hypothesis rere- as Arctic Small Tool tradition, and Dumond ceives substantial support from physical (Dumond, Henn and Stuckenrath, n.d.)n.d. ) views anthropology, there are enough exceptions in Norton as a separate tradition, derived from the historic period to make the link of the ArclicArctic Small Tool tradition. For eastern Eskimo race, language and culture of dubious Arctic North America 1I prefer to include all utility as a guiding principle for interinter- of the pre-Thule complexes--Independencecomplexes - Independence II, preting Arctic archaeology. For example, and Dorset as well as Independence I, PrePre- where Eskimo and non-Eskimo (Indian) speakers Dorset, and Sarqaq--inSarqaq - in the Arctic Small Tool live along different parts of the same river tradition, based on the continuity of artiarti- system there are commonly settlements in factual styles or types in successive complexes which a particular group is ethnically and in the same general region. Other archaeoloarchaeolo- linguistically one but materially the other gists, including some of those most active in (Townsend 1970). In other areas, even where the east consider the Arctic Small Tool there are more clear cut geographical boun-boun tradition to hebe distinct from Pre-Dorset and daries between ethnic groups, Eskimo material "anyany of the Dorset asscmblages,assemblages, a distinction culture is found as an important ingredient based on their assessment of the dirrer·encesdifferences of the material culture of non-Eskimo groups, in artifact complexes and styles (McGhee and vice versa (Morlan 1973, Clark 1974,197*1, 1976). Giddings 1952). These exceptions, of which Archaeological traditions in the southern there are many more, ought to Sf'rvf' serve as a part of AlaskaAla~ka (southwestern Alaska, the warning to any archaeologist who feels no Alaska Peninsula, and the AleutianAlcutian Islands) constraints about phrasing his archaeological include, first, the Aleut tradition, mostmosl findings in terms of such epiphenomena as thoroughly documented through the work of language change or populationpopUlation (racial) movemove- W. s.S. Laughlin (e.g., 1966).I966). Other early ment--especiallyment - especially when he is considering the traditions include Ocean Bay (Clark 1976) and archaeology of difff'rentdifferent ecological zones Kachemak (de Laguna 1934;193^; Clark 1971:26) on and of great time depths. Without physiologiphysiologi- the Pacific coast of the Alaska PeninGulaPeninsula and cal and ethnographic information it is diffidiffi- cult enough to identify Eskimos historically IThe^he termlerm culture is used throughout this --consider- consider how much more difficult it is to paper to refer to the particular cluster of identify them in prehistory. I see this archaeological assemblages that characterizes difficulty as a critical obstacle to inter inter- a local complex. ~heThe geographical extent of a preting archaeological data racially or culture usually can be determined from the linguistically, but a full discourse on this context of the paragraph. SUbjectsubject would take us afield. Anderson: PI'ehistoriaPrehistoric Eskimo Culture Culture 1919 Leaving this point aside, we encounter the the containedcontained inseto.insets. Actually, most of the ~irstfirst major areaarea of of contention contention about the de de- above vlewoviews on the originsorigins of Birnirk areare not velopment ofof Eskimo culture culture inin discussions all thatthat different fromfrom each other.other. That of the the derivation ofof Birnirk culture. is,is, Okvik-OldOkvik-Old Bering SeaSea complexes couldcould be Decades ago,ago, H. B. Collins described Birnirk seenseen as but latelate Asian and islandisland variants of as a a specializedspecialized outgrowthoutgrowth of OldOld Bering Sea a widespread-widespread traditiontradition thatthat also included included culture, which itselfitself was the earliest widewide- Norton fromfrom Norton Sound Sound and Southwestern spreadspread culture throughoutthroughout St.St. LawrenceLawrence Island Alaska (Dumond(Dumond 1965)19-65 ) andand Near-Ipiutak fromfrom the the and coastal Chukotka Chukotka (Collins(Collins 1931:312,1937:372, coast ofof northwestern Alaska (Larsen(Larsen andand 1964:95).196i+:98). Okvik was to Collins the earliest RaineyRainey 1948),19^8), with each area manifesting a phase of the Old Bering Sea cultural period. cultural variant adapted to local ecological Although other archaeologists have regarded conditions. The development that resulted in Okvik as a distinct period, they huvehave csscn essen- Birnirk could be viewed as the specific tii::Lll;ytially agreed with Collins that Okvik, Old evolution of culture, along the northern Bering Sea, and Birnirk (and Punuk) .comprise.comprise shores of the entire region (plus(plus the particuparticu- a lineal succession in the development of a larlylarly good winter/spring sealing points to single tradition (Giddings 1960).i960). However, the south), that was stimulated by the imim- within the last fifteen years Arutyunov and provement both of open water and, where Sergeyev (1968) have presented a reasonable practicable, of ice hunting techniquestechniques and argument that Okvlk Okvik ~lU and Old Bering Sea were equipment. Given the assumption--aassumption - a valid ecologically distinct contemporaneous regional one, I believe, since the distances are small variants and that Birnirk was a northern out out- and the people had the technical capability growth of Old Bering Sea, while Punuk was a to travel widely--thatwidely - that contact among peoples more southerly outgrowth of Okvik. Dumond in these areas was continual, one would exex- (1965:Fig.(1965: Fig. 2) has proposed that Birnirk dede- pect to find in the samesame archaeological veloped from some kind of Norton base, per per- record both evidence for local development haps in Norton Sound or in Seward Peninsula, and evidence for the diffusion of traits from but thus far, no archaeological indications of neighboring cultures. The interpretation of transitional Norton-Birnirk assembJagesassemblages have these findings as evidence for a continuity been found. A fourth position, namely, that of population or for the immigration of a Birnirk developed in situ in northwestern population would depend simply on one's Alaska, would have to take into account the predilection. To argue for one interpretainterpreta- immediately prior existence of Ipiutak, a tion or the other would be to express an stylistically unique culture located along opinion--thatopinion - that is, of the number of outside the eastern shore~o~shore~shores o~ of the Chukchi Sea and the influences vis a vis local developments -whichwhich interior of northwestern Alaska. Actually, is sufficient to signal a population rere- two recent views have attempted to link BirBir- placement. Since populations can be replaced nirk to Ipiutak, not only culturally, but with or without significant cultural change by extension, also racially and linguistically in the archaeological record (since local (McGhee, n.d.; Clark 1916).1976). The best evidence populations can exist with or without sigsig- for this, not made explicit by either nificant cultural change), and since language archaeologist, might be, first, the presence replacement can occur with or without popula-popula at Cape Krusenstern in northwestern Alaska of tion replacement, the unscrambling of these two 1200 to 1300 year ago Birnirk style houses variables by archaeologists appears highly that contained ground slate and curvilinear unlikely. stamped pottery as well as Piputak style chipped stone artifacts; and, second, the presence of a few Ipiutak style chipped stone ARCTIC SMALLTOOL TRADITION artifacts from other Birnirk sites as well AND SUCCEEDINGCOMPLEXES (Ford 1959). Although the evidence of the concurrence of Birnirk and Ipiutak style The question of Eskimo development during artifacts in the Cape Krusenstern houses is the pre-Arctic Maritime period is interwoven clear,~lear, I do not believe that it demonstrates with the study of the development of the a transition at all, since in most sites Arctic Small Tool tradition. The Arctic Birnirk and Ipiutak materials are vastly dif-dif Small Tool TraditionTr<:Ldi tion has long been thoughtl.houghl. to1..0 ferent from each other. Rather, the direct indicate Eskimo culture, a conclusion based sharing of ideas between peoples of the two both on the coincidence of territory covered cultures could have occurred, since the two by Arctic Small Tool Tradition sites and coexisted~oexi~ted for a time in the region (Anderson,(Ander~on, Eskimos, and on a whole complex of reasoning n.d.).n. d. ). On the other hand, some of the so-80 that followsfollowG from the original definition of called Ipiutak styles in Birnirk may have been Paleo-EskimoPaleo-Eskllno culture and economy (Steensby(St.eensby derived from an earlier cultural period during 1917).I9IT). In recent years several questions which weapons in all northern cultures concerning these conclusions have arisen. 20 ArcticAretie Anthropology XVI-XVI-l1 First, I shall consider thethe derivation of thethe the initial appearance of thethe Arctic Small Arctic Small Tool tradition. For a longlong timetime Tool tradition therethere some timetime around 1*0004000 the Denbigh Flint complex and thethe rest of the years ago. Apparently as a result of a rapid Arctic Small Tool tradition appeared to have migration into unoccupied northern territories, arrived suddenly on the scene, with no trace thethe carriers of this tradition, of which of prior development anywhere. In the last IndependenceIndependenoe I (Knuth I967)1967) and Early Pre-Pre decade, however, finds from the Belkachi site Dorset (Maxwell 1976) were the earliest in the Aldan Region of Eastern Siberia have phases, began a long, essentially indigenous disclosed the existence of assemblages with development of culture that resulted in such numerous stylistic elements that most scholars archaeological phases as Sarqaq and Dorset inin feel must bear on the question of Denbigh Greenland (Mathiassen 1958, Larsen and Flint Complex ancestry (Mochanov I969).]969). These Meldgaard 1958) and Pre-Dorset and Dorset in elements include bifacially flaked weapon end-end Canada, with intermittent Arctic Small Tool blade insets, burins, microblades and some tradition occupations of Labrador and New-New other specific categories of stone tools. To foundland. Because of great cultural similari-simll~ri me the Belkachi burins and microblades and ties through time and space there has been cores do not look sufficientlySUfficiently like Denbigh little reason to challenge the scheme. Re-Re Flint Complex ones to make a case for any search efforts in the "core area" (that is, special historic connection; these two arti-arti the region that includes "at least both shores fact categories are found earlier throughout of Hudson Strait, the islands atut its western Japan, northeastern Asia, and northern North mouth, the vicinity of Fury and Hecla Strait, America. However, the Belkachi insets, northern Baffin Island, and at least southern flaking style and treatment of such artifact Bylot Island" (Maxwell 1976) have been largely types as endscrapers are so characteristic directed toward detailing the nature of cul-cul of the Denbigh Flint Complex that I think the tural change rather than the unraveling of connection is scarcely disputable. At least racial and populationpopUlation histories (Meldgaard one archaeologist has interpreted this connec-connec 1962)1962). . Here, Pre-Dorset and Independence I tion as evidence for the migration of the complexes are seen by most as regional people responsible for the Arctic Small Tool variants of the same tradition (the Arctic tradition from the Aldan Region to Alaska dur dur- Small Tool tradition). The study of indigenous ing the millennium preceding the appearance developments and adjustments to local condicondi- of the Denbigh Flint Complex (Irving 1968).19-68). tions (yet with widespread diffusion of new For those who accept the Arctic Small Tool styles and technologies) has bet:omebecome the key tradition ancestry of Eskimos, the remote to the stUdystudy of Paleo-Eskimo history of the ancestors of Eskimos would therefore have region prior to the introduction of Neo-Neo been derived from eastern Siberia. Since we Eskimo ThUleThule culture. have so many gaps in the archaeological In the peripheries such as Labrador and record, both in the Goviet Soviet Far East and Arctic Newfoundland, a major research emphasis has Alaska, and since there can be so many difdif- been the attempt to understand the interacinterac- ferent ways to account for the Belkachi Belkachi- tion between the people responsible for the Denbigh Flint Complex similarities--evensimilarities - even given Arctic Small Tool tradition and those responsi-responsi an historical connection as fact--the fact - the hypothehypothe- ble for the Maritime Archaic, and the Indian sis of a migration across several thousand tradition (FitZhugh(Fitzhugh 1972). Here the Arctic miles during a 1000 or 2000 year period seems Small Tool tradition and Archaic traditions far-fetched. Further, increasing finds of have maintained a remarkable distinctiveness early sites in northwestern Alaska with micromicro- that has allowed archaeologists to identifyidentify blade and core technologies that at least easily to which tradition his assemblages developmentally appear to be intermediate intermediate be be- belong (Harp 1968.I968, Tuck 1970). It is is because tweentween American Paleo-Arctic and the Arctic of the extended synchroneity of both of these Small Tool tradition (Anderson(Anderson 1972, Gal traditions in the same region that the 1976) DuggeDLsuggest the pODsibilitypossibility that there was archaeologists have felt free toLo ~ttadlattach a continuous development of culture in Arctic racial and linguistic affiliations to their Alaska during the millennia preceding the artifactualartif actual materials; fewfew scholars, if any, appearance of the Denbigh Flint Complex. To have questioned this inference.inference. suggest such a continuity and at the same time In the last last few years a Canadian archaeolarchaeol- to suggest thethe diffusion of specific artifact ogist has discovered new early Arctic Small styles fromfrom Asia is not, of course, inconincon- Tool tradition sites on Devon and DundasDundas sistent. Islands in the Canadian high Arctic that have Aa second set of01 questions regarding thezne led him to postulate that the Arctic Small role of the Arctic Small Tool tradition in the Tool tradition was actually a co-tradition development of Eskimo culture pertains to the alongside Pre-Dorset (McGhee 1976). McGhee'sMcGheefs eastern part of the North American Arctic. argument is that a comparison of artifact Most work in the eastern Arctic has confirmed types of the two traditions at Port Refuge Anderson:Anderson: PrehistoricPrehistoric EskimoEskimo CultureCultur>e 2121 onon GrinnellGrinnell Peninsula,Peninsula, DevonDevon Island,Island, showsshows thethe thisthis view hashas come fromfrom thethe postulated traditionsLraditiono toto be sufficiently distinct (though(though archaeological linkslinks of thethe DenbighDenbigh FlintFlint ultimately relatedrelated toto each other) toto suggest Complex toto ChorChoris is and of ChorChoris is toto Norton,Norton, inin thatthat different populationspopulations werewere responsible.responsible. a linear succession of inin situsitu cultural de-de Particularly significant isis thethe presence of velopmentvelopment (Giddings I960,1960, Anderson 19-68).1968). twotwo non-toggle harpoon heads inin thethe Indepen-Indepen Recently, however, questions have arisen con-con dence II relatedrelated materialsmaterials at PortPort Refuge,Refuge, for cerning thethe relationshiprelationship of thethe threethree post-post accordingaccording toto McGheeMcGhee (l976:l8),(1976:18), "This trait,trait, Denbigh complexes (Choris, Norton andand hinting at relationshipsrelationships toto Siberian NeolithicNeolithic Ipiutak)Ipiutak) toto thethe Denbigh Flint Complex, forfor or ancient northern Pacific cultures, serves obviously if any could have been derived from toto set the Independence people apart fromfrom a non-Denbigh Flint Complex culture thenthen the other Eastern Arctic Paleo-Eskimo cultures, Denbigh Flint ComplexComplex--or - or Arctic Small Tool all of whom appear to have used toggling TraditionTradition-would - would noHO longer be in direct line harpoons."harpoons. II He further suggests thatthat as the of Eskimo development. Arctic Small Tool traditiontradition people were The most serious challenge to the "traditional" settling the High Arctic, a second population view is thethe possiblepassi ble lacklack of continuitycantinui ty between --the the Pre-Dorset peoplepeople-sprean - spread eastwardf"astwarn Choris and Denbigh. Anderson (1972)(197;:?) has been acrossucrODD thethe Low Arctic. Then, some time around foremost in stressing continuity, arguing on thethe 3700 B.P. the Pre-Dorset people expanded basis of a series of transitional sites in north-north northward and replaced the Arctic Small Tool western Alaska that contain both diagnostic Den-Den tradition people. It was these Pre-Dorset bigh Flint Complex artifacts (such as Denbigh people who later developed Dorset culture. Flint Complex burins; Arctic Small Tool tradition Although McGhee calls these cultures Paleo-Paleo_ end- and side-blade insets; microbladesmicroblades, , in Eskimo, he regards neither Pre-DorsetPrc-Dorset nor any some casescases)and )and typical Choris traits (such as of the other pre-Thule cultures in the eastern pottery,po\.,Lery, Choris style scrapers, and burin North American Arctic as a marker of Eskimo spall cores). The continuity is also strati-strati people or language. graphically suggested; at both Cape Krusen-Krusen Because the Port Refuge finds are so new, stern and Onion Portage there are successive it is difficult to assess the degree to which cultural horizons from Denbigh Flint Complex the two views concerning Arctic Small Tool to Choris, the latter with traits referrable tradition and Pre-Dorset relationships in the to the former. More recently, additional eastern North American Arctic (i.e., are they transitional sites, called pottery Denbigh one or two traditions and people) might be Flint Complex, have been located at Walakpa reconciled. On one hand, according to photophoto- (Stanford, personal communication), and along graphs, the Pre~DorsetPre-Dorset artifacts from Port the North Slope (Dixon 1971);1971 ); the fact of at Refuge do differ appreciably from the usual least some continuity between the Denbigh Arctic Small Tool tradition finds inin the High Flint Complex and Choris seems inescapable. Arctic. On the other hand Pre-Dorset finds A question remains, however, about the degree at Port Refuge are more recent than IndepenIndepen- of relationship of these so-called early dence I, soso that the determinatdeterminationion of whether Choris sites and the Choris type site, which thethe differences are due to repeated outside occurs late in the the sequence established by influencesinfluences on an essenLiallyessentially continuous culcul- Giddings (1965) and Anderson (1968). Without ture and people or an indication of a cultural going into detail, I regard the evidence as tradition and population replacement (with indicating continuity, while others, for somesome continuity of local artifact styles) example Clark (1976) and McGhee (n.d.) do not. againagain rests on thethe excavator's assessmentassessment of The secondsecond challengechallenge to thethe view of of thethe how much changechange inin a local local sequencesequence he cancan Arctic SmallSmall Tool tradition asas Paleo-Eskimo toleratetolerate before he invokes migratmigrationion asas an isis thethe interpretationinterpretation ofof Norton as unrelated explanation.explanation. Again, sincesince suchsuch anan assessment assessment toto other culturescultures within thethe tradition.tradition. To isis a a matter of opinion,opinion, not somethingsomething thatthat most archaeologists Norton isis seenseen asas pivotal cancan be verified by thethe kinds of evidenceevidence now inin the the development of EskimoEskimo culture--nearly culture - nearly extant forfor thethe region,region, inferencesinferences ofof this sort sort aJlall g(':holars scholars agree thatthat itit representsrepresents anan seemseem to to me to be unwarranted andand theirtheir arguargu- earlyearly formform ofof EskimoEskimo culture.culture. Because of itsits ments unproducLive.unproductive. more southerlysoutherly distribution and obvious inin- InIn the the westernwestern regionsregions ofof NorthNorth AmericaAmerica thethe fluencefluence ofof earlyearly culturalcultural developmentsdevelopments ofof rolerole ofof ArcticArctic SmallSmall ToolTool traditiontradition inin thethe southernsouthern AlaskaAlaska andand beyondbeyond (especially (especially slateslate developmentdevelopment ofof EskimoEskimo CUltureculture hashas undergoneundergone aa grinding)grinding) thethe questionquestion isis basically whetherwhether similarsimilar reassessment.reassessment. AccordingAccording toto thethe common common NortonNorton isis derived derived fromfrom thethe Arctic Arctic SmallSmall ToolTool lineline ofof argument,argument, thethe DenbighDenbigh FlintFlint Complex,Complex, traditiontradition oror fromfrom somesome more more southerlysoutherly traditradi- thethe earliestearliest ofof thethe westernwestern ArcticArctic SmallSmall Tool Tool tion.tion. AccordingAccording toto Dumond,Dumond, who hashas hadhad thethe traditiontradition phases,phases, isis seen seen asas ancestralancestral PaleoPaleo- greatestgreatest experienceexperience withwith the the southern southern NortonNorton Eskimo,Eskimo, andand inin consequenceconsequence ancestralancestral toto EskimoEskimo sites,sites, Norton,Norton, dating dating betweenbetween 24002*100 andand 10001000 cultureculture asas aa whole. whole. MuchMuch ofof thethe rationale rationale forfor yearsyears ago, ago, represents represents thethe indigenousindigenous 22 Arctic Anthropology XVI-1XVl-l development of the Arctic SmullSmall Tool tradition is neverthelessneverthelcss ulsoalso true that a temporal gap peoples who had enLered entered tiouLhweol,ernsouthwestern Alaska exists between the DenlJighDenbigh Flint Complex and about 3900 years ago (Dumond 1971; Dumond, Norton in the area of the Norton type site, Henn and Stuckenrath, 1975). The people of where Choris does not appear at all. But this Arctic Small Tool tradition-derived despite the great amount of work already done Norton tradition developed a culture that inin- around Norton Sound and SpwardSeward PeninsualPenin suai I cluded open water sea mammal hunting and many feel that there may yet be found transitional ideas derived from the Pacific coast of Denbigh Flint Complex/Norton complexes. The Alaska. The increased populations, made gap that seems to exist there may be more possible by technological and organizational apparent than real--a real - a result of ascribiugascribing all developments, spread northward. In this finds to either one of the two ideal cultural scheme Choris is seen as a local northern dede- types and horizons. velopment of this Norton tradition. According to DwnonuDumond the lInk,link, then,LheIl, between the Arctic Small Tool tradition and Norton is to bebe PACIFIC TRADITIONS AND THE QUESTION found in the south, first as a result of a OF ESKIMO ORIGINS migration of Arctic Small Tool tradition Eskimos to the Alaskan Peninsula, then as a Some of the most interesting recentrpcpnt views subsequent development of Norton tradition in on the development of Eskimo culture are that regIon;region; Arutyunov, S. A. and Sergeyev, D. A. Identifications in Southwestern 1968 Two Millennia of Cultural EvoluEvolu- Alaska. Scienae,Science, Vol. 171:88-90. tion of Bering Sea Hunters. 19121972 Prehistoric Population Growth and Arctic AnthropologyAnthpopology, , Vol. 5(1):725(l):72- Subsistence Change in Eskimo 75. Alaska. In Population Gpowth:Growth: AnthropologicalAnthpopoLogicaL ImpLications.Implications. Clark, A. McF. Edited by Brian Spooner, pp. 1974I97U Koyukuk RiRiverver Culture. Canadian 311-328. EthnoLogyEthnology SepviceService No. 18. National 1976 MusewnMuseum of Man~Man, Mercury Series. Ottawa. Clark, D. W. 1971 Preliminary Report on 19111971 Field Dumond, D. E.,E. , Herm,Henn, W.,W. , and Stuckenrath, n.R. Work. Unpublished report to n.d. Archaeology and Prehistory on the National Museum of Man, Ottawa. Alaska Peninsula. Unpublished 31 pp. manuscript, Department of Anthro-Anthro 1976 The Pacific Origins of Eskimos. pology, University of Oregon. Draft paper for comment prepared Eugene.Eueene. 26 pp. for abridged delivery aLat the 1975 Third Alaska Anthropology ConCon- ference. Anchorage. 48H8 pp. Collins, H. B. 1937 Archaeology of St. Lawrence Fitzhugh, W.w. W. Island, Alaska. Smithsonian 1972 Environmental Archeology and MisaellaneousMiscellaneous Collections,Collections , Vol. Cultural Systems in Hamilton 96(1).96(l). Washington, D.C. Inlet, Labrador. Smithsoniansmithsonian 1954 Arct%cApctic Area; Indigenous Period. ContPibutionsContributions to AnthropologyAnthPOpology Instituto Panamericano de Geografia No. 18.16. E Historia. Comision de Historia. Mexico. Ford, J. A. 1964I96U The Arctic and Subarctic. In 19:>91959 Eskimo Prehistory in the Vicinity PrehistoricFTehistoPic Man in the New Wopld.World. of Point Barrow, Alaska. Anthro-Anthro Edited by Jessie D. Jennings and pological PapepsPapers of the AmePican American Edward Norbeck, pp. 85-116.85-II6. Museum of NaturalNatUT'al History,HistoT'y, Vol. Chicago: University of Chicago 47(1).U7(l). New York. Press. Gal, R. de Laguna, F. n.d. Paleo-Indians of the Brooks 1934193H The AmhaeologyArchaeology of Cook Inlet, Range: A Tradition of UnconUncon- Alaska. Philadelphia: 1934.193U. Uni- trolled Comparison. Unpublished versity of Pennsylvania Press. manuscript,manuscript , AlycskaAlyeska Archeology Project. Institute of Arctic Dixon, E. J. Biology, University of Alaska. 1971 The Gallagher Flint Station and Fairbanks.Fairbanks . 16 l6 pppp. . otherOther Sites along the ArcheologiArcheologi- cal Survey and Excavations along Giddings, J. L. the AlyeokaAlyeska Pipeline Service ComCom- 1949I9U9 Early Flint Horizons on the North pany Pipeline Route, pp. 117-207. Bering Sea Coast. Journal of the College. washingtonWashington AcademyAoademy of Sciences, Vol. 39(3):85-90.39(3): 85-90. Washington, Dumond.Dumond, D. E. D.C. 1965 On Eskaleutian Linguistics, 1952 The ArcticApotic WoodLandWoodland CuCulture1.tupe oftof thehe Archaeology, and Prehistory. Kobuk Rivep River (Museum Monographs,Monogpaphs, American AnthropologistAnthropologist, , Vol. 67: The University Museum). Phil1:l.Phila- 1231-1257. delphia. 1971a A Summary of Archaeology in the 1957 Round Houses in the Western Katmai Region, Southwestern Arctic. American Antiquity, Alaska. University of OpegonOregon Vol. 23(2):121-135.23(2): 121-135. AnthropologicalAnthPOpoZogical Papers, No.No.2. 2. 1960I960 The Archeology of Bering Strait. Eugene.Eugene . CuppentCurrent AnthropologyAnthropology, , Vol. 1(2):l(2): 1971b Early Racial and Cultural 121-138. Chicago. Anderson: P1'ehisto1'ic Prehistoric Eskimo CulPu1'e Culture 2525 1964196k TheThe A1'eheologyArcheology of CapeCape Denbigh. Larscn,Larsen, H. andand Rainey, F. Providence: Brown University 1948I9Ì8 Ipiutak andand the Arctic Whale Press.Press . HuntingHunting Culture. Anthropological 1965I965 Papers of TheThe American Museum of Natural History, 42.h2. New York. 1967196T Ancient Men of thethe Arctic. New Laughlin,Laughlin, w.W. S.S. York:York : Knopf'.Knopf . 19631963 Eskimos and and Aleuts: Their Their Origins and Evolution. Scienoe,Science, Vol. Harp,Harp, E.,E. , Jr. and Hughes, D. R. 142:Ili2:633-6U5.633-645. 1968 Five Prehistoric Burials from 1966 Aleutian Studies: Introduction. Port Aux Choix, Newfoundland. ApcticArctic Anthropology,Anthropo logy , Vol.Vol . 3(2): Polar Notes, Notes , no. 8:1-47.8:1-1+7. Hanover. 23-27·23-27. Irving, W. N. Levin, M. G. 1957 An Archaeological Survey of the 1960i960 Comments to The Archeology of Susitna Valley. Anthropological Bering Strait.Strait . Current AnthroAnthro- Papers of thethe University of pology,pology , Vol. 1(2):137.l(2): 137. Chicago. Alaska, Vol. 6(1):37-52.6(l): 37-52. College. 1962 A Provisional Comparison of Some MathiasMathiassen,sen, T. Alaskan and Asian Stone Industries. 1958 The Sermermiut Excavations 1955.1955- In P1'ehisto1'ic Prehistoric Cultural Relations Meddelelse1'Meddelelser om G1';?nland,Grönland, Vol. Between the Arctic and Temperate 16(2).l6(2). Copenhagen. Zones of North America. Edited by John M. Campbell, pp. 55-68. by Campbell, pp. Maxwell, M. S. (Arctie{Arctic Institute of North Ameriea America Maxwell, of 1976 Introduction. In Eastern Arctic Technical Paper,Paper. No. 11.) Montreal. 1976 P1'ehistory: PaPaleoeskimoleoeskimo FrobProblems.lema. 1968 The Arctic Small Tool Tradition. Prehistory: Edited by M. S. Maxwell, pp. 1-5.1-5- Proceedings of the VIII InterInter- Proceedings (Memoirs{Memoirs of the Society for national COrltfl'ess of Anthl'opologi of Society for Congress Anthropologi- American Archaeology, No. 31.) cal and Ethnological Sciences, no. Archaeology, 3:340-342.3:3^0-3^2. TOkyo.Tokyo. 1975 Pleistocene Archaeology in Eastern McGhee, R. Beringia. Unpublished paper pre pre- 1976 Paleoeskimo Occupations of Central sented in the Symposium "Correla"Correla- and High Arctic Canada. In tion of the Ancient Cultures of Eastern ArotioArctic Prehistory:Prehistory : Siberia and Adjoining Territories Paleoeskimo Problems. Edited by of the Pacific Coast.Coast." II M. S. Maxwell, pp. 15-39.15-39- Novosibirsk. (Memoirs{Memoirs of the Society for AmericanAmerioan Arohaeology,Archaeology, No. 31.) n.d. Parsimony Isn'tIsnTt Everything: An Alternative View of Eskaleutian Knuth, E. Linguistics and Prehistory. 1954195*1 The ~aleo-Eskimo Paleo-Eskimo Culture of NorthNorth- Unpublished manuscript. Memorial east Greenland Elucidated by University of Newfoundland. 31 Three New Sites. AmericanAmerioan pp. Antiquity, Vol. 19(4):367-381.19 ( h ): 367-381. 1967 ArchaeologyArchacology of the Musk-0xMusk-Ox Way. Contributions du Centre drd'Etudes Etudes Meldgaard, J. ArctiquesArotiques et Finno-Finno-Scandinaves, Scandinave s , 1962 On the Formative Period of the no. 5-5. Paris. Dorset Culture. In Prehistoric Cultural Relations between the LarsLarsen, en, H. ArcticApctic and Temperate Zones of 1968 Trail Creek:Crcek: Final Report on the North America. Edited by John M. Excavation of Two Caves on Seward Campbell, pp. 92-95. {Arctic(Ap~ti~ Peninsula, Alaska. AcAota ta Artica,Artioa, Institute of North America Tech-Tech 15. Copenhagen. nical Paper, no. 11.) Montreal. Larsen, H. and Meldgaard, F. 1958 Paleo-Eskimo CulturesCulturcs in Disko Mochanov, Yu. A. Bugt, West Greenland.Greenland.. MeddelelserMeddeZeZser 1969 The Bel'kachinsk Neolithic Culture om G1'¢nland,Grönland, Vol. 16(2). Copen-Copen on the Aldan. Arctic Anthro-Anthro hagenhagen. . pology, Vol. 6(l):10U-llU.6(1):104-114. 2626 ArcticArctic AnthropologyAnthropology XVIXVI-l-1 Morlan,Morlan, R.R. E.E. 19681968 TheThe ArnapikArnapik andand TyaraTyara Sites:81tes: AnAn 19731973 TheThe LaterLater PrehistoryPrehistory ofof thethe MiddleMiddle ArchaeologicalArchaeological StudyStudy ofof DorsetDorset PorcupinePorcupine Drainage,Drainage, NorthernNorthern YukonYukon CultureCulture Origins.Origins. SocietySociety forfor Territory.Territory. ArchaeologicalArchaeological SurveySU1'Vey AmericanAmerican ArchaeologyArchaeology, , MemoirMemoir ofof Canada,COJUlda, NationalNational MuseumsMusewns ofof no.no. 22.22. Canada,Canada~ MercuryMeY'cury Series,SeY'ies~ PaperPaper no.no. 11.ll. Townsend,Townsend, J.J. B.B. 1970 TanainaTanaina ArchaeologyArchaeology inin thethe Taylor,Taylor, W.W. E.E., , Jr.Jr. IliamnaIliamna LakeLake Region,Region, Alaska.Ala~ka. 1962 Pre-DorsetPre-Dorset Occupations at Ivugiviklvugivik CanadianCOJUldian ArchaeologicalArchaeological Associa-Associa inin Northwestern Ungava.Ungava. InIn tiontion BulletinBulletin no.no. 2:3^-^1.2:34-41. PrehistoricP1>ehistorie CulturalCultu:flal Relations Ottawa.OttawA.. BetweenBetween thethe ArcticArctic and Temperate ZonesZones of NorthNorth America.Amezoica. EditedEdiLed Tuck, J. A.A. by JohnJohn M.M. Campbell, pp.pp. 80-91. 1970 An ArchaicArchaic IndianIndian Cemetery inIn [Arctic(Arctic Institute of North AmericaAmerica Newfoundland.Newfoundland. Scientific Ameri-Ameri Technical Paper, no. 11.) Montreal. can, Vol. 222:112-121. Brown University Providence ERRATA IMPORTANT NOTE FROM THE EDITORIAL ASSISTANT: During the production of this issue I have been unable to establish contact with the symposium editor. In consequence I have been forced to make many edltorialeditorial decisions which in other circumstances would have been made by Dr. Michael. UnUn- fortunately, some major problems have been the result. Due to a-comedy a comedy of errors beyond my control I have just now, in the final stages of pUblication,publication, received correspondence written months ago by the symposium editor. In it he indicated that the order of the papers was to be as follows: 1) MacNeish 2) Alekseyev 3) Laughlin 4)k) Arutyunov 5) Anderson 6) Gurvich 7l7) Burch 8) Bromley 9)9 ) Goodenough Further, he asked me to eliminate Fig.l from Dougli::l.sDouglas Awlerson'sAnderson's paper, as thethe author now feels that the table is not up to date. Unfortunately, 1I am not able to do this, as it would entail further production delays. The corrected text of Dr. Anderson's paper should read: "Summarized below is a brief outline of the archaeological complexes in question. These summaries are a distillation of the various interpre " interpre- titiveve schemes as presented by those a.rchaeologistsarchaeologists ...... " . My apologies to tbe the authors. Glenda Denniston