Relating Palaeo-Eskimo Lithic Technological Change and Human Mobility Patterns in Southeastern Victoria Island, Nunavut

Home , Independence Fjord, Microblade technology

Camping at the Caribou Crossing: Relating Palaeo-Eskimo Lithic Technological Change and Human Mobility Patterns in Southeastern Victoria Island, Nunavut

Andrew Thomas Ray Riddle, B.A.

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements

for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Anthropology

University of Toronto

© Copyright A.T.R. Riddle 2010 Camping at the Caribou Crossing: Relating Palaeo-Eskimo Lithic Technological Change and Human Mobility Patterns in Southeastern Victoria Island, Nunavut Andrew Thomas Ray Riddle Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology University of Toronto 2010

Abstract

This dissertation explores the inter-relatedness of lithic technology and human mobility in the ancient central North American Arctic. Palaeo-Eskimo populations inhabited southeastern Victoria Island, Nunavut, discontinuously for over three thousand years. During this time, Palaeo-Eskimo lifeways are believed to have changed significantly in regards to subsistence economy, settlement patterns, interaction patterns, and mobility. One of the most significant changes is a marked decrease in the scale and frequency of human mobility and an increase in the re-occupation of seasonal camps. Palaeo-Eskimo material culture is observed to undergo important changes at the same time; consequently, one wonders what influence(s) mobility may have effected on the form and nature of Palaeo-Eskimo material culture. This work examines the potential influence of human mobility on lithic technology in the Pre-Dorset, Early Dorset, and Middle Dorset periods as evidenced by lithic assemblages from nine archaeological sites and site components in the Iqaluktuuq (Ekalluk River) region of Victoria Island. Over 800 formal tools and 30000 pieces of debitage were examined and analyzed according to two interpretive frameworks: one technological and the other mobility-related. The technological analyses demonstrate that significant changes took place in lithic production and maintenance processes during the Palaeo-Eskimo period. The mobility-related analyses demonstrate that, while many of the changes to lithic technological organization are consistent with expected trends resulting from a decrease in human mobility, not all aspects of Palaeo-Eskimo lithic tool production, maintenance and use appear to have been similarly influenced by this change in mobility.

ii Acknowledgements

Recognizing all of the wonderful people who supported me in one way or another through these past few years is perhaps the most daunting task of my entire graduate student career. So many colleagues, faculty, friends - and even the occasional stranger! - deserve much credit and heartfelt thanks for their contributions, both direct and indirect, in the creation of this work. The chances that I can name all of them here without omitting someone important is significantly low (p < 0.001), and yet I will do my best to give recognition where it is due.

I would like to thank my advisor, Max Friesen, and my other core committee members, Michael Chazan and Heather Miller, for their valued thoughts and criticisms offered freely and openly. Their contributions are difficult to quantify but were essential to the shaping of my theoretical, methodological and interpretive approaches. While at times they did not necessarily agree with the directions I chose to pursue, each of them was more than willing to allow me space to explore my ideas and help to make sense out of often contradictory results and concepts. In retrospect, this approach gave me enough proverbial rope to potentially hang myself with, and I am grateful they saw fit to steer me clear of the gallows. Between Max’s exhaustive knowledge of Arctic prehistory, Michael’s natural lithics connaissance, and Heather’s broad technological expertise, I can claim to have had a formidable resource base at hand throughout this process. That being said, my committee should not be held accountable for deficiencies in reasoning or interpretation in the following text; those are solely my own.

Thank you as well to Dr. Christopher Ellis for serving as my External Examiner in the final months of thesis preparation. Besides providing valuable criticisms that led to improvements in this work, Dr. Ellis initiated several thought-provoking discussions on lithic technology and human mobility that have already begun to change some of my assumptions about stone working and material acquisition behaviours in the North American Arctic.

The membership of the U of T Lithics Workgroup deserves to be recognized, primarily for putting up with my spontaneous discussions (rants?) on ‘process’ and ‘technique’ that I inflicted upon them at every available opportunity. Perhaps just as valuable as their suggestions and critiques were the blank stares I received on occasion, helping me to realize when I was being more opaque than usual. The organization and presentation of the technological model presented in Chapter 3 benefitted greatly from my discussions with Dyan Laskin-Grosman, Danielle Macdonald, Katherine Tong, Matthew Walls and Jayne Wilkins.

Two additional members of the Workgroup deserve special thanks. Alexandra Sumner has for years been a source of unwavering encouragement during my doctoral studies. I am most fortunate to have had the opportunity to work alongside Alex on several collaborative projects, including the three-dimensional burin analyses described herein. Although we somehow remained ignorant of each other’s existence in the department for some time, our eventual meeting and subsequent excited discussions about core morphologies and cognitive processes are singular highlights of my graduate career. In the coming years, I look forward to building upon our professional collaboration and, importantly, our valued friendship.

Lucille Harris is the other palaeolithotechnologist whom I would like to recognize as playing a key role in the completion of this dissertation. Lucille dedicated far more hours than I dare count iii to listening to and discussing ideas, problems, results and interpretations related to this research, often sacrificing her own research time to help her panicked comrade. I suspect my promises of nachos and ‘iconoclastic’ beverages had a part to play there, but that in no way diminishes how grateful I am for her friendship, understanding, and encouragement. Never could I have guessed that my quiet teaching assistantship partner for Archaeological Analysis would quickly become one of the most influential people in my academic life. Rest assured that I will do my best to return the favor as best I can - with interest!

Thank you to Michael Brand for not only encouraging me to ask the sorts of questions I thought pertinent to ask, but also for reminding me to not get hung up on the little things and, most importantly, “...make it done.” Your level-headed perspective on all facets of life is a continual inspiration to me.

I was fortunate to have several undergraduate students provide technical help in the Arctic Lab over the years. Foremost among these tireless and cheerful assistants are David Landry, Kelly Scott, Lauren Howlett, Tegan Kenward, Lisa Milosavljevic, and my sister Andrea Riddle. I feel especially privileged to have had the chance to work off and on with David, who, despite claiming to be new to “this whole lithics thing”, was willing to engage in long, impromptu discussions about burins and BLTs, out of which I more often than not emerged enlightened and reinvigorated. His input was more helpful than he will ever realize.

To Jennifer Campbell, Emily Hubbard, Lauren Norman, Lesley Howse and the rest of my Toronto friends I say thank you for your friendship and emotional support through these past six years (or so). Graduate school is nothing without good friends and colleagues to share it with, and I am very lucky to have spent so much time with such quality people.

To my parents and sisters, thank you for your unwavering love and support while I studied little pieces of rock for reasons that were never explained to you satisfactorily. My youngest sister, Andrea, deserves special recognition for many of the excellent artifact images contained in this work. Her presence in the Archaeology Centre imaging lab made those long hours so much more tolerable, and doubly so when she bought the poutine.

Finally, I would like to thank my ever-supportive and loving wife, Julie, for continuing to put up with my bizarre archaeology ‘habit’ for so many years. Words cannot express how fortunate I feel to have had you at my side throughout this whole challenging process. The completion of this dissertation would not have been possible without you, and I suspect it would never have ever begun were it not for your continual encouragement. I love you so much and look forward to the next chapter of our lives together raising two budding archaeologists (sorry, you don’t get a say in this...)

My Doctoral research was generously funded by the University of Toronto School of Graduate Studies, Dr. Max Friesen, the Department of Anthropology, as well as the Northern Scientific Training Program. Access to the William Taylor, Jr. Iqaluktuuq assemblages was made possible by the Canadian Museum of Civilization and the wonderful, accommodating people who work there.

iv Table of Contents

1.0 – Introduction ��1 1.1 - Problem Overview ��1 1.2 – Research Focus ��3 1.3 – Section Outline ��5 1.4 - Conventions ��5 2.0 – Culture History and Research Background ��7 2.1 - The Palaeo-Eskimos ��7 2.2 - Palaeo-Eskimo Lithic Technology ��8 2.3 - ASTt Lithic Assemblages ��9 2.3.1 - Denbigh Flint Complex ��9 2.3.2 - Independence I ��10 2.3.3 - Saqqaq ��11 2.3.4 - Pre-Dorset ��12 2.3.5 - Transitional Period ��13 2.3.6 - Early Dorset ��15 2.3.7 - Middle Dorset ��17 2.3.8 - Late Dorset ��17 2.4 - Stone Tool Studies in the North American Arctic ��19 2.5 - Regional Overview: Iqaluktuuq ��23 3.0 - Theoretical Framework ��28 3.1 - Technology ��28 3.2 - People in Technology ��35 3.3 - Technology Summary and Theoretical Significance ��37 3.4 - Technological Change ��38 3.5 - Mobility ��40 3.6 - Mobility Change ��44 3.7 - Palaeo-Eskimo Mobility...... ��46 3.8 - Bridging Mobility and Technology ��47 3.8.1 - Utility and Portability ��48 3.8.2 - Risk Management ��49 3.8.3 - Raw Material Use ��52 3.8.4 - Production Intensity and Investment ��55 4.0 - Research Methods and Study Sample ��58 4.1 - Field Methods ��58 4.2 - Data Collection ��59 4.3 - Study Sample ��60 4.3.1 - Buchanan (NiNg-1) ��60 4.3.2 - Ballantine (NiNg-3) ��69 4.3.3 - Ferguson Lake (NiNg-5) ��70 4.3.4 - Wellington Bay (NiNg-7) ��72 4.3.5 - Menez (NiNg-10) ��73 4.4 - Analysis Methods ��77 4.4.1 - Utility and Portability ��77 4.4.2 - Risk Management ��85 v 4.4.3 - Raw Material Use ��86 4.4.4 - Production Intensity and Investment ��87 5.0 – Technology-Related Analyses ��89 5.1 - Burins and Burin Spalls ��90 5.1.1 - Morphological Variability ��90 5.1.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance ��95 5.1.3 - Use Evidence ��97 5.1.4 - Materials ��98 5.1.5 - Diachronic Trends ��99 5.1.6 - Interpretations ��102 5.2 - Burin-Like Tools (BLTs) ��106 5.2.1 - Morphological Variability ��106 5.2.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance ��107 5.2.3 - Use Evidence ��110 5.2.4 - Materials ��110 5.2.5 - Diachronic Trends ��110 5.2.6 - Interpretations ��111 5.3 - Endblades ��114 5.3.1 - Morphological Variability ��114 5.3.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance ��119 5.3.3 - Use Evidence ��120 5.3.4 - Materials ��121 5.3.5 - Diachronic Trends ��121 5.3.6 - Interpretations ��122 5.4 - Knives (Flaked) ��125 5.4.1 - Morphological Variability ��125 5.4.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance ��130 5.4.3 - Use evidence ��130 5.4.4 - Materials ��131 5.4.5 - Diachronic Trends ��131 5.4.6 - Interpretations ��132 5.5.0 - Microblades and Microblade Cores ��134 5.5.1 - Morphological Variability ��134 5.5.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance ��139 5.5.3 - Use Evidence ��142 5.5.4 - Materials ��142 5.5.5 - Diachronic Trends ��144 5.5.6 - Interpretations ��150 5.6 - Scrapers ��157 5.6.1 - Morphological Variability ��157 5.6.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance ��158 5.6.3 - Use Evidence ��158 5.6.4 - Materials ��160 5.6.5 - Diachronic Trends ��160 5.6.6 - Interpretations ��161 5.7 - Bifaces ��164

vi 5.7.1 - Morphological Variability ��164 5.7.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance ��166 5.7.3 - Materials ��167 5.7.4 - Diachronic Trends ��167 5.8 - Cores ��168 5.8.1 - Morphological Variability ��169 5.8.2 - Materials ��169 5.8.3 - Diachronic Trends ��169 5.9 - Groundstone Tools ��170 5.9.1 - Morphological Variability ��170 5.9.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance ��171 5.9.3 - Use Evidence ��172 5.9.4 - Materials ��172 5.9.5 - Diachronic Trends ��172 5.10 - Assemblage Composition ��173 5.11 - Debitage ��181 6.0 - Mobility-Related Analyses ��189 6.1 - Utility-Portability Indices ��189 6.1.1 - Endscrapers...... ��189 6.1.2 - Knives ��190 6.1.3 - Endblades ��191 6.1.4 - Burins ��192 6.1.5 - Interpretations ��195 6.2 - Raw Material Use ��203 6.2.1 - Quartzite ��203 6.2.2 - Chert ��206 6.2.3 - Slate ��206 6.2.4 - Crystal Quartz ��206 6.2.5 - Nephrite ��207 6.2.6 - Chalcedony ��207 6.2.7 - Burins and Burin Spalls ��207 6.2.8 - Burin-Like Tools ��207 6.2.9 - Endblades ��208 6.2.10 - Knives ��208 6.2.11 - Microblades and Microblade Cores ��209 6.2.12 - Scrapers ��209 6.2.13 - Bifaces ��210 6.2.14 - Cores ��210 6.2.15 - Interpretations ��210 6.3 - Production Intensity ��216 6.4 - Risk Management ��221 6.4.1 - Equipment Failure ��221 6.4.2 - Production/Maintenance Scheduling ��224 7.0 - Discussion ��227 7.1 - Evidence of Technological Change ��227 7.2 - The Influence of Mobility ��231

vii 7.3 - Evaluation of Analysis Methods ��234 7.4 - A Regional Perspective ��239 7.5 - Technological Change at Iqaluktuuq and The Pre-Dorset/Dorset Transition ��240 7.6 - Evaluating the Technology Framework ��244 7.7 - Seeing Human Mobility Through Lithics ��245 7.8 - Lithic Tools in Composite Technologies ��247 8.0 – Conclusions and Future Directions ��249 8.1 - Summary ��249 8.2 – Research Significance ��259 8.3 – Future Directions ��260 References Cited ��262 Appendix A: Terminology ��282 Appendix B: Artifact Plates ��298

viii List of Figures

Figure 2.1 - Map of the study region...... 24 Figure 2.2 - Timeline of human occupation at Iqaluktuuq...... 25 Figure 3.1 - A simplified schematic example of technical process...... 33 Figure 3.2 - Material Richness Simulation Results...... 54 Figure 3.3 - An example WABI value scatter-plot...... 57 Figure 4.1 - Map showing the approximate location of the study sites...... 61 Figure 4.2 - Aerial view of the Buchanan site looking west along the Ekalluk River towards Wellington Bay...... 62 Figure 4.3 - Excavation of a test unit at Buchanan Area 2...... 64 Figure 4.4 - View northeast along the Ekalluk River from Buchanan Area 6...... 68 Figure 4.5 - View east towards Ferguson Lake from the Ballantine site...... 69 Figure 4.6 - View west towards the Ekalluk River and Wellington Bay from the Ferguson Lake site...... 71 Figure 4.7 - Looking northwest from the Wellington Bay site towards the mouth of the Ekalluk River and partially ice-covered Wellington Bay...... 73 Figure 4.8 - Quintin Crockett (left) and the author (right) excavating a test unit beneath one of Taylor’s backdirt piles at the Menez site...... 74 Figure 4.9 - Knife utility calculation method...... 79 Figure 4.10 - Endblade utility calculation methods...... 79 Figure 4.12 - Burin model before and after reconstruction (top left), example cross-sections (bottom left) and control model (right)...... 82 Figure 4.11 - Burin reconstruction method...... 82 Figure 4.13 - Working edge reconstruction methods...... 83 Figure 4.14 - Burin-like tool oblique fore-edge grinding examples...... 84 Figure 5.1 - Burin tip shapes...... 91 Figure 5.2 - Burin Length Distributions by Site Assemblage...... 92 Figure 5.3 - Burin Width Distributions by Site Assemblage...... 92 Figure 5.4 - Burin Thickness Distributions by Site Assemblage...... 92 Figure 5.5 - Variation in the extent of burin surface and edge grinding...... 94 Figure 5.6 - Complete burin spall surficial grinding frequency by site...... 100 ix Figure 5.7 - Burin spall length distributions by site assemblage...... 101 Figure 5.8 - Burin spall width distributions by site assemblage...... 101 Figure 5.9 - Burin spall thickness distributions by site assemblage. Box-plot shows median, one-sigma range and total range...... 101 Figure 5.10 - Examples of burin-like tools exhibiting an extra facet (indicated by arrow) between the fore-face and the distal tip...... 107 Figure 5.11 - Inferred alignment of BLT surfaces during rejuvenation (grinding) based on facet alignment and surface striations on assemblage specimens...... 109 Figure 5.12 - Burin-like tool exhibiting ‘tiered’ grinding on the ventral surface...... 111 Figure 5.13 - Generalized endblade types identified in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages.. ...116 Figure 5.14 - Triangular endblade length distributions by site assemblage...... 117 Figure 5.15 - Triangular endblade width distributions by site assemblage...... 117 Figure 5.16 - Triangular endblade thickness distributions by site assemblage...... 117 Figure 5.17 - Notched endblade length distributions by site assemblage...... 118 Figure 5.18 - Notched endblade width distributions by site assemblage...... 118 Figure 5.19 - Notched endblade thickness distributions by site assemblage...... 118 Figure 5.20 - Examples of triangular endblades exhibiting upcurving of the ventral surface. The dotted line indicates the feature of interest...... 119 Figure 5.21 - Length value distributions of quartzite knife specimens organized by site assemblage...... 126 Figure 5.22 - Width value distributions of quartzite knife specimens organized by site assemblage...... 126 Figure 5.23 - Thickness value distributions of quartzite knife specimens organized by site assemblage...... 126 Figure 5.24 - Length value distributions of chert knife specimens organized by site assemblage...... 127 Figure 5.25 - Width value distributions of chert knife specimens organized by site assemblage. 127 Figure 5.26 - Thickness value distributions of chert knife specimens organized by site assemblage...... 127 Figure 5.27 - An example of a broken quartzite knife preform...... 129 Figure 5.28 - Examples of shouldering above the basal element on lanceolate knives. This feature is created by the progressive retouching of the blade while the basal element remains unmodified...... 129

x Figure 5.29 - Knife type frequencies categorized by material type and temporal period. PD - Pre-Dorset; ED = Early Dorset; MD = Middle Dorset...... 132 Figure 5.30 - Complete microblade core volume distributions by site and period...... 135 Figure 5.31 - A sample of chert microblade core material varieties from Iqaluktuuq.....135 Figure 5.32 - Microblade size distributions (width/length) by site assemblage...... 137 Figure 5.33 - Microblade size distributions (width/thickness) by site assemblage...... 138 Figure 5.34 - Microblade proximal retouch width distributions by site assemblage. Box-plot shows median, one-sigma range and total range...... 140 Figure 5.35 - Microblade use and retouch frequencies by site assemblage...... 143 Figure 5.36 - Microblade proximal retouch widths organized by site and ordered by increasing width value...... 143 Figure 5.37 - An example of the ‘moth’ chert variant found at Iqaluktuuq almost exclusively in Early and Middle Dorset assemblages...... 144 Figure 5.38 - Microblade length distributions by site assemblage...... 146 Figure 5.39 - Microblade width distributions by site assemblage...... 146 Figure 5.40 - Microblade thickness distributions by site assemblage...... 146 Figure 5.41 - Microblade platform width distributions by site assemblage...... 148 Figure 5.42 - Microblade platform thickness distributions by site assemblage...... 148 Figure 5.43 - Microblade type frequencies by site assemblage. Numbers in columns represent artifact counts...... 149 Figure 5.44 - Microblade platform shape proportions by site assemblage...... 149 Figure 5.45 - Microblade termination type frequencies by site assemblage...... 149 Figure 5.46 - Microblade retouch frequency proportions by site assemblage...... 151 Figure 5.47 - Microblade retouch location proportions by site assemblage...... 151 Figure 5.48 - Retouched and unretouched microblade length distributions by site assemblage. Note higher value ranges in retouched category compared to unretouched within the same assemblage...... 155 Figure 5.49 - Retouched and unretouched microblade width distributions by site assemblage. Note higher value ranges in retouched category compared to unretouched within the same assemblage...... 155 Figure 5.50 - Retouched and unretouched microblade thickness distributions by site assemblage. Note higher value ranges in retouched category compared to unretouched within the same assemblage...... 155 Figure 5.51 - Inferred method of unifacial endscraper (A) and bifacial endscraper (B) use based xi on flaking damage and rounding along the working edge...... 159 Figure 5.52 - Chert scraper length distributions by period...... 162 Figure 5.53 - Chert scraper width distributions by period...... 162 Figure 5.54 - Chert scraper thickness distributions by period...... 162 Figure 5.55 - Standardized volume distributions of quartzite bifaces by site...... 165 Figure 5.56 - Standardized volume distributions of chert bifaces by site...... 165 Figure 5.57 - Standardized volume distributions of bifaces by period...... 165 Figure 5.58 - Proportional assemblage composition by artifact type and temporal period..174 Figure 5.59 - Proportional assemblage composition by artifact type for temporally ambiguous assemblages (BA1 & BA4)...... 175 Figure 5.60 - Proportional assemblage composition by artifact type and temporal period excluding microblades...... 176 Figure 5.61 - Summary chart of inter-regional, inter-site tool type frequency data organized by tool type, site assemblage and temporal period...... 178 Figure 5.62 - Flake debitage maximum dimension distributions by site assemblage for chert and quartzite samples...... 184 Figure 5.63 - Flake debitage surface area distributions by site assemblage for chert and quartzite samples...... 184 Figure 5.64 - Flake debitage standardized volume distributions by site assemblage for chert and quartzite samples...... 184 Figure 5.65 - Comparison of debitage and artifact sample material frequencies by site assemblage...... 185 Figure 5.66 - Complete and proximal flake size scatter-plot by type and period for Quartzite (top) and Chert (bottom)...... 187 Figure 6.1 - Endscraper UPI value distributions organized by period...... 190 Figure 6.2 - Endscraper UPI value distributions organized by site assemblage...... 190 Figure 6.3 - Knife UPI value distributions by period...... 191 Figure 6.4 - Endblade UPI value distributions by period or assemblage...... 193 Figure 6.5 - Endblade UPI value distributions by period...... 194 Figure 6.6 - Endblade UPI-A value distributions by period...... 194 Figure 6.7 - Burin normalized edge lengths calculated on burin models using three methods: Method A (Blue), Method G (Red) and Method S (Black)...... 196 Figure 6.8 - Burin cumulative total edge lengths derived from the same dataset as for Figure 6.7.

xii Edge length is measured as proportion of original edge length...... 196 Figure 6.9 - Control model edge length trends by rejuvenation episode...... 197 Figure 6.10 - Control model cumulative total edge lengths derived from the same dataset as Figure 6.9...... 197 Figure 6.11 - Proportions of Pre-Dorset artifacts produced on various materials...... 204 Figure 6.12 - Proportions of Early Dorset artifacts produced on various materials...... 204 Figure 6.13 - Proportions of Middle Dorset artifacts produced on various materials...... 204 Figure 6.14 - Proportions of Pre-Dorset artifacts produced on various materials...... 205 Figure 6.15 - Proportions of Early Dorset artifacts produced on various materials...... 205 Figure 6.16 - Proportions of Middle Dorset artifacts produced on various materials...... 205 Figure 6.17 - Examples of small fragments of cortical chert likely procured from local gravel deposits...... 214 Figure 6.18 - Scatter-plot of WABI values by site assemblage for all lithic artifacts and all debitage measuring at least 2 cm in one dimension...... 218 Figure 6.19 - Scatter-plot of WABI values by site assemblage for all lithic artifacts and all debitage measuring at least 2 cm in one dimension excluding quartzite specimens...... 218 Figure 6.20 - Hypothetical schedules of equipment use, after Bleed (1986:741 Figure 1). Top scenario is optimal for maintainable systems. Second and third scenarios are optimal for reliable technologies...... 225 Figure 7.1 - Progressive endscraper reduction resulting in the shrinking of the working edge with successive rejuvenations...... 235

xiii List of Tables

Table 4.1 - BA1 Lithic Assemblage Summary...... 63 Table 4.2 - BA2 Lithic Assemblage Summary...... 65 Table 4.3 - BA4 Lithic Assemblage Summary...... 66 Table 4.4 - BA5 Lithic Assemblage Summary...... 67 Table 4.5 - BA6 Lithic Assemblage Summary...... 68 Table 4.6 - Ballantine Lithic Assemblage Summary...... 70 Table 4.7 - Ferguson Lake Lithic Assemblage Summary...... 71 Table 4.8 - Wellington Bay Lithic Assemblage Summary...... 72 Table 4.9 - Menez Lithic Assemblage Summary...... 74 Table 4.10 - Summary of assemblage composition data and Pearson Correlation tests...... 76 Table 5.1 - Summary of endblade type frequencies by site assemblage...... 122 Table 5.2 - Summary of core size/volume by material type and period...... 169 Table 5.3 - Comparative Tool Type Frequency Data for Iqaluktuuq (shaded), Ungava Peninsula (Nagy 1997), and southeastern Baffin Island (Maxwell 1973)...... 179 Table 5.4 - Debitage sample material type frequencies and proportion analyzed by site assemblage...... 182 Table 5.5 - Summary of debitage metrics and cortex proportions by site assemblage and material type...... 183 Table 5.6 - Summary of Scraper UPI Data by Period...... 190 Table 6.1 - Summary of Knife UPI Data by Period and Material Type...... 191 Table 6.2 - Summary of Endblade UPI Data by Period and Material Type...... 192 Table 7.1 - Major technological trends in the Iqaluktuuq lithic assemblages...... 227 Table 7.2 - Results summary for the mobility-related analyses ...... 232

xiv 1 1.0 – Introduction

1.1 - Problem Overview

This study explores the nature of Palaeo-Eskimo lithic technological change in the central Canadian Arctic through the analysis and interpretation of high resolution artifact assemblages recovered from several sites dating to the Palaeo-Eskimo period (circa 4500 - 850 BP) in the Iqaluktuuq region of southeastern Victoria Island, Nunavut, Canada. Technology change is an important subject of research and debate in the North American Arctic, as it is in part through changes in the form, frequency and distribution of artifacts that Arctic archaeologists infer trends in the economic, social and ideological facets of ancient cultures. For instance, hunting technologies were vital to ancient and recent human occupation of the far North because animals comprised the primary food resource in a land largely barren of substantive edible plant resources. Changes to such equipment can be indicative of accompanying changes to hunting techniques and prey choice, as well as raw material procurement patterns and trade. Some of these changes are manifested through time as ‘drift’ in human practice created by the complexities of social learning systems and interaction dynamics, while others are conscious modifications chosen to resolve material or social problems. Often it is difficult to determine precisely which factors are responsible for a particular pattern of change, especially when the nature and rate of change in one place do not conform to those observed somewhere else, even within the same cultural/ethnic area.

The present study attempts to tackle precisely this problem by working backwards, using known influences on technological change, determining what effects such influences are expected to have, and assessing to what degree the expected patterns of change are borne out. The influence of primary concern here is human mobility. Mobility is a useful subject for this research for two reasons. First, there is a substantial literature on the relationship between human mobility and lithic technology. Much has been written about the expected influence of increasing and decreasing mobility on the organization and manufacture of stone tools (e.g. Andrefsky 1994; Parry & Kelly 1987; Shott 1986; Bleed 1986) and thus constructing a research programme around this base of research is relatively straight-forward. Second, there is considerable evidence from non-lithic 2 sources (e.g. Nagy 2000) indicating that Palaeo-Eskimo mobility declined through time. This evidence thus provides the basis for an inquiry into the influence of mobility on Palaeo-Eskimo lithic technologies. The structure of this inquiry is expanded on below in Section 1.2.

A secondary goal of this research is to formulate a useful framework of theory surrounding technology and technological change. Scholarship on the subject extends far beyond archaeology alone (e.g. Pye 1988, Anderson and Tushman 1990, Autor, Levy & Murnane 2003, Jensen et al. 2007, Tambunan 2007, Rogers 2002) and as such there are a multitude of perspectives one can adopt. In my studies I found no single framework or paradigm that suited my purposes, and so I have endeavored (Chapter 3) to compile my own generalized model from numerous sources. This framework is intended to apply beyond the scope of this work to all technologies related to the modification of physical matter. While certainly not suitable for all technological perspectives and research trajectories, I believe it to be a useful tool for conceptualizing the basic elements of technology and understanding the interplay of cognitive, kinetic, social and material factors in technical action.

Discussions surrounding the nature of technological change are not new to Arctic archaeology. The Pre-Dorset/Dorset transition, believed to have occurred between approximately 2800 and 2500 BP (900 - 650 calBC) (Maxwell 1985), stands out as a much-debated topic that hinges in part on the ways in which Palaeo-Eskimo technologies are understood to have changed through time. Central to this issue is the identification of continuity and innovation in technical behaviour that can be used to isolate and characterize periods of punctuated or sustained change. The present study contributes to the ongoing discussion by offering detailed comparisons of technical practice from several sites dating to multiple temporal periods in the same region. Although this work is not specifically concerned with supporting or refuting the Palaeo-Eskimo transition concept, its focus on technological change encourages some kind of contribution to the debate. Accordingly, the discussion provided at the end of this work (Chapter 7) includes some treatment of this matter.

Beyond expanding our understanding of technology change, this study serves as the first comprehensive and technical description of the lithic materials recovered from the Iqaluktuuq 3 region. Taylor (1967) and Friesen (2001, 2004) have provided brief descriptions of the material collected to date but in-depth analyses have yet to be published. Arctic archaeology is still very much in need of material culture assemblage descriptions that facilitate regional comparisons, especially since the distribution and movement of ancient Arctic populations remain poorly understood. The assemblages described herein represent some of the highest resolution samples in the central Arctic and originate from an unusual locale near the western periphery of the Palaeo- Eskimo world. Consequently, I hope that this work will help to disseminate information regarding these important collections and encourage further development of Palaeo-Eskimo archaeology.

1.2 – Research Focus

Per the study interests discussed above, nine research questions have been devised. Questions 1 through 3 relate to the characterization of the Iqaluktuuq assemblages and the description of trends in tool production, use and maintenance activities. Questions 4 through 7 concern the impact of mobility change on lithic technology, and the remaining two questions relate to the characterization of Palaeo-Eskimo technology change and its implications for understanding the Pre-Dorset/Dorset transition. The research questions are:

1. What kinds of stone implements are present in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages?

2. How were they made, used and rejuvenated, and from what materials?

3. What changes are evident in how tools are made, used and rejuvenated between site assemblages and through time?

4. How is mobility expected to impact the production, use and maintenance of stone tools based on published theoretical models?

5. How did mobility appear to have impacted the production, use and maintenance of stone tools as evidenced by the Iqaluktuuq assemblages?

6. What does this (#5) reveal about how Palaeo-Eskimos adapted their lithic technologies to new land-use patterns? 4 7. What does this (#5) reveal about the validity of the expectations made in #4?

8. Based on the results of these analyses, what can be concluded regarding the nature of technological change in the Palaeo-Eskimo period?

9. Further to #8, do the data support the case for a definable transition period?

The questions outlined above summarize the primary subjects of interest that are addressed in this work. Questions 1-3 are examined in the technological analysis presented in Chapter 5. Questions 4 and 5 are examined in the mobility-related analyses presented in Chapter 6. Questions 6-9 are addressed in Chapter 7.

To answer these questions, two categories of analysis are used: technological and mobility-related. The technological analyses include the collection of metric and non-metric data to quantify the morphological variability exhibited by the lithic assemblages. Non-metric data include the presence and absence of artifact features, surface modification and raw material types. The artifacts examined include formal tools, tool fragments and flake debitage. From this information I attempt to reconstruct the processes behind production, use and rejuvenation for each tool type examined. Results are then compared between sites and temporal periods to elucidate trends in technical activities through time.

The mobility-related analyses include four approaches to evaluate the theoretical impact of mobility change on technological processes and organization. The first approach evaluates tool utility relative to its transport cost to estimate relative levels of mobility. The second approach identifies reliable and maintainable aspects in tool design to determine how maintenance activities were scheduled and tool failure rates were mediated. The third approach looks at the differential use of local and non-local raw material sources and overall raw material richness to establish where and how material is being procured. The last approach uses an index of utilized material proportions and artifact density to establish a relative measure of material use intensity. Each method is accompanied by predictions derived from the known changes to mobility that occur during the Palaeo-Eskimo period. Through the comparison of expected and obtained results, I am 5 able to comment on the impact of mobility on Palaeo-Eskimo tool technologies and the utility of the applied methods to identify change in mobility patterns through such analyses.

From the results yielded by the technological and mobility-based analyses and using the theoretical framework mention above, I attempt to synthesize a picture of Palaeo-Eskimo technological change as it occurred at Iqaluktuuq. The purpose of this synthesis is to provide an understanding of precisely which aspects of Palaeo-Eskimo stone tool technology changed, how they changed, and what effects mobility may or may not have had on these changes. Together with other technological studies, I hope this research can help to clarify some problems surrounding culture change in the North American Arctic and encourage similar studies in the far North.

1.3 – Section Outline

This work is divided into eight chapters. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 presents an overview of Palaeo-Eskimo culture with specific attention to the stone tool industries of the Arctic Small Tool tradition. Chapter 3 provides a discussion of the central theoretical concepts discussed in this work, including technology, technological change, and mobility. Research methods are presented in Chapter 4 and include field, data collection and analysis methods employed during the excavation and subsequent analysis of the artifact assemblages. Chapter 5 presents the results and interpretations of the technological analyses. Chapter 6 covers the results of the mobility- technology analyses and the interpretations of those results. A comprehensive discussion of the study results and their significance for answering the aforementioned research questions is presented in Chapter 7, followed by a brief summary and conclusion in Chapter 8. The appendices that follow include a glossary of terminology used in this work and additional artifact plates.

1.4 - Conventions

Three conventions used in this work need to be explained. The first convention is the abbreviation of the Buchanan site components. Rather than include the full site component name (e.g. Buchanan Area 6), such sites are referred to by the abbreviation BA#, where # is the area number. Buchanan Area 6 is therefore written as BA6. 6 The second convention is the abbreviated artifact number reference provided in some sections. Specific artifacts may be referred to according to the following format: #Y-X, where Yisthe number following the hyphen in the site’s Borden number designation, and X denotes the artifact catalogue number. For example, the abbreviation #1-344 refers to artifact catalogue number 344 from the Buchanan site (NiNg-1). Note that the various components of Buchanan, such as Area 2 and Area 6, are not distinguished in the artifact catalogue.

The third convention is the use of colour to denote temporal affiliation in charts and graphs as a visual aid. Red denotes Pre-Dorset assemblages/samples; blue denotes Early Dorset assemblages/ samples; Yellow denotes Middle Dorset assemblages/samples; and white denotes an ambiguous temporal affiliation. 7 2.0 – Culture History and Research Background

2.1 - The Palaeo-Eskimos

The Pre-Dorset and Dorset populations of the North American Arctic owe their ancestry to the ancient populations of Alaska, who in turn derive from Siberian populations (McGhee 1983, cited in Schledermann 1990:22). Irving (1968) first described the predecessors of Central and Eastern Palaeo-Eskimo populations, terming the archaeological signature of this culture the Arctic Small Tool tradition (ASTt). As the name suggests, this cultural complex is characterized by lithic tools of diminutive size. Similar microlithic tool industries are found throughout the Canadian and Greenlandic Arctic regions, leading Irving to conclude that the western ASTt cultural tradition was the precursor to its eastern counterparts. Radiocarbon dating of early ASTt sites in the central Canadian Arctic suggests that the first Palaeo-Eskimos migrated into the region around 4500 BP /3200 calBC (Maxwell 1985:39). Within 500 years, Palaeo-Eskimo populations had dispersed throughout the North American Arctic into both the High and Low Arctic regions, and the Greenlandic coast (Maxwell 1985:37).

Palaeo-Eskimos are thought to have lived a seasonally nomadic lifestyle, subsisting primarily on terrestrial and marine mammal resources such as caribou, muskox, seal and walrus, as well as a variety of fish and bird species (McGhee 1996). Seasonally-structured mobility patterns have been postulated for ASTt populations (Bielawski 1988; Milne 2000), although the actual structure of seasonal movements was highly contingent on regional geography and resource distributions. Arctic ecology strongly influences human habitation and economy, and so ancient inhabitants of the North American Arctic are interpreted to have organized themselves within a flexible social system wherein group size and distribution was easily modified according to resource availability (Bielawski 1988:56).

Palaeo-Eskimo material culture was fashioned from a wide variety of organic and inorganic materials, including but not limited to antler, bone, ivory, wood, stone, skin, and sinew (McGhee 1996). Many of their tool technologies were composite, combining two or more materials in a single implement. Scarce materials like driftwood fragments were fitted and lashed together to 8 create larger and more complex implements such as harpoons and fish spears. Flaked and ground stone played an important role in the Palaeo-Eskimo toolkit, providing sharp and/or robust working edges for a variety of economic activities. The following section presents a brief summary of Palaeo-Eskimo stone tool technologies.

2.2 - Palaeo-Eskimo Lithic Technology

Several Palaeo-Eskimo traditions are represented in the North American Arctic archaeological record, each exhibiting its own characteristic and occasionally regionally distinct, lithic assemblages. The Denbigh Flint Complex, Independence I, Saqqaq, Pre-Dorset traditions share a variety of tool types and similar tool morphology (Maxwell 1985:40-41). Following the Pre-Dorset/Dorset transition is the Dorset tradition, whose assemblages contain many of the same kinds of tools but also include many new and modified classes of implements. This change is believed to be in situ, reflecting technological changes within the extant core-area populations near Foxe Basin and expanding outwards (McGhee 1976, Nagy 1994).

Despite the perceived common ancestry of these groups, Arctic archaeologists have identified important differences between Palaeo-Eskimo lithic assemblages. The more common tool types found in ASTt assemblages include:

Spalled Burins – a unifacial or bifacial tool having one or more spalls struck or pressed from a lateral margin to create a sharpened edge and point along the spall scar. Flaked burins can also be partially ground and/or polished and were used as graving and planing implements.

Burin Spalls – the flake struck from a burin during burination, sometimes retouched and hafted for use as a graving, reaming or scraping implement

Burin-Like Tools – implements resembling flaked burins that have been formed in part or entirely by grinding and are believed to have been used in a similar manner as burins.

Endblades – typically bifacial armatures (i.e. piercing tips) for harpoon heads, lances and arrows.

Scrapers – steeply retouched unifacial or bifacial implements used in hide processing and the modification of hard organic substances. 9 Sideblades (Lateral Insets) – oblong or semi-lunate bifaces hafted into the side of lances, harpoon heads and other weaponry.

Microblades – small bladelets pressed from prepared cores of varying shapes, either hafted or used independently.

Knives – a variety of endblade believed to have been employed as general use or specialized cutting implement.

Palaeo-Eskimos used a variety of lithic raw materials in tool manufacture. Preferences in material types change through time and vary by region, the significance of which has not been fully ascertained to date (see Odess 1996). Raw materials of choice included cherts of varying appearance, quartzite, slate, killiaq (silicified slate), chalcedony, quartz crystal, and nephrite. While steatite was certainly used in the production of oil lamps and storage containers, no discussion of this activity is provided in this work.

2.3 - ASTt Lithic Assemblages

2.3.1 - Denbigh Flint Complex

The term ‘Arctic Small Tool tradition’ (ASTt) was first used by Irving (1964) in reference to microlithic tool industries he encountered at Punyik Point, and the term has come to apply to all North American Arctic populations who used such implements. The Alaskan origins of the early ASTt colonizers of the central and eastern North American Arctic can be drawn to the Denbigh Flint Complex (5000-3000 BP) from Iyatayet and Cape Krusenstern (Giddings 1967). The most prominent characteristic of the Denbigh assemblages is the high frequency of ‘struck’ microblades and microblade cores made from both chert and obsidian. Assemblages also include small fluted points and long, obliquely flaked points. Retouched flake gravers of a type similar to southern forms are present in Denbigh assemblages. Also of interest is the ubiquity of burin spalls, which appear in much greater numbers than burins themselves and had clearly been modified for use as tools in their own right (Giddings 1956). Giddings postulated a relationship to southern Palaeo- Indian populations based on fluted point and graver morphology, and Old World origins for Denbigh populations based on the presence of microblade and burin technology similar to those 10 of Europe (Giddings 1967:258, 261-2, 264). Until the discovery of the Denbigh Flint Complex, the existence and origins of Palaeo-Eskimo cultures was debated. With Giddings’s discoveries at Iyatayet and Eigil Knuth’s (1954, 1967a, 1967b) excavations in Independence Fjord, it became clear that Palaeo-Eskimo culture did indeed exist and, based on lithic tool morphology, most likely originated from Siberia (McGhee 1996:41).

2.3.2 - Independence I

Of the three early ASTt traditions, Independence I lithic assemblages share the most in common with the Alaskan ASTt assemblages. With the exception of fluted points, most tool types found in the Denbigh Flint Complex are present in Independence I assemblages (Maxwell 1985:66). Knuth (1952; 1967a) recognized similarities between Denbigh assemblages and those he discovered in High Arctic Greenland at Independence Fjord. The Independence I assemblages contain spalled burins exhibiting no grinding, retouched burin spall tools, flaring triangular end scrapers, concave side scrapers, narrow side blades, ovate bifaces, microblades and microblade cores, and bipointed projectile points with tapering stems. In contrast to the Alaskan samples, Independence I stone tools are generally larger than those at Denbigh, some exhibit multiple notching, and projectile point bases are not squared (Knuth 1952:26-28; Knuth 1967a:33-34; Maxwell 1985:66-67).

McGhee (1979; 1981) surveyed the Port Refuge region of western Devon Island, N.W.T. where he located numerous Palaeo-Eskimo sites, including some containing Independence I lithic assemblages. McGhee’s collections contain most of the same tool types as those recovered by Knuth. At the Cold site component of the Port Refuge sequence, microblades and burin spalls are the most common tool types excluding debitage and exhibit only occasional retouch. Burins are half as common as microblades, are made on thick flakes and exhibit bifacial retouch without grinding. Interestingly, endblades include not only serrated bipointed and stemmed forms, but also triangular (isosceles) forms with straight or slightly convex sides that may have been harpoon endblades. Bifacial ‘knives’ of various shapes are also well represented (Maxwell 1985: 70; McGhee 1979:41, 43-44). Although the Port Refuge assemblages are different in some respects from those of Independence Fjord, dissimilarity with more southerly Pre-Dorset assemblages is 11 greater.

Independence I sites were also discovered by Schledermann (1990) on the eastern coast of Ellesmere Island. A series of early occupation sites dated to around 4200 BP have yielded distinct Independence I lithic assemblages. The majority of debitage on these sites consists of small retouch flakes, likely from the manufacture and rejuvenation of the fine bifacial tools found in association with the minute flakes. In his summary discussion of the Lakeview, Tusk, Campview and Skraeling sites, Schledermann (1990:50-52) outlines the following characteristics of ‘typical’ Independence I lithic assemblages: spalled burins, rarely utilized burin spalls, triangular end scrapers, concave side scrapers, microblade cores, microblades with a mean width of 7.6mm, and lateral serration of bifaces (especially bipointed endblades). Schledermann also draws attention to the similarities between Independence I and Saqqaq lithic assemblages, which suggest some degree of interaction between the two traditions or a common origin. Radiocarbon dating of Independence I, Saqqaq and Pre-Dorset sites confirm that contemporaneous populations produced these ASTt assemblages, which were manifested as regional variants of the same basic technological tradition (Arundale 1981; 257 [Figure 4]).

2.3.3 - Saqqaq

The archaeological entity known as Saqqaq (or Sarqaq) was first identified by Larsen and Meldgaard (1958) and is confined to Ellesmere Island and the western shores of Greenland. Saqqaq is thought to be contemporaneous with Independence I, and organic materials from Saqqaq sites in Greenland have yielded radiocarbon dates between approximately 2450 and 850 calBC (Jensen 2006:173- 174 [Table 9.1]), while Canadian sites are dated to between 2200 and 1700 calBC (CARD n.d.). Saqqaq lithic assemblages share many tool types, frequencies and attributes with Independence I and Pre-Dorset assemblages found further to the north and west, respectively. Three qualities that set Saqqaq apart from these traditions are a high frequency of grinding on tools, especially burins, a low relative frequency of microblades, and the dominant use of killiaq for raw material (western Greenland only). Burin spalls are the most numerous lithic artifacts found in Saqqaq assemblages, though burins, stemmed end scrapers, and concave side scrapers are also common (Maxwell 12 1985:103-4). Schledermann (1990:61-72) describes the lithic assemblage from the Saqqaq period Bight site, Ellesmere Island, as consisting of very few microblades, irregular burin morphology, burin spalls and microblades exhibiting retouch or grinding, and a variety of raw materials that include chert and argillite. “The process of grinding and polishing tools, especially burins and gravers, is an important Saqqaq element”(Schledermann 1990:71). The Saqqaq period lithic artifact assemblages from Disko Bugt, western Greenland, contain primarily bifacial stemmed endblades, burins, burin spalls, and microblades, in addition to flaked stone debitage, produced from killiaq, chalcedony and chert (Jensen 2006).

2.3.4 - Pre-Dorset

Compared to the two traditions discussed above, Pre-Dorset assemblages are found over a much larger geographic area. Pre-Dorset sites have been identified on Banks Island (Arnold 1981), western and southern Victoria Island (Taylor 1964, 1967, 1972; Friesen 2002, 2004; McGhee 1969; Savelle and Dyke 2002), Baffin Island (Meldgaard 1960; Milne 2003), Mansel Island (Taylor 1968), the Barrenlands west of Hudson Bay (Gordon 1975, 1976; Meyer 1977), northern Labrador (Fitzhugh 1972, 1980) and Devon Island (McGhee 1976). As with Independence I and Saqqaq, lithic artifacts are often the only surviving material culture at these sites, though some organic material does occasionally survive (Bielawski 1988:53). On average, spalled burins represent twenty percent of finished implements in Pre-Dorset assemblages. Compared to Saqqaq specimens, Pre-Dorset burins are less frequently ground or polished, however variability in burin morphology is comparable (Maxwell 1985:91; Schledermann 1990:96, 118). Bifacial knives in a variety of forms – ovate, stemmed, straight-based, and irregular – are common, as are side- and endscrapers. Scrapers were likely used to process animal hides and work hard organic materials like antler and ivory. Microblades, generally speaking, increase in frequency throughout the period (Maxwell 1985:95).

Burin-Like Tools (BLTs) first appear in Palaeo-Eskimo assemblages within Pre-Dorset contexts. Although not especially numerous in early Pre-Dorset sites, BLTs increase in relative frequency in late Pre-Dorset and Dorset assemblages. BLT morphological variability increases throughout the 13 Pre-Dorset period, possibly a reflection of differential functional requirements. At the same time, spalled burins begin to decrease in relative frequency to BLTs, although the rate with which this shift is made varies by region (Maxwell 1985:109).

Schledermann (1990) provides a detailed example of a Pre-Dorset assemblage from the Ridge site, located on eastern Ellesmere Island. The assemblage contains roughly forty percent microblades, fifteen percent burins, and a significant number of end scrapers and unmodified burin spalls. Projectile points are stemmed with slightly flaring lateral margins, differing markedly from bipointed Saqqaq specimens. End scrapers are fashioned from random cortical flakes lacking the flaring, triangular form of Independence I specimens. The lithic debitage contains over eighty percent small retouch flakes, suggesting late stage unifacial or bifacial tool modification. Over half of microblade fragments show evidence of retouch or usewear (Schledermann 1990:94-97,104-5).

Milne (2000) notes that inland Pre-Dorset lithic assemblages from southern Baffin Island differ significantly from coastal site assemblages by having greater frequencies of expedient tool types, such as retouched flakes. Bifaces, burins and cores are the most common artifact types, outnumbered only by informal tools. Milne (2000:151, 155) posits that this preference for expedient tools likely stems from the proximity to chert sources and, therefore, a greater availability of raw material relative to coastal regions. Similar patterns of raw material exploitation are apparent in western Amundsen Gulf, southeast Victoria Island, Ungava peninsula, southern Coronation Gulf and the Barrenlands, where local quartzite and basalt resources were integrated as an expedient or informal technological element (Arnold 1981:42; Brink 1992; Gordon 1975, 1976; LeBlanc 1991; Gendron & Pinard 2000:133; McGhee 1970; Meyer 1977).

2.3.5 - Transitional Period

Some archaeologists argue that, prior to the appearance of the ‘classic’ Dorset tradition, there was a period of transition beginning circa 2800 BP (900 calBC) wherein the Pre-Dorset tradition experienced significant changes in both lithic and organic technology (McGhee 1988). Ultimately, these changes led to the development of a modified technological system referred to today as Dorset, believed by some to represent important changes in Palaeo-Eskimo ideology, subsistence 14 strategies and social structure, possibly stemming from ecological changes (Nagy 1997:4). The timing and nature of this transition is under dispute (Nagy 1997; Ramsden & Tuck 2001), partially because the rate of technological change varied by region. Sites containing assemblages that exhibit both Pre-Dorset and Dorset technological elements in clear association are often labeled ‘transitional’.

The Killilugak site near Lake Harbour is one example of a Pre-Dorset/Dorset transitional site. Excavated by Maxwell (1973), this site yielded a lithic assemblage containing a high percentage of microblades and burin spalls. Burins are bifacially polished at the distal end and bilaterally notched, patterns reminiscent of assemblages from Igloolik, Baffin Island. Such traits are consistent with those found in the latter part of the Pre-Dorset tradition; however, the Killilugak assemblage also contains burin-like tools fashioned from nephrite and ground slate artifacts, both of which are rare or absent in Pre-Dorset contexts but abound in later Dorset assemblages. Thus, this assemblage is interpreted by Maxwell (1973:111-114) to have been created during the aforementioned period of cultural change.

Fitzhugh (1972, 1980) identifies Groswater Dorset as a distinct regional variant found in Labrador and Ungava Peninsula, northern Quebec. Assemblages from Groswater sites contain a high relative frequency of end blades of varying form, spalled and ground burins, a variety of bifacial knives, and notched microblades. Raw material types are suggestive of the Dorset tradition, containing crystal quartz and slate in addition to local cherts (Fitzhugh 1972:126). As a transitional period tradition (circa 1750-1150 BP), Groswater Dorset is somewhat unique in being “an evolved Pre- Dorset form influenced by Dorset traits developing elsewhere but not ancestral to later Dorset development”(Fitzhugh 1980:598 [emphasis added]). Knuth (1967a, 1968) identifies another regional variant, Independence II, found in Northern Greenland. Independence II is not derived from Independence I, and the two traditions share few similarities in lithic tool types. One striking difference is the complete lack of spalled burins in Independence II assemblages. Burin-Like Tools seem to have completely replaced other burin types. Microblades remain the dominant tool type by frequency, followed by side-notched endblades. Triangular endblades with straight bases are 15 missing from Independence II assemblages (Maxwell 1985:117; Knuth 1967a:36-38).

As the above examples illustrate, there is a great deal of regional variability in transitional lithic assemblages. This causes some to question the existence of a definable transition event (Nagy 1997). Schledermann effectively sums up the problem of characterizing the Pre-Dorset to Dorset transition: “Needless to say, not all cases are equally convincing, particularly since the transition cannot be conceived of as being smooth and uniform”(1990:166). Yet, one cannot expect the timing and nature of technological change to be uniform across a region as vast as the North American Arctic and, consequently, the Transition Period phenomenon must be characterized on a regional rather than pan-regional basis. The very nature of technological change makes it difficult to define a discrete set of temporal and technological criteria that are inclusive of all geographic regions inhabited by Palaeo-Eskimos during this time.

2.3.6 - Early Dorset

Following the transition period around 650 calBC, Palaeo-Eskimo populations are believed to have adopted a ‘new’, fairly uniform lifeway throughout the Eastern Arctic. Arctic archaeologists call this cultural tradition Dorset, an entity divided into three periods: Early, Middle, and Late. Lithic artifact assemblages from Early Dorset sites are distinct from Pre-Dorset assemblages in several ways; spalled burins are all but replaced by burin-like tools of both the square and angular varieties. A ground slate tool industry develops around this time, the products of which vary in form and are often multiply notched. Triangular endblades increase in frequency, and non-triangular endblades frequently have multiple notches for hafting. Also, ‘fluting’ of endblade tips, the removal of two parallel flakes from the distal end of a biface tip, appears in Early Dorset assemblages (Maxwell 1985:123, 150; Meldgaard 1962:95).

Microblades continue to be a dominant tool type in Palaeo-Eskimo assemblages, but the material of choice for producing microblades shifts. For Lake Harbour, Maxwell notes that “[in] distinction to late Pre-Dorset and the transitional period there is a marked increase in the use of clear quartz crystal for microblades, outnumbering chert ones [four] to [one]”(1985:176). Nephrite and similar materials appear in greater quantities, having been fashioned into adze blades and angular-tipped 16 burin-like tools. The proliferation of material and tool types suggests that Dorset tools have a high degree of functional specificity, which does not appear to have been the case in earlier ASTt traditions (McGhee 1996:137-8).

One of the most interesting technological changes in the Dorset tradition is the disappearance of the bow. Though not a lithic tool in itself, the bow is used in combination with stone arrow points and drill bits for subsistence and production activities, respectively. With the ‘loss’ of the bow, arrow points disappear from the archaeological record. Interestingly, the increase in slate lance heads at the same time seems to indicate a fundamental change in hunting strategies that clearly does not include the use of bow-fired missiles. An exception is found at the Joss site, where McGhee (1969) claims to have recovered arrow shaft fragments. Also, holes in organic materials are no longer drilled and are instead gouged, resulting in ovate rather than round perforations in needles and harpoon heads (McGhee 1996:142). Thus, even if the bow did not disappear entirely from the Palaeo-Eskimo tool inventory, it was certainly not being used as a drilling implement in the Dorset period.

Although it has been stated that Dorset material culture exhibits unusual standardization in form (e.g. Maxwell 1985:127), this only seems to apply to the so-called ‘core-area’ around Foxe Basin. High and central Arctic sites exhibit greater artifact morphological variability in comparison to core-area assemblages. For instance, at the High Arctic Baculum site on Ellesmere Island, Schledermann (1990) recovered an Early Dorset assemblage (2780 BP/910 calBC) containing sixty-six percent microblades, none of which exhibited retouch or notching. Spalled burins are present in low numbers and are heavily ground on both faces. End scrapers are unifacial, distally flaring, and occasionally have oblique working edges. Projectile points are shallowly notched and have flaring, straight bases. Neither slate artifacts nor examples of tip fluting are apparent in the Baculum assemblage (ibid. 178-181, 195). In contrast, the assemblages recovered from Igloolik, dating to around the same time (2735 BP/870 calBC), contain both tip-fluted points and slate knives. No spalled burins were recovered at Igloolik, though burin-like tools of both types were present (Meldgaard 1962:93-95). 17 2.3.7 - Middle Dorset

The chronological period and cultural tradition that follows Early Dorset and begins around 2300 BP (390 calBC) is known as Middle Dorset. This is the Dorset tradition for which we know the least, as sites are much less numerous than Early and Late Dorset sites. The Middle Dorset period has been characterized by some as a time of cultural decline, likely related to climatic changes that occurred in the North American Arctic at that time (Maxwell 1985:212). Middle Dorset sites are found on Southampton Island (Collins 1957), north and south Baffin Island (Arundale 1976; Mary-Rousselière 1976), western and south-eastern Victoria Island (McGhee 1969, Friesen 2008), and in Labrador and Newfoundland (Harp 1976; LeBlanc 2000; Hodgetts et al. 2003; Cox 2003; Renouf 2006). As for all Palaeo-Eskimo traditions, there is some degree of regional variability in lithic assemblages. However, some general characteristics of Middle Dorset assemblages can be mentioned. First, spalled burins continue to be poorly represented compared to burin-like tools, as are burin spalls. Microblades appear to decrease in frequency but are still present, one hafted specimen being recovered at the Nanook site. Tip fluting is found in varying amounts in Middle Dorset assemblages, being very common with long fluting flakes at Port-aux-Choix to almost absent at Native Point where only a few fluting flakes were recovered. Triangular concave-based endblades are common in most assemblages, as are slate knives. End scrapers continue to be triangular in form (Maxwell 1985:203-210; Le Blanc 2000:97-101; Mary-Rousselière 1976:43).

2.3.8 - Late Dorset

The Late Dorset period, which dates approximately from 1500 BP until 700 BP (Friesen 2007), is of great interest to Arctic archaeologists for a number of reasons. First, it is during this time that Dorset populations expanded their range to reoccupy portions of the High Arctic and Greenland (McGhee 1996:200). It is also during this time that there is a florescence of Palaeo-Eskimo ‘art’, represented by a marked increase in anthropomorphic, zoomorphic, and abstract carvings in bone, antler and ivory. Late Dorset carvings have attracted much attention from archaeologists, both for their aesthetic qualities, as well as their potential significance in studies of Palaeo-/Neo-Eskimo culture contact (Taçon 1983). As such, organic artifacts from this period receive much more 18 attention than the lithic artifacts found in association with them. Nevertheless, Late Dorset lithic assemblages exhibit interesting differences from earlier Dorset and pre-Dorset traditions. Maxwell (1985:217) identifies three morphological traits of artifacts that are particularly indicative of the Late Dorset tradition: 1) Double line holes on harpoon heads; 2) Triangular endblades with deep basal concavities and serrated lateral margins; 3) Side-notched, angular-edged knives and scrapers that are deeply beveled on one face. Maxwell goes on to identify artifact traits that appear in Late Dorset and those that change during this period. Artifact traits that appear in this period include: side-hafting of knives and burin-like tools in composite handles, parallel stemmed slate knives and lances, stemmed and serrated chert lances, asymmetrical rounded bifacial knives, and seemingly random, unifacial flakes notched for hafting. Changes to artifact form in the Late Dorset period include: an increase in the angularity of basal spurs on endblades, increased serration on endblades, increased size and roundness of endblades, a decline in the frequency of tip fluting, increased end scraper distal flaring, a decrease in side notched slate knives, and an increase in the use of nephrite, quartz, slate and chalcedony (Maxwell 1985:226-7).

McGhee’s (1981) survey of Port Refuge Late Dorset sites yielded a lithic assemblage displaying many of the traits listed above. Endblades from the Port Refuge assemblages were of three classes: notched, stemmed and triangular. The first two classes displayed a wide range of morphological variability, including convex, straight and concave bases, bifacial and unifacial flaking, pointed and rounded distal margins, and both shallow and deep notching. In contrast, triangular endblades are fairly uniform in shape, being worked bifacially and having slightly concave bases. Neither the deep basal concavity nor the edge serration common in other Late Dorset assemblages is evident in the Port Refuge assemblage. Microblades and associated cores are also present, with many of the former specimens exhibiting marginal retouch. Burin-like tools of nephrite and banded chert were recovered, both being heavily ground and polished on both faces and laterally beveled to shape the working surface (Ibid. 68-71).

The lithic assemblage recovered from the Longhouse site (Schledermann 1990:208-212) contains a surprisingly high frequency of microblades, totaling more than three times the number of any 19 other artifact class. Microblades in the Longhouse assemblage exhibit signs of usewear, but no evidence of intentional retouch has been reported. End scrapers are flared and have oblique distal working edges. Non-triangular endblades, also believed to have been used as knives, are corner notched with rounded distal margins and convex bases. Triangular endblades have deeply concave, ‘eared’ bases, making them ideal for use in Type-E harpoon heads. Small, retouch flakes from the Longhouse site constitute eighty-three percent of the debitage recovered, indicating that biface and uniface modification were common activities at this site.

2.4 - Stone Tool Studies in the North American Arctic

While lithic artifacts comprise a large proportion of nearly all Palaeo-Eskimo assemblages, published technological studies of this material are rare. Assemblages are typically summarized according to tool type frequencies and raw material usage for the sake of comparability with other assemblages. Several examples of more detailed lithic studies are presented here.

Milne (2003b) provides a multi-scalar study of Pre-Dorset lithic technology from inland and coastal sites on southern Baffin Island. The goal of this research was to examine functional differences in Pre-Dorset sites related to seasonal and resource-specific activities. Milne employs individual attribute analysis, mass analysis, minimum analytical nodule analysis, and Sullivan and Rosen debitage classification to characterize the technological activities that took place at two coastal upland and two coastal Pre-Dorset sites. These analyses revealed several significant differences in raw material procurement and tool production/maintenance activities between coastal upland and coastal sites, leading Milne to conclude that these areas were used differently by Pre-Dorset lithic tool makers during different seasons of occupation. It is further shown that lithic procurement and production activities were integrated with inland hunting schedules, thus combining both activities during the same season.

In his doctoral dissertation, Daniel Odess (1996) explores Dorset lithic raw material exchange in the Frobisher Bay region of southeastern Baffin Island through the distribution of lithic implements in multiple site assemblages. Raw material types within these assemblages are identified via 20 visual means without additional chemical analyses, and, based on the distribution of ‘local’ and ‘exotic’ material types, the author infers relative degrees of social interaction at the time of site occupation. Odess identifies three temporal sequences corresponding to changing patterns of raw material procurement in the studied assemblages: Sequence I (2100 to 1700 BP), Sequence II (1500-1400 BP), and Sequence III (800 to 650 BP). Fluctuations in material distributions across these sequences are explained by changing regional social dynamics, population influxes from more western regions, and stresses imposed by eastward-moving Neo-Eskimo populations. Odess convincingly argues that raw material procurement studies have great potential for enlightening archaeologists regarding human interaction and exchange in the North American Arctic, but first researchers must invest greater effort into regional lithic sourcing studies in order to broaden our understanding of material distributions across the northern landscape.

Giddings (1956) presents a brief but insightful discussion of modified burin spall tools in the Denbigh Flint Complex. Microscopic observation of burin spall distal margins reveal microflaking that Giddings attributes to their use as graving tools after being detached from the parent burin. The process of spalling therefore becomes more than a means of rejuvenation (burin) but also a production method for another tool (spall).

Gordon (1975) presents description and rudimentary analysis of several lithic tool types recovered from Barrenland Palaeo-Eskimo sites in the Upper Thelon River and Coronation Gulf regions as part of his testing of the ‘discrete band/discrete herd’ hypothesis. His examination of burin technology is particularly noteworthy; beyond providing a comprehensive morphological typology, he also addresses evidence for hafting and use. In particular, Gordon explores the technological significance of surficial scoring on burins and burin spalls and argues that the angle of these striae is directly related to the mode and direction of burin use. Burin samples from fifteen Palaeo- Eskimo sites were analyzed, including artifacts from the Wellington Bay, Menez and Buchanan sites discussed in the present study. Based on surface wear patterns and hafting evidence, Gordon concludes that despite morphological differences in the burin samples there appears to be a great deal of uniformity in tool function and, thus, economic activities. 21 On the subject of Arctic culture change, Nagy (1997) investigates the validity of the Pre-Dorset/ Dorset transition concept in her study of lithic tool, organic tool and faunal assemblages from the Ivujivik region of Northern Quebec. The lithic analyses employed in her study include intra- and inter-site comparisons of tool morphology, spatial distributions, production processes and raw material usage, with particular attention given to burins and microblades. Comparisons are made between Pre-Dorset, Early Dorset and transitional-period sites to determine how lithic production changed and/or maintained continuity with earlier periods. Use of space in Palaeo- Eskimo dwellings was found to have remained largely the same, but significant differences were noted in tool frequencies and raw material use. Nagy postulates that some of the differences in implement frequencies between sites may be the result of economic activities performed in different occupational seasons. Furthermore, Nagy attributes the increase in raw material types in later period assemblages to greater familiarity with the local landscape and regional toolstone sources. From these and other results, she concludes that there were indeed significant changes and continuities in technological activities from the Pre-Dorset period through the Dorset period at Ivujivik, in part substantiating the Pre-Dorset/Dorset transition concept.

Linnamae (1975) provides a comprehensive technological analysis of lithic assemblages from the White Bay and Port Aux Basques Dorset sites in Newfoundland. Metric and non-metric data are summarized for several classes of tool including endblades, microblades, microblade cores, scrapers, and groundstone tools. In general, Linnamae concludes that there are few significant differences between the lithic assemblages in terms of content that cannot be reasonably explained by differential sample size and thus Dorset economy appears to remain relatively unchanged throughout its tenure in Newfoundland. The author also notes that differences in lithic tool form between Newfoundland assemblages and those of other regions of the Arctic appear to be the result of different “styles of making”(1975:94) as opposed to reflecting essential differences in tool function.

McGhee (1970) and Wyatt (1970) present comparative studies of Dorset microblade morphology and production processes. Ten microblade assemblages from across the North American Arctic are 22 compared according to a number of basic metric and non-metric criteria, such as length, width, thickness, material type and scar counts. While McGhee’s study is primarily intended as simply a review of the data collected, Wyatt employs statistical techniques to determine the strength of correlations between the attributes analyzed. Wyatt concludes (1970:103) that there are no significant correlations between metric attributes. He also notes that retouched microblades tend to be longer and thicker than unretouched specimens, suggesting preferential selection for use.

McGhee (1980) compares variability in lithic tool ‘styles’ in Independence I sites from Port Refuge, Devon Island. Small burin samples from thirteen single or short occupation components are compared in order to determine the range of variability that can be attributed to individual stone-working craftsmen. Overall burin form and working-edge arrangement (handedness) are the primary qualities examined and, although this work is not particularly technological in its focus, it has important implications for technological studies. McGhee concludes that there is a great deal of uniformity in burin form and manufacture within site components, suggesting that a single person was responsible for their production; however, he further observes that the variation present between site components indicates that similarity in tool forms cannot be used as a reliable determinant of human interaction patterns.

Owen (1988) provides an excellent technological analysis of blade and microblade technologies from the North American Arctic and Southwest Germany. Many aspects of microblade production and modification are discussed and compared across temporal and regional divisions. These include but are not limited to raw material selection, platform construction, surficial modification, marginal retouch, microblade fragmentation, ridge blade production, and core morphology. Her study outlines the production and use behaviours associated with various microblade technologies, providing a wealth of comparative data on both microblades and cores from which she is able to reveal patterns of continuity and change. Owen examines some of the Dorset microblade sample analysed in this work from the Buchanan site (NiNg-1) and points out that Taylor (1967:221) considered all microblade samples from Pre-Dorset components at Buchanan to be intrusive Dorset material. 23 2.5 - Regional Overview: Iqaluktuuq

Iqaluktuuq is located on the southeastern coast of Victoria Island adjacent to Wellington Bay and comprises one of the most archaeologically rich regions in the western portion of the Canadian Arctic (Figure 2.2). The region occupies the Victoria Lowlands geologic formation, part of the larger Western Arctic Lowlands, that is characterized by low relief rarely exceeding 500m above sea level (Bostock 1970). Most of this region was glaciated during the Pleistocene and as such has experienced pronounced isostatic rebound “between 10 and 200m”(Bridges 1990:70). Unconsolidated glacial till is common throughout the eastern portion of Victoria Island and is underlain by limestone, dolomite and sandstone (Fyles 1963). Surface deposits around the Ekalluk River, and in particular on the relic beach ridges adjacent to Wellington Bay, are primarily an orange-pink quartzite interspersed with cloudy-white quartzite nodules and vein quartz. The lower portion of the Ekalluk River, little more than three kilometers long, provides an outlet for Ferguson Lake into nearby Wellington Bay to the west, while the upper porton of the river extends inland from the opposite end of Ferguson Lake. Together, Ferguson Lake and the Ekalluk River drain a watershed of approximately 5835 km2. The lake is more than 75 kilometers long, roughly east-to- west, and covers an area of 740km2 (Kristofferson 2002).

First surveyed by William E. Taylor, Jr. in 1963 (Taylor W. 1972), Iqaluktuuq has been the focus of more recent research by Max Friesen (2001; 2002; 2003; 2004). There is evidence for human occupation in the region throughout the Palaeo-Eskimo and Neo-Eskimo periods and into historic times, with the notable exceptions of the earliest Pre-Dorset and several intermitent breaks in the occupational sequence (Figure 2.3). According to radiocarbon dates, occupation of this region appears to begin around 3200 BP (1470 calBC), somewhat later than the earliest Pre-Dorset sites on western Victoria Island. Several Pre-Dorset archaeological sites have been identified, including Wellington Bay (Friesen 2004:15-16; Taylor 1972:53-54), Buchanan (Friesen 2003:10-11; Taylor W. 1972:58-72; Taylor W. 1967:221) and Menez (Friesen 2003:25; Friesen 2004:17; Taylor W. 1967:225). The Pre-Dorset occupation dates for these sites range from 3180 BP to 2470 BP (1450 - 650 cal BC), although it is suspected that the later dates from Buchanan (M-1504 and GSC- 24

Iqaluktuuq

Canada

Ek allu k Fe rg uson La Ri ve r Wellington Bay

Figure 2.1 - Map of the study region. (courtesy of Max Friesen)

656) actually correspond to the following Dorset occupation (CARD n.d.). Similarities of tool frequencies and overall lithic assemblage contents suggests that the early Palaeo-Eskimo inhabitants of Iqaluktuuq were part of, or at least interacted with, Palaeo-Eskimo populations living in the southern Barrenland (Gordon 1975, McGhee 1970a), western Victoria Island (McGhee 1971), and Banks Island (Arnold 1981, Taylor 1967).

Dorset occupation of the region begins around 2500 BP/650 calBC and lasts until around 850 to 800 BP (1190 - 1240 calAD) (Friesen 2004). Sites in this region that have Dorset period components include Buchanan, Ballantine (Taylor 1972:56-58; Taylor 1967:223), Bell (Taylor 1972:54-56; Taylor 1967:223; Friesen 2003:11-21; Ryan 2003), Cadfael (Brink 1992, Friesen 2004:9; Friesen 2002; Damkjar 2000:171), Ferguson Lake (Friesen 2003:24, Taylor 1967:223-224), Freezer (Friesen 2003:21-23; Taylor 1967:225) and Peetuk (Friesen 2004:19; Taylor 1967:227). Early, 25 Iqaluktuuq Archaeological Sequence Calibrated Dates Cultures Represented

AD 2000 Recent Inuit (1800 calAD - Present)

Thule Inuit (1430 - 1800 calAD)

Late Dorset AD 1000 (940 - 1350 calAD) Hiatus?

0 Early/Middle Dorset BC/AD (650 calBC - 740 calAD)

Transition Period - Hiatus? (900 - 650 calBC) 1000 BC Pre-Dorset (1700 - 900 calBC)

2000 BC Figure 2.2 - Timeline of human occupation at Iqaluktuuq, after Friesen 2002:8 Figure 1. 26 Middle and Late/Terminal Dorset components are represented, though not all stages are equally represented. While Middle Dorset components have been identified in this region, Middle Dorset sites are relatively under-represented compared to earlier and later Dorset components in terms of site quantity; however, the intensity of site use appears much higher in the Middle Dorset components. As Figure 2.3 illustrates, there is a gap in the radiocarbon sequence between 740 and 940 calAD. This may be a result of sampling or may indeed represent a break in human occupation of the Ekalluk River region during the Middle Dorset period and leading into the Late Dorset period.

Reconstructing Pre-Dorset resource exploitation patterns in the Ekalluk River region, particularly that of animal resources, is difficult because of poor organic preservation conditions (Friesen 2004:16). Pre-Dorset peoples are believed to have been attracted to this area because of its ideal position for intercepting migrating caribou herds in the autumn (Friesen 2004:17), as well as its suitability for seal hunting. Faunal evidence supports this hypothesis, with high frequencies of caribou bone being recovered from middens at all Pre-Dorset sites and high seal bone frequencies being recorded in the earliest assemblage from the Wellington Bay site (Taylor 1967). Unlike in later periods, arctic char were unlikely to have been a strong lure for Pre-Dorset populations as the Ekalluk River had not yet been formed and, as a consequence, anadromous fish species would have been largely inaccessible at this time (Friesen 2004: pers. comm.). Lithic assemblages from these sites reveal Pre-Dorset people were also exploiting local quartzite deposits as a supplement to other toolstone resources (Friesen 2004:16; Taylor 1967:221).

Resource exploitation patterns do not appear to vary much throughout the Dorset period at Iqaluktuuq. Dorset resource exploitation is similar to that of the Pre-Dorset period, with the notable exception of fishing as an important subsistence activity. Caribou and fish bones dominate faunal assemblages, which also include small frequencies of seal, bird and fox bones (Taylor 1972:54, 57; Taylor 1967:223; Friesen 2001:22). Clearly, caribou and arctic char were the primary animal species being exploited in this region, likely as a result of the site’s prime location for hunting these species. The formation of the Ekalluk River provided excellent conditions for Dorset peoples to 27 intercept caribou herds as they crossed the river during the autumn migration and to catch arctic char as they swam up river to spawn in the same season. Recovery of large numbers of Early and Middle Dorset harpoon heads implies use of such devices for hunting caribou or fishing (Taylor 1967:223; Ryan 2003:106; Friesen pers. comm.).

In terms of lithic resources present at Iqaluktuuq that were of interest to Palaeo-Eskimo peoples, two primary materials have been identified to date. A light pink-orange quartzite of varying quality is present in great quantities along beach ridges, rivers and lake shores in tabular and nodular form. Embedded within this quartzite, one occasionally finds nodules of colourless vein quartz, although no crystal quartz has been observed. Quartzite fragments larger than a foot in length are not uncommon. Nodular and fragmented tabular cherts are also present in small quantities within gravel deposits in the same general areas as quartzite. Non-cultural chert specimens have been recovered during archaeological excavation and informal exploration, and range in colour from white to tan to gray and combinations thereof. The average size of these fragments is quite small, often less than 5 cm in maximum dimension. To my knowledge, no systematic survey of the region has been conducted in order to establish the relative distributions and varieties of these materials. It is also worth noting that unmodified slate and nephrite have not been noted in the area. 28 3.0 - Theoretical Framework

Before detailing my analytical methods, I will first take some time to explain the theoretical framework in which I will be approaching and interpreting my analyses. The following section provides definitions of the key concepts used in this study and explains how they are interconnected. The theoretical concepts central to this work are technology and mobility, two often broadly- defined and vague concepts that are commonly found in contemporary archaeological discourse. As the goal of my research is to explore the interplay of these two concepts, it is necessary for me to begin by outlining precisely what ‘technology’ and ‘mobility’ mean for the purposes of this paper. The definitions presented below, especially those pertaining to technology, represent my interpretations of the works of Pye, Leroi-Gourhan, Ingold, Lemmonier, Chazan and others. They are not intended to be the only ‘right’ perspectives; rather, the scope of technology and mobility is so large that no single definition is appropriate, let alone useful, for all research questions. I qualify my definitions, where possible, to better delineate those aspects of technology or mobility most applicable here.

3.1 - Technology

Defining technology is a challenging endeavor, as the term can be used in a multitude of ways. The Oxford Canadian Dictionary (1998) variously defines technology as: the study or use of mechanical arts and applied sciences; application of the aforementioned to practical tasks in industry; as tools applied in such action. While these definitions are narrow in their applicative context (i.e. modern industry), they do illustrate the two most common general usages of the term: in reference to things and in reference to knowledge. We often use ‘technology’ to refer to physical objects that are employed in some kind of activity, such as a hammer, a telescope or a computer. Alternatively, technology can refer to a body of knowledge relating to an activity, usually employing physical objects considered integral to the process. Consequently, an ambiguity is created in the definition of technology, with both tangible objects and intangible ideas being referred to by the same conceptual term. This ambiguity is more than a matter of mere semantics; it lies at the heart of inductive reasoning pertaining to culture change and archaeological interpretation. 29 It is particularly problematic for the research programme presented here because in discussing technological change it must be made clear what precisely is changing. Does technological change imply an alteration in physical forms/objects/artifacts, or does it imply a change in knowledge surrounding some activity? One could also assert that both the knowledge and objects associated with an activity are changing. How technology is framed directly impacts how physical evidence is interpreted.

First and foremost, technology is a perspective through which we attempt to make sense of the world. It is a perspective that focuses on the ‘how’ of human activity, permitting the description and explanation of the ‘ways of doing’ something (Boulding 1969; Dobres and Hoffman 1995; Franklin 1992; Miller 2006; Schiffer 2001). For its use here, I have opted for a physical- transformative definition to distinguish my usage from that of communication or information technology. Technology is here defined as knowledge of technique and process, and the associated material objects that facilitate purposeful alteration of the physical world. Thus, I am interested in how knowledge interfaces with physical actions to effect change in the physical world, one of many possible approaches to technological analysis of stone tools. I also see technology as being inherently purposive and goal-oriented, only existing insofar as someone desires to effect change in the physical world through its use. Intentionless activity is not rooted in this definition of technology, though unintentioned effects or consequences of actions are an inescapable fact of technical activity. Therefore, in studying ancient stone tool technology, I am only concerned with the intentioned tool-making and use activities of ancient peoples.

An important question that arises, one that Ingold (1987:43) explicitly addresses, is whether physical materials (i.e. implements/tools) form part of technology or are simply a product of technology. Ingold argues the latter point, asserting that “technology consists, in the first place, of a corpus of knowledge that individuals carry in their heads, and transmit by formal, symbolically encoded instruction”(ibid., my emphasis). Further, he asserts that technology “consists in a knowledge of objective principles of mechanical functioning, whose validity is completely independent both of the subjective identity of its human carriers and of the specific contexts of its application”(2000:315). 30 From this perspective, material objects are intimately involved in technological activities but do not, in themselves, contribute to the essence of technology. Instead, it is the knowledge behind technical activity that determines the character and use of physical objects, which are little more than a means to an end. I agree with the assertion that knowledge is the basis for technical action, that is, the purposeful alteration of the physical world. Where I disagree is in the role of physical objects, that which provides the means to effect change in one’s environment. Technical knowledge can only be constructed in reference to the objects being used to effect the desired changes. In other words, knowing how to do something is meaningless without knowledge of what thing(s) make that process possible. Technical activity that does not involve the modification of physical matter does not fall under this definition of physically-transformative technology and is therefore not applicable to this study. Such activity could, however, apply to different technological frameworks that are less focused on physical media.

The chaîne opératoire encompasses both knowledge and material objects in dynamic systems of action. Having a long history of use in French scholarship (cf. Audouze 2002; Edmonds 1990) and growing popularity elsewhere (Bar-Yosef and Van Peer 2009; Dionne 2006; Dobres 2009; Eigeland 2006; Grace 1997; Riede 2006; Schlanger 1994; Shott 2003; Sorensen 2006), the chaîne opératoire has become synonymous with holistic technological study (see Bar-Yosef and Van Peer 2009 for a recent critique). In the interest of brevity, I confine my discussion of this concept to a basic outline of its definition and use for the purpose of this study. Although Leroi- Gourhan (1943; 1945; 1964; 1965) is often credited with introducing the concept to archaeology, he does not provide an explicit definition. Therefore, the definition used here is derived from Lemonnier (1980): ”Operational sequences are series of actions which transform a raw material from its natural state to a manufactured state. These operations are made with actions on matter, preparatory phases, phases of rest and they are associated with a knowledge and know-how”(8). The chaîne opératoire is not a method, per se, but is instead a conceptual model that encompasses the material, social and, importantly, biophysical aspects of technical action on and with physical media (Miller 2006:30; Chazan 2008). Its scope begins with decisions regarding appropriate raw 31 material acquisition and ends with the eventual discard of the material in question, when it enters the archaeological record. Ultimately, not all aspects of an artifact’s ‘life’ can be known; even so, all of the physical and social aspects of its construction, modification, use and discard are significant and contribute to an understanding of material culture. With this perspective in mind, I approach the present study with the goal of relating the specific details of technical change to the broader social and economic contexts within which these changes occurred.

Incorporation of intentionality into the definition of technology vis-à-vis goal-oriented activity has significant consequences for interpretation, as the conceptual isolation of technologies is performed in relation to their intentioned results. Put another way, technologies are distinguished from each other by their intentioned result(s). The same basic techniques and objects can be used to achieve multiple independent goals, but I would not consider them the same technology. For the Palaeo-Eskimo context examined in this study, I concentrate primarily on intentioned tool production activity, the processes behind lithic artifact manufacture and maintenance. Tool use is also of analytical interest here; however, it is assumed that usage within artifact classes remains relatively unchanged throughout the study period, with some possible exceptions. Extrapolation of intentioned goals in production processes is fortunately constrained by the physics associated with the morphologies of the artifacts themselves and, consequently, derivation of production trajectories is a straightforward process: the goal of production is the creation of working edges and hafting surfaces observed in assemblage specimens. Of course, the use-lives of artifacts complicate this somewhat, introducing damaged, expended and otherwise discarded ‘rejects’ into the archaeological record. Nevertheless, common production techniques and overall trajectories can be reconstructed from multiple, morphologically consistent specimens to give a sense of shared or similar technological processes.

‘Technical knowledge’ is here used to denote techniques and their logical relation within a process. Techniques can most simply be defined as the way in which energy/force is applied or manipulated towards a technical goal (see also Chazan 2005; Dobres 2000:150; Ingold 2000:315- 16). Alternatively, Pye suggests that techniques embrace “a group of systems which cause some 32 specified change in the characteristics of pieces of material - any material”(1988:43). Examples of techniques include such simple activities as the turn of a screwdriver, scooping with a spoon, or thrusting with a harpoon. Techniques can be more complex, involving multiple simultaneous actions such as those required to play a guitar. The nature of physical techniques is discussed by Mauss (1950; 1967; 1979), who stresses the variation observed ethnographically in the ways people realize bodily actions. Mauss’ techniques du corps are not infinitely variable, but comprise a range of behaviours that are culturally transmitted as part of a tradition. The social nature of technical actions and knowledge is not merely significant, but essential: “I call techniques traditional, efficacious acts . . . It must be traditional and efficacious. There is no technique and no transmission if there is no tradition. It is in this that humans are distinguished from all the animals: by the transmission of their techniques and very probably by their oral transmission.” (Mauss 1950:317, my translation). Because they are transmitted between people and through generations, techniques, like material culture, can be expected to have some degree of uniformity and continuity through time. In theory, this provides a measure of stability that should make possible their classification. Mauss provides some direction for such an endeavor (Mauss 1950:373-383; 1967), but the most comprehensive contribution to technique classification is undoubtedly that of Leroi-Gourhan. In Evolution et Téchniques (1943; 1945), Leroi-Gourhan enumerates and describes in detail an impressive number of bodily techniques, from eating to drilling to weaving. The basic premises behind these techniques are also identified, such as the ways in which percussive force can be applied (Leroi- Gourhan 1943:56-57). The bodily manipulations that take place during the execution of a technique are termed gesture, a concept I return to below.

Process refers to the logical ordering of techniques towards the achievement of a goal. This is not to say that techniques are simply executed in order, but that syntactic rules govern their selection and ordering throughout a process. Leroi-Gourhan describes the relationship of techniques to process, which he calls a syntax, as follows: “Techniques are at the same time gestures and tools, organized in sequences by a true syntax which gives the operational chain both their stability and their flexibility. The operational syntax is generated by memory and is born from the dialogue between the brain and the material realm”(1993:114). Along a similar line, Dobres refers to process 33

Goal: Bifacial Edge Evaluate Form (Start Process) (What the edge looks like)

Is the Goal achieved? Yes No

Success Select Technique (End Process) (Based on anticipated result of its execution)

Execute Technique (Change effected)

Figure 3.1 - A simplified schematic example of technical process. as “the underlying syntax”(2000:174) of technical activity, something apart from the sequence of action itself. Accordingly, technical knowledge includes both familiarity with physical actions and the set(s) of rules that govern their application (cf. Franklin 1992). Obviously, the relationship of specific techniques to a process is not an exclusive one; any technique is applicable to many processes. Furthermore, the same group of techniques can be syntactically reorganized in multiple ways. Thus, the combination of a series of techniques within a process represents only one of many possible socially-derived and transmitted ‘models’ of technical activity.

Figure 3.1 illustrates a simplified process for shaping a bifacial edge. The techniques to be selected might only include hard and soft hammer percussion and pressure flaking, but could also include variants of each depending on the form of the core and how it must be held, braced, etc. Note that the process is not simply a list of actions that need to be undertaken. The state of the subject being modified, a core in this case, is constantly evaluated and techniques are selected to effect 34 anticipated changes in the subject towards a goal. Once certain morphological criteria are met, a new morphological goal is set and appropriate techniques are selected and executed to achieve this goal. The kinds of techniques that are chosen and precisely how and when they are executed is dependent on the knowledge and experience of the knapper.

In reference to lithic production, process is often confused with sequence, due in part to the anglophone translation of chaine opératoire. Well before the ‘operational sequence/chain’ became a familiar term in North American discourse, schemata of lithic production sequences were commonplace (e.g. Bradley 1975). It is essential to note that these concepts are not synonymous. Process is the logical ordering of actions undertaken to achieve a goal (i.e. what is done, why it is done and when it is done). In contrast, a sequence is all of the actions undertaken throughout a process placed in order of execution (Action 1 – Action 2 – Action 3). Sequence is thus a post hoc phenomenon removed from the evaluative actions that take place during the execution of processual logic. When attempting to create a projectile point, a flintknapper is not concerned with what actions have already been taken, but rather with the current state of the toolstone, the techniques at his/her disposal and the anticipated result of actions yet to be made. Much can be learned about process from the study of sequences, and lithic technology is well suited for such studies because stone working typically produces waste that evidences each action taken.

To further explain the difference between process and sequence, consider the production of two near-identical projectile points, both created from near identical flake blanks by the same knapper using identical tools. Even assuming a remarkably high level of skill on the part of the knapper, the two sequences of actions that are generated during the artifacts’ production can never be the same even though the overarching process behind the sequence is the same. Minute differences in blank form, small inconsistencies in platform striking and unpredictabilities of material fracture ensure that some variation is introduced into a sequence, even if the end products and overarching process are very much the same. Put yet another way, process represents the criteria and conditions for selecting actions that, once ordered temporally according to their execution, constitute a sequence. Consequently, sequence reconstruction is only the first step towards process reconstruction; the 35 process is inferred from the sequence reconstruction while compensating as best one can for the ambiguities and equifinality encountered in all technological studies.

3.2 - People in Technology

The physical-transformative definition of technology presented above is of no interpretive use unless it is embedded in a theoretical framework linking it with the social realm. I have chosen to do this through agency theory, focusing on the role of the individual in technological activity and extrapolating from there the relevant implications for human activity across space and through time. In this section I focus on how people influence technical activity and the implications of human input for interpretation of material culture.

The individual is the basis for the realization of most technical action and is certainly the basis for all such action pertaining to this research programme. It is through the human body that knowledge is transferred into gesture that in turn effects (presumably) desired changes in the physical world. It follows, then, that the nature of the individual is a significant aspect of technological process; his/ her abilities, qualities, tendencies and idiosyncrasies ultimately determine how technical activity is realized. Both cognitive and physical qualities are important here. Accordingly, one must consider the ways in which technology interfaces with the individual at the levels of technical knowledge, including the creation/application of processual logic, and the execution of technique through gesture.

Technical knowledge, similar to Leroi-Gourhans’s connaissance, includes all techniques known to the individual as well as the processual logic linking those techniques in various schemata suitable for different technical activities. Much of this knowledge relates to perceived cause- and-effect relationships, the basis for transformative action. Technical knowledge also includes memory, especially those experiences generated by or relating to past technical activities. Memory contextualizes causes and effects making possible the creation and execution of technical processes. Bringing these concepts together, it is the interplay between memories and knowledge possessed by an individual that structures technical activity. Techniques are chosen and executed in order to 36 effect changes on a subject that can vary tremendously in scale and scope. Variation in experiences, both prior to and during a technical act, can significantly impact the trajectory of a particular process. One can usefully think of technical knowledge as the cognitive half of the technical self.

For ancient stone tool makers, technical knowledge encompassed many things: raw material types, their location and suitability for different kinds of tools; various techniques to flake stone; techniques to grind stone; the appropriate curvature of a microblade core’s removal face; the ideal edge angle for a scraper used to process hides. Some of this information was learned from personal experience, some by direct instruction and observation of others, and some was purely invented in the individual’s mind. Any information used in the decision-making processes involved in tool manufacture, and in particular the selection of techniques, qualifies as technical knowledge. The ‘truth’ or validity of this knowledge is subjective but, regardless of the actual outcome of its application, it remains an integral part of technical activity.

Parallel with the cognitive there is the physical half of the technical self. Physical-transformative technologies require an individual to interact with the physical world in order to realize the changes conceived of in his or her mind. Gesture is the term used to denote manipulations of one’s body in technical activities. The concept has been used extensively by anthropologists (e.g. Chazan 2004, 2005; Kendon 1982, 1997, 2004; Leroi-Gourhan 1993; Mauss 1935, 1979; Stout 2002; Dobres 2009), although its usage in linguistic and communication research is more refined (e.g. Kendon 1982; Schmidt 1984) than in technological contexts. As all human movement constitutes gesture in one form or another, intentioned or otherwise, here I reserve use of the term to denote trained manipulations of the body within technical acts (i.e. techniques). Thus the position and motion of one’s body during flake removal, adze grinding, and carcass butchering all constitute technical gestures. Postures and motions are learned within the social sphere and are often shared by members of the same learning community (Jarvis 1987; Mauss 1935; Leroi-Gourhan 1993:32) and are embedded in commonly structured techniques.

An agent’s ability to repeat actions with regularity, precision and control increases through experience in a particular technical activity. In common terms we call this ‘skill’ (but see Roux 37 2003:10-11 for an alternative perspective on ‘skill’). Over time, the body becomes attuned to certain gestures and retains kinesthetic knowledge (Keele 1968) relating to specific actions, making possible skilled action. Techniques are not effective as simply cause-effect relationships understood by the individual; they also require trained gesture to effect the expected/intentioned changes. Skill is in part sensory perception, the ability to perceive tactile, visual and auditory input throughout gesture. Sensory input becomes feedback that informs active and future gestures (Keele 1968:392; Bonnichsen 1977:65, 73 - Figure 1). This is simply exemplified by the scooping of soup using a spoon. Assuming for argument sake that a person is both blind and deaf, s/he must rely on tactile feedback to know when the spoon has contacted liquid, to tip the spoon, and then return it to her mouth without tilting the spoon and spilling the soup. A scooping gesture is not sufficient in isolation, though it might work by chance. The same applies for a flintknapper who senses the arc of a swing, the balance of an antler billet and its impact on a thin bifacial edge. Small changes can be made mid-gesture or else in subsequent gestures as deemed necessary. Skilled individuals are familiar with and react to tactile, visual and auditory feedback experienced during technical activity, resulting in accurate and reliable execution of technical acts.

In combination, knowledge and skill determine how any particular agent engages in technical activity. They determine the success of an action, but only in relation to perceived expectations. A mistake is only such if it was not expected or somehow disrupts an intended course of action. Technical activity is a constant process of evaluating the results of applied techniques, be they desired or not, selecting new courses of action and executing subsequent actions in pursuit of a goal. All the while, the capabilities and knowledge possessed by the person in question mediate the trajectory of a process and, ultimately, the transformational outcome of a technology (Bonnichsen 1977:55).

3.3 - Technology Summary and Theoretical Significance

The model of technology I have endeavored to outline here incorporates elements drawn from several sources. To briefly review, I have adopted Leroi-Gourhan’s ideas of knowledge and know- how as the cognitive and physical manifestations of technology within human agents. Technical 38 knowledge has two elements adopted from Ingold and Mauss: techniques are the cause-and-effect relations understood between physical manipulations of the body and objects; and process is the logical rule-set guiding the selection of techniques towards achievement of one or more goals. Trained bodily movements executed within a technique are termed gesture, a narrower conception of its meaning used elsewhere. Process guides the selection of techniques that, through gesture, effect change in the physical world. Agents can possess differential knowledge, skill, and goals relating to any number of technical acts thereby introducing potential for vastly differing trajectories of technical activity.

It is this last part that points to the significance of the technological model presented here. An agent-based theory of technology situates the sources of variability associated with technical activity within the agent in a structure that accounts for cognitive and physical variation between individuals. Common goals do not necessarily translate into common results or effects because the differences between agents in knowledge, experience, skill and perception ensure variation in sequences of action. Furthermore, technical knowledge is constructed through participation in the social realm, thereby engaging technology not only with individuals but with society at large as well (Lechtman 1977, Dobres 2009). Technical knowledge is not conceived in a vacuum, but rather as a direct result of interaction with others, either through explicit information ‘exchange’ or from interpretation of experiences taking place in social contexts (Cross 1983:88-89). Importantly, this technological ontology outlines those facets of technical activity potentially responsible for observed stability and/or variation in material culture. With this tool in hand, one of many we have at our disposal, archaeologists are better equipped to attempt explication of observed patterns of past human technical activity, having explicit terminology and relational structure to contextualize their interpretations. Perhaps most important for the present study, the model identifies elements of technology that are subject to change, allowing informed discussion of technological change, as expounded upon below.

3.4 - Technological Change

Utilizing the aforementioned model, one can now formulate a definition for technological change. 39 From an agent-based perspective on technology, technological change is significant alteration of the technique(s) and/or process(es) comprising a particular technology. Note that I use the term ‘significant’ here, signifying that judgment of technological change is largely subjective. One can argue what minimum criteria constitute significance; however it will suffice for my purposes to note what changes are observed. For instance, one can examine how methods of microblade core shaping changed through comparison of specimens from different temporal periods. It is assumed that the goal remains the same - preparation of the core face - but the actions taken and/or the organization thereof are somehow altered.

Note also that those aspects of technology encompassed by skill are not included in the definition. This is because idiosyncrasies of gesture execution are independent of the conceptual aspects of technology. The concept of change is being applied here solely to how an activity is perceived and planned; an instance of technical action as executed by an agent (i.e. the creation of a particular artifact) cannot change but the conceptual structure underlying it persists in the minds of the craftsperson and his or her peers and is thus subject to change. Put another way, I assert that change in perception precedes a change in action and therefore any change in how one does something is inevitably preceded by a change in how one thinks about doing it.

An important consequence of adopting this definition is that change becomes situated at the scale of the individual, not at a pan-social or pan-regional scale, as is often the case. This is not problematic, however, as it does not preclude the observation of broad-scale trends in technical activity such as one finds at the assemblage and/or site scale. As we are interested in changes throughout Palaeo-Eskimo society, one must simply take note of broad-scale trends while keeping in mind that those changes one observes are in the distribution of technical knowledge possessed and applied by individuals. Accordingly, inferences derived from said observations should take into account the contextual factors – social, material and ideological – that could have influenced past technical activities at the level of the actor.

Along these lines, recent research into technological change has likewise taken an agent-centered approach. Of particular note, Roux (2003) provides a comprehensive and insightful summary of 40 various approaches to technological change. Figuring prominently in this work is the rejection of the technology-society duality and, by extension, the promotion of an integrated model of technology that encompasses both technical and social elements. The ‘dynamic systems model’ is presented as an alternative explanatory framework that achieves this goal. Although Roux never explicitly makes reference to agency as a conceptual term, her acknowledgement of subject intentionality and intra-population spread of technical behaviours is compatible with an agent- based perspective. That being said, the dynamic systems framework is not interested in the role of specific agents so much as the ways in which technological change are realized through groups of individuals situated in a particular physical and social milieu. The process of technological change is thus considered in tandem with the conditions of change, both social and physical, to explain why certain patterns of change occurred. In the case of the development of the potter’s wheel in the Southern Levant, Roux (2003:25) concludes that the demand for ritual bowls in a context of political-religious restructuring and existing craft-specialization economic structures promoted innovation in ceramic forming techniques.

3.5 - Mobility

Movement across the landscape, be it seasonal or otherwise, is an essential aspect of hunter-gatherers’ lifeways (Kelly 1983). The varying patterns and timing of human relocation is termed mobility. For the purposes of this research programme, mobility is defined as the scheduled, informed relocation of people across a landscape. This broad definition is designed to be inclusive, encompassing a wide variety of mobilization strategies. Characterizing the kinds of mobility strategies used by hunter-gatherers has, however, proven difficult for anthropologists. A basic conceptual dichotomy recognizes mobile and sedentary populations, although Kelly (1992; 1995:148) notes that sedentism is more often represented as a relative state than an absolute condition, allowing for populations to vary in their degree of sedentism through time. Yet this model has proven far too simplistic to describe the variability inherent in hunter-gatherer behaviour. Binford (1980) expands the model of hunter-gatherer mobility by identifying two complementary patterns of land use – foraging and collecting. Foragers are those populations who are highly residentially mobile, often on a 41 seasonal basis. The motivation for high residential mobility is the spatial and temporal distribution of resources across the landscape. Environments that have homogenous distributions of food and material resources that are sequentially available are likely to encourage foraging. Conversely, environments with a heterogeneous distribution of resources that are synchronously available will encourage a ‘collecting’ strategy. Collectors are characterized by low residential mobility for the group as a whole. In order to satisfy their subsistence needs, collectors organize task groups that acquire distant resources for the largely sedentary population. This logistical organization permits the exploitation of multiple resources that have otherwise conflicting availability. Foraging and collecting are not mutually exclusive behaviours, and thus should be viewed as opposite ends of a continuum whereby intermediate positions incorporate differing patterns of residential and logistical mobility (Kelly 1992:45).

Physical relocation is most often attributed to resource procurement strategies, the timing and location of which correspond with periods and loci of availability, respectively (Kelly 1995:120). In the case of the Canadian Arctic and other regions of the world where many food resources are unevenly distributed with rigid seasonal availability (Freeman 1984), scheduling comprises an essential facet of mobility. Various social conditions may also influence relocation patterns, including seasonal or multi-year aggregations (Conkey 1980; Damkjar 2005; Jackson 1991; Shott 2004), the desire to ‘visit’ with kin or acquaintances (Lee 1968; Spielmann 1986; Whallon 2005; Wiessner 1982), and changes in group affiliation and association (Leacock 1982; Sharp 1977). Archaeological investigations into mobility benefit from a focus on the material correlates of human movement, particularly the transport of implements and raw materials (Jackson 1991; Odess 1996, 1998; Peterson, et al. 1997), and transportation-specific technologies. Unfortunately, resources and social conditions are not equally represented in the material record; resource extraction and consumption activities are more easily delineated as influences on mobility practices in archaeological contexts than are patterns of social interaction. Even so, the material residues of some social phenomena, such as aggregations, are recognizable archaeologically and thus should not be excluded from consideration. 42 Change in mobility is a concept, much like technological change, that requires definition before it can be integrated into an interpretive framework. It is perhaps helpful to first delineate mobility strategies from realized mobility, again drawing upon an agency perspective of human activity. Analogous to process in technological theory, mobility strategies are the underlying logic of human relocation activities - the when, where and how of seasonal and task-specific movements through the landscape. Although environmental and social factors largely impact the timing and nature of movements across a landscape, individuals make decisions about where to go and when to move according to logic derived from experiential and taught knowledge, including that relating to transportation technologies. Mobility strategies are in essence networks of information about locales, resources, terrain, environmental conditions, risks and people organized according to anticipated temporal distribution. Decisions regarding movements are based on this mental structure, which is inherently plastic and subject to change as new information is assimilated.

To clarify, I use the term ‘logic’ to denote a system of internalized rules through which decisions are made. It is not intended to mean ‘pure rationality’ as is often the case in popular culture today. Logic incorporates situational conditions (social and physical environment) and internalized priorities (agency) to generate solutions to problems. The ruleset that defines a particular logic is unique to each person and can also be unique to a particular context. For example, to resolve the problem of where to establish a temporary hunting camp, one Dorset hunter might prioritize proximity to fresh water and shelter from the wind while another might prioritize proximity to prey and viewshed. The ruleset that these hunters use to seek out and select a camp are different and therefore we can expect the location and characteristics of their camps to likewise differ in most cases.

Realized mobility is the actual series of relocations that takes place as a result of consulting mobility strategies (see also Kent 1991 re: actual mobility). Even keeping knowledge and experience constant, unique situational factors perceived at the time decisions are made ensure that some variability is introduced into mobility patterns. Thus, realized mobility is analogous to technological sequence, being a post-hoc phenomenon structured but not predetermined by an overarching logic. Being in 43 essence a product of mobility strategies, a particular instance of realized mobility is not subject to change in and of itself. Each realization is a unique series of events, grouped together as an entity ‘after the fact’. The elements that comprise a particular realization, that is the events within a particular series, cannot change because they do not persist; they are events that have transpired at a particular point in time. What can change, however, is the knowledge and logic that structure the timing, location and content of those events. When the logic behind mobility changes, different choices will (tend) to be made in the structure of relocation activities, and, as a result, the events that comprise subsequent realizations will differ from those before. When multiple series of events are compared diachronically, change is evident in the structure of earlier and later series, even though each series does not change itself. Therefore, when one speaks of mobility change, what is meant is change in the way decisions are made about human relocation activities. The impetus for such changes includes both internal (cognitive) and external (social and physical environment) factors.

Changes to mobility strategies can involve alterations to knowledge and/or logic structure. In other words, as new information is acquired by an individual, the ways in which s/he perceive places and time can change. For instance, learning of a productive ice fishing spot from a relative could open up the western end of a lake for early winter habitation whereas before it would not be included in a seasonal round. Alternatively, hearing of plans for a large spring trade camp could shorten the duration of a winter encampment. As knowledge and priorities change, so does the structure of the ruleset used to make decisions.

Changes within the planning structure occur at the individual level but are realized within an active social context. The decisions that are made regarding camp movements, hunting forays and the like are heavily influenced by social dynamics. When group relocation occurs, realized mobility can be a compromise of several strategies played out according to the existing social dynamics and internalized priorities. Nevertheless, all choices regarding mobility and indeed all human action are ultimately made at the individual level. Physical and social context, along with personal experience and biases, defines the ruleset, priorities and perceived options considered in the decision-making 44 process. From this perspective, ‘group’ decisions do not exist as a separate entity; they exist solely as situations where interaction leads to an alignment of priorities further resulting in multiple agents making the same decision (but not necessarily for the same reasons!). It must be noted that this perspective does not diminish the importance of social factors in the decision-making of individuals; it merely attempts to explain how social factors influence decision-making in the logic framework described above. In point of fact, the context of action created by one’s situation in the social realm is the single most important factor in the construction and execution of mobility strategies. The social world defines options that are available and an agent within that world acts, in most cases, within the limits defined.

3.6 - Mobility Change

When we say that mobility ‘decreases’, or that populations are less mobile, what do we mean? To answer this question, one must first identify the dimensions in which mobility is observed and measured. Quantitative and qualitative dimensions to mobility can be identified. Beginning with the former, mobility can change in scale and frequency, which is to say that people move more or less often at further or shorter distances. A band of foragers that changes their seasonal round to include an additional move to a productive hunting area would be said to have increased their relative mobility in terms of move frequency (e.g. Shott 1986:24). Distance travelled per residential move (e.g. Craig and Chagnon 2006) and total annual move distance (e.g. Binford 2006) are additional measures of mobility, with increases or decreases in these values being indicative of an overall relative change in the scale of mobility. Many combinations of these dimensions are possible: higher move frequency with shorter moves, higher frequency with longer moves, longer average moves and shorter annual distance, and so on. Despite being easily comparable, move distance and frequency are difficult to assess archaeologically unless there is high temporal control over site occupations and similarly well-established linkages between sites, their occupants and their material culture.

Qualitative dimensions of mobility are more easily identified archaeologically but present challenges for comparison through space and time. The locales one visits/occupies is one such dimension that 45 is easily identified; indeed all archaeological sites define such a locale for which we are interested in additional aspects of occupant mobility. When was it occupied (temporal and seasonal)? How did it fit into the seasonal round? How long was it occupied and for what (economic/social) reason? Was it revisited over successive seasons/years/decades? In the absence of quantitative data of this sort, the descriptive qualities of a mobility strategy highlight differences in the timing and location of human movements that can not necessarily be compared in an objective way. One can therefore assert that Population X occupied sites in Region A and later incorporated Region B into their seasonal round, but quantitative evaluation of difference are not possible except through the measures of distance and move frequency mentioned above.

In exploring change in mobility, one is presented with a combination of descriptive patterns and relative measures of movement and occupation activities through time. Assuming we can tease out the relationships between physical sites and the people who created them, how can the archaeological record inform us about human mobility in the past? I have already stated that any specific pattern we observe is an example of realized mobility and does not necessarily reflect the full complexity of the mobility strategies that guided the decisions of ancient peoples. One would expect change on a year-to-year basis as the social and physical landscape shifted, resulting in new paths, destinations and schedules. This kind of change is assumed to manifest itself on a regular basis, and although it is of interest to archaeologists, more often it is the larger-scale changes to mobility that are the subject of study. Fundamental changes to mobility strategies should be identifiable through changes in the location and seasonality of sites, but in a manner that signals a change to organization rather than a renegotiation under the same conditions. In other words, one must ask whether the changes observed are a product of new decisions under the same strategy or a new strategy altogether. Surely, without a multitude of rich sites representing significant time depth, it is unreasonable to expect such insights to be made with any certainty. Even so, careful examination and comparison of site occupation data, economic activities and other lines of evidence can give indications that variation in realized mobility patterns is, in fact, a product of changed land-use strategies. 46 3.7 - Palaeo-Eskimo Mobility

Changes to Palaeo-Eskimo realized mobility are evidenced by three primary lines of evidence specifically relating to settlement patterns. Ryan (2003) reports that Palaeo-Eskimo settlement patterns change noticeably following the proposed Pre-Dorset/Dorset transition (post 650 calBC). Whereas Pre-Dorset populations appear to have practiced both inland and coastal occupation at various times of the year (Gordon 1975; Milne 2000, 2003b), Dorset populations have a more maritime-oriented pattern of settlement. Inland Dorset occupations are rare and faunal evidence supports both a dietary reliance on marine resources and multi-seasonal coastal occupation. Also, midden deposits at Dorset sites are significantly deeper than those from Pre-Dorset sites, implying longer and/or repeated occupation of the site sites and structures. In addition, architectural evidence from Dorset structures further supports the contention that Dorset sites were multi-occupational. Semi-subterranean Dorset houses are more robustly built and require more investment of time and energy than ephemeral Pre-Dorset tent-based dwellings, implying longer anticipated use-lives (Kent 1991, 1993). In contrast, Pre-Dorset structures rarely appear to be used more than once (McGhee 1990:31-32; Milne 2003a; Ramsden and Murray 1995). Taken together, these lines of evidence point towards a decrease in several aspects of Palaeo-Eskimo mobility (Ryan 2003). Indeed, Nagy (2000) argues that Palaeo-Eskimo economic strategies shifted from a ‘forager’ to a ‘collector’ pattern (sensu Binford 1980), with the latter implying a lower residential mobility.

Mapping the dimensions of mobility outlined above to the evidence for mobility change presented here, one can identify those dimensions of Palaeo-Eskimo mobility that are exhibiting change of some kind. Removal of inland regions from the seasonal round represents a decrease in the diversity of locales that constitute the occupied landscape. It need not, however, mean a decrease in settlement pattern scale, as alternative maritime locales could be equally or more distant than those being abandoned. The increased depth and richness of midden deposits associated with house features suggests significantly longer total occupation times, although improved preservation provided by the colder Dorset Period climate (Barry, et al. 1977) may be skewing the comparison. Similarly, increases in building investment likewise point to longer intended occupation times, 47 including repeated dwelling occupations that could also explain the richness of Dorset middens.

Caching is a final aspect of mobility strategies that should be noted here. In situations where return to a site or along a route is anticipated, caching of raw materials, food or seasonally required equipment is an excellent option for mobile groups wishing to reduce travel loads (Morgan 2008). As Stefansson (1913) describes for the Copper Inuit of the Coronation Gulf region, food and heavy seasonal equipment such as sleds can be cached in guarded locales where they were safe from most animals and can be recovered once the band returns to the area several months hence. This kind of activity simultaneously lightens burdens and situates resources on the landscape for later use (Wilke and McDonald 1989), thereby facilitating future economic activities in an area that might otherwise be devoid of resources during a particular season. In the Palaeo-Eskimo case, including at Iqaluktuuq, robust stone caches are commonly reported in association with the more substantial Dorset dwelling features (e.g. Friesen 2003; Sutherland 2003) but are rarely found on Pre-Dorset and other early ASTt sites. The lack of such features on single-component Pre-Dorset sites suggests that caching of this kind played a limited role in early Palaeo-Eskimo lifeways in some regions. The later increase in cache construction indicates, much as dwelling architecture does, that Dorset peoples invested greater time and energy in construction activities because of intent to return to specific locales. While site reoccupation is not necessarily indicative of a reduction inhuman mobility, taken together with the evidence presented above it is reasonable to conclude that Dorset caching activities are consistent with the inferred changes to Palaeo-Eskimo mobility.

3.8 - Bridging Mobility and Technology

Attempts to link theoretical frameworks of technology and mobility are reasonably common in archaeological literature. Mobility has been linked to several kinds of material culture including ceramics (Beck and Neff 2006; Eerkens 2003; Eerkens, et al. 2002; Simms, et al. 1996), architecture (Dawson 2001; Kelly, et al. 2005; Panja 2003; Renouf 2003; Smith 2003) and watercraft (Ames 2002; Irwin 2008). Studies of mobility through lithic technology are likewise well-established (Bamforth 2000; Blades 2003; Bleed 1986; Bousman 1993; Brantingham, et al. 2000; Cowan 1999; Eerkens, et al. 2008; Horvath 2002; Kusimba 1999; Lurie 1989; Madsen, et al. 1996; Miller 48 and Barton 2007; Odell 1994; Phillips and Speakman 2009; Shott 1986). In contrast to the typical direction of inquiry in these studies, the present study explores the influence of a known change in mobility patterns on lithic technology rather than attempting to elucidate mobility patterns from an assemblage of technological specimens. This study therefore provides a unique perspective on the dynamic process of technological change in a context where environmental, economic and demographic conditions are relatively well understood. Consequently, it is possible to remove some aspects of equifinality in the interpretation of technological change and ‘ground truth’ some of the assumptions inherent in the theoretical models archaeologists use to explain patterns in ancient tool technologies.

To this end, four analytic approaches derived from previous research on mobility and lithic technology have been selected for application to the Iqaluktuuq assemblages: Implement Utility and Portability, Risk Management, Raw Material Use, and Production Intensity and Investment. These approaches examine different aspects of technology’s relationship with human mobility and together provide a useful means of evaluating the potential influence of changing mobility on the organization of stone tool technology. A discussion of each approach is provided below.

3.8.1 - Utility and Portability

An obvious concern for mobile hunter-gatherers is the weight of the toolkit, defined as utilitarian objects that have to be carried during residential and logistical movements. High mobility favours lighter toolkits whereas lowered mobility favours more substantial toolkits, there being less frequent or shorter transportation events (Lurie 1989:47; Shott 1986). Assuming similar utility requirements for economic activities, toolkits must balance weight and flexibility to suit particular transportation practices.

One strategy is to have few, highly flexible tools and cores that can be customized as needed (Morrow 1996). While this pattern is intuitively logical, Kuhn (1994; 1996) argues that tool utility and portability are maximized by having several small, formalized tools. His observation is supported by implement utility data calculated as the length of usable tool edge divided by implement weight. When the utility indices of large cores are compared to those of multiple small 49 tools it is shown that the latter provide superior utility for their mass while preserving diversity in tool function. Kuhn observes that small tools having a length of three times their minimum usable length provide the most cost-effective balance of utility and portability (Kuhn 1994:434). Nevertheless, in situations where transportation cost is not a constraining factor, cores provide greater potential utility per unit of raw material.

Delineating expectations for toolkit organization based on Kuhn’s observations is less straightforward than one might expect. Although high mobility imposes constraints on toolkit weight, thereby encouraging the design of lighter toolkits, a decrease in mobility does not have the opposite effect. Less mobility, especially decreases in frequency and scale, makes possible the construction of heavier or bulkier toolkits but it does not exert pressure on tool makers to do so. Consequently, in situations where mobility decreases one cannot assert that toolkits will become more substantial in the same way that one can expect a decrease in toolkit weight with increased mobility. Thus, mobility can decrease without any necessary changes to toolkit portability and utility.

3.8.2 - Risk Management

After Bleed (1986) and Bousman (1993), risk minimization and its intersection with technological organization is another important dimension of mobility. Depending on the needs of the user, technologies must have a balance between reliability and maintainability. Reliable technologies often perform specialized functions and are designed to provide near-maximum efficiency at all times. Broken elements are replaced rather than reworked, where possible, and a specialized ‘repair kit’ is sometimes needed. Furthermore, reliable technologies have redundant elements that are over-designed and operate under maximum capacity to minimize failure during a particular task (Bleed 1986:739; Myers 1989:86-87). In contrast, maintainable technologies are less complex and generalized, trading task-efficiency for multi-application potential (Bousman 1993:70). Multi- component maintainable tools are typically assembled in series (e.g. spear), as opposed to the parallel relationship in reliable technologies (e.g. inset bladelet knife), and are thus rendered inoperable when one element fails (Torrence 1989a:62). These categories are not mutually exclusive, and it is possible to combine elements of both into a technological design. How a technology is organized 50 in this way is largely dependent on the nature of the activities for which the tools are designed and the limitations imposed by interim raw material availability (Bamforth 1986) and time constraints (Lurie 1989:47).

Focusing solely on the influence of mobility as it relates to Binford’s collector-forager dichotomy, Bousman (1993:77) asserts that maintainable and reliable technologies are differentially suited to different land use and subsistence strategies. Foragers, he argues, are more likely to employ generalized, multi-purpose toolkits and thus favor maintainable technologies because of the relative uncertainty of task requirements day to day. Collectors, on the other hand, are more likely to take part in scheduled extractive activities, therefore a reliable, high-efficiency technology is preferred. Just as foragers and collectors are conceptual tools to describe human mobility strategies, maintainability and reliability are abstracted ways of describing risk reduction strategies.

There is, however, a problem with relating the maintainability-reliability concept directly to mobility strategies. High mobility does not necessarily equate with less predictable/scheduled economies and likewise low mobility need not indicate a highly predictable/scheduled subsistence economy. What matters more is the distribution, timing and nature of the economic activities being scheduled, which largely depends on the nature of resources being exploited. A population, like ancient Palaeo-Eskimos, can be highly mobile yet participate in highly scheduled hunting activities at caribou drives and fish runs. Conversely, populations can practice low overall mobility and engage in opportunistic hunting strategies where resources are homogenous, and plentiful, if only for a portion of the year. Consequently, qualitative and quantitative measures of toolkit reliability and maintainability can not be used as a priori indicators of mobility without consideration of the economic activities in which the toolkit participated.

The ‘risk’ being mediated through the organization of technology is not related to mobility specifically, but rather to the encounter and acquisition of food and material resources in which mobility plays an important role (Cashdan 1985; Knight 1921; Torrence 1983; 1989b:59; Weissner 1982; Winterhalder 1986). Torrence (1989a:59) characterizes risk as the perceived probability of failure in encountering and acquiring a particular resource resulting from its spatial and temporal 51 distribution. People deal with risk in several ways (Weissner 1982). The risk management strategy that applies to technological design is prevention of loss, in which action is taken to minimize the likelihood of failure when a resource is encountered. Investment in technology for the purposes of risk management should, according to Torrence (1989a), “be a function of the timing and the severity of the risk involved”(60). Thus, the greater the consequence of failure, the greater the investment in technology to mediate risk (Jeske 1989:35).

In relating technological design strategies to the management of risk, it becomes clear that reliability and maintainability deal with different aspects of this concept (Torrence 1989a:63). Reliable technologies are a response to the severity of risk, and in particular the consequences of failure. If the consequences of failing to procure a resource are high, such as when encounter rates are low and there are no alternative resources, one can expect reliable technologies to be used more often. Assuming the resource can be encountered, the redundant and over-designed elements of reliable tools decrease the likelihood of equipment failure. Conversely, the presence of alternative and possibly lower-ranked resources limits the severity of failure and therefore reliable equipment is not as necessary. While it would seem logical to utilize reliable equipment at all times, thereby maximizing potential yields, one must remember that reliable technologies typically require significant time and energy investment for manufacture and maintenance that is prohibitive when not deemed necessary (Lurie 1989:47). In contrast, maintainable technologies mediate the timing of risk by providing flexible equipment that can be adapted more readily to changing conditions. Although lacking redundancy as a buffer for element failure, maintainable equipment is more readily repaired and modified in the field (Bleed 1986:740).

Changes in hunter-gatherer mobility patterns are indicative of changes to procurement strategies, which includes the management of risk through toolkit design. While toolkit design is not directly indicative of a particular pattern of human mobility, it is intimately linked to subsistence strategies that mediate uncertainty through scheduled proximity to selected resources. Therefore, by characterizing the nature of toolkit design, including identifying reliability and maintainability in particular tool classes, and relating those observations to known patterns of mobility, one can infer 52 changing perceptions of risk in ancient economies and characterize how procurement strategies were altered to address such risk.

3.8.3 - Raw Material Use

One can infer aspects of human movement and interaction patterns across the ancient landscape from the geographic distribution of raw material types in archaeological assemblages (Andrefsky 1994). This is commonly achieved through sourcing studies and can give indications of how far a population traveled and with whom they were likely to have interacted during the course of material acquisition (Cackler, et al. 1999; Jones, et al. 2003; Kusimba 1999; Lyons, et al. 2003; Madsen, et al. 1996; Morrow and Jefferies 1989; Peterson, et al. 1997; Seeman 1994; Whallon 2005). Material acquisition may be embedded (Binford 1979; Goodyear 1979) in other activities and therefore the distribution of raw material sources need not represent destinations of dedicated procurement forays. Nevertheless, material source distributions provide hints as to the range of group movements and the extents of socio-economic relations between dispersed populations.

It would seem logical, then, to apply such methods to the present study. Unfortunately, the North American Arctic provides distinct challenges for archaeologists attempting to correlate lithic raw materials with geographic regions. As Odess (1996; 1998) notes, lithic sourcing has thus far been largely unsuccessful in most regions on account of the logistical difficulties and costs inherent in Arctic exploration. Only a handful of the potential dozens of distinct toolstone materials have been securely identified to source: Ramah chert and nephrite from Newfoundland and Labrador (Blackman and Nagle 1983; Fitzhugh 1972; Gramly 1978; Lazenby 1980; Loring 1996; Nagle 1984, 1986), a pink chert from Southampton Island (Maxwell 1985:181) and possibly Melville Peninsula (Meldgaard 1962), killiaq (silicified slate) in Disko Bay (Jensen 2006), and a tan chert from the Hudson Strait region (Odess 1996:107). Only recently has a concerted effort been made to chemically characterize raw materials in Arctic contexts to facilitate comparison of compositions throughout the Palaeo-Eskimo world (Milne et al. 2009). With such an incomplete picture of source distributions in the Arctic, it is difficult to employ traditional source-based methods to enlighten 53 our understanding of ancient human mobility and its relation to toolstone procurement.

In the absence of a comprehensive database of lithic sources in the North American Arctic, more generalized models of resource procurement can be applied. One approach is to postulate expected richness of raw material types in assemblages depending on the scale of mobility and the distribution of material sources. If one takes a given distribution of unique material resources across a landscape being exploited by numerous foraging groups practicing varying scales of mobility, those groups having greater ranges of movement will tend to encounter (and presumably collect) a greater variety of raw material types assuming all materials have an equal chance of being acquired once encountered. Figure 3.2 illustrates the results of a simple neutral model simulation wherein agents were randomly placed in a virtual environment containing randomly distributed static resources (see Brantingham 2003 for additional discussion on neutral modeling of resource procurement). Each agent was given a randomly chosen foraging radius ranging from 1 to 10 on a 1000x1000 unit grid. The total number of resources within that radius was then calculated for each agent. For the 5500 agents simulated, the average number of material types collected consistently increased with foraging range. A similar pattern can be expected for any environment and resource distribution, random or otherwise, provided that not all resources are encompassed within the initial/lowest mobility range. It can thus be expected that a decrease in mobility will tend to result in a related decrease in raw material varieties; however, a corresponding change will only be evident if the alterations to mobility patterns exclude one or more sources previously exploited and do not replace those lost with new sources in another locale.

If the assumptions underlying the neutral model are valid, one can expect that populations with greater ranges of mobility should produce assemblages containing greater toolstone richness than assemblages produced by less far-ranging populations. Thus, in a scenario where a population is believed to experience a relative decrease the range of mobility, the assemblages produced before this change should have greater toolstone richness than those produced afterwards assuming all other factors relating to resource procurement remain the same. Changes to the method of procurement or the criteria defining acceptable resources can significantly alter the resource landscape and, 54 Material Richness Simulation Results 40

20 Richness 10

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Mobility Range Figure 3.2 - Material Richness Simulation Results. Mobility range is the radius of the foraging area. Richness is the number of material sources within the foraging area. consequently, impact where and how toolstone was procured. If this occurs, comparative measures of material richness can be misleading as signatures of mobility.

An additional factor in need of consideration is trade. Material exchange between dispersed populations is an important, if not entirely necessary activity in Arctic regions (Nagle 1984). The heterogenous distribution of resources in the Arctic landscape makes trade beneficial as a means of acquiring otherwise difficult to obtain materials and, perhaps more importantly, establishing and maintaining social relationships across vast distances. The exchange of toolstone is known to have occurred throughout North American prehistory (e.g. Ellis and Lothrop, eds. 1989; Tankersley and Isaac, eds. 1990; Jackson 1991; Peterson 1997; Morrow and Jefferies 1989), including within Arctic regions (e.g. Odess 1996, 1998; Nagle 1984; Jensen and Petersen 1998). Trade tends to diversify the kinds of materials its participants possess, thereby increasing on-hand material richness. Such an increase is not directly representative of one’s mobility insofar as the diversity of materials possessed depends on the diversity of materials possessed by and obtained from others. Depending on the mobility and resource acquision strategies of one’s trading partners, as well as regional 55 variation in material availability, the frequency of trade and the dynamics of material exchange practices, trade can impact onhand material richness to varying degrees. Sourcing studies can shed much light on the internal dynamics of trade, when such information is available, by identifying ‘routes’ of material travel that, presumably, reflect human movements and therefore can indicate how non-local or exotic materials made their way to a location, be it by direct procurement or exchange (e.g. Jensen & Petersen 1998). In the present case, the location of material sources is of little help owing to a paucity of relevant source data, and therefore a pseudo-uniform distribution model is used as an imperfect alternative. This model assumes near-equal access to a variety of toolstone sources in all regions, thereby removing regional differences in material richness. The model still accounts for differences in material types between regions but provides no means of elucidating where any particular material originated.

In addition, there is no reason to assume that trade practices are uniform through space and time, or between different sets of participants. Nevertheless, in the absence of highly-refined temporal control, the nature of the Arctic archaeological record necessitates an assumption of more or less uniform trade practices over long periods in order to identify possible variation and change within and between particular temporal and regional contexts. Thus, in a situation where two assemblages from similar temporal periods are being compared, differences in material richness are asserted to be the result of differing mobility (direct procurement) rather than differences in exchange practices (indirect procurement). On the other hand, assemblages from the same region but different temporal periods may differ in material richness on account of differing mobility, differing exchange practices, or a combination of the two. Other lines of evidence must be drawn upon in order to determine precisely what factors may be at work.

3.8.4 - Production Intensity and Investment

The intensity with which lithic raw materials are consumed at a site is another technological indicator of mobility. Depending on the quantity and availability of raw materials, assemblages can be expected to exhibit greater or lesser degrees of material use intensity (Andrefsky 1994; Bamforth 1986; Stone 1994). Binford’s (1979) curated and expedient categories are useful in this context to 56 explain different approaches to raw material use. According to Binford (1979:269), curated tools are prepared in anticipation for later usage whereas expedient tools are produced when needed and discarded afterwards. Riel-Salvatore and Barton (2004:260-261) associate curated assemblages with seasonal camps of residentially mobile populations and expedient assemblages with base camps of logistically organized, more sedentary populations. These associations are justified by the assertion that mobile groups cannot afford to keep similar quantities of raw material on hand as those available to sedentary groups and therefore greater investment is made into tool design in advance of travel. Furthermore, the material that is carried between periods of material availability will be more intensively used. One can thus anticipate patterns in material use intensity and manufacture investment: the seasonal camp assemblages of mobile hunter-gatherers should exhibit greater proportions of formally-designed and retouched artifacts than assemblages produced by less-mobile populations. Similarly, logistical camps related to the resource extraction activities of more sedentary groups should likewise exhibit greater degrees of production investment and intensity than base camps, where raw material can be stored and accessed on demand.

Recent work by Barton and Riel-Salvatore (Barton 1998; Riel-Salvatore and Barton 2004; Riel- Salvatore, et al. 2008; Villaverde, et al. 1998) has demonstrated the utility of the Whole Assemblage Behavioural Indicator, or WABI, as a relative measure of raw material use intensity reflective of differential mobility patterns. The WABI is an index calculated as the proportion of retouched lithic artifacts recovered from a site divided by the density of lithic artifacts per unit of soil excavated (Riel-Salvatore and Barton 2004:259). As outlined above, high (residential) mobility is anticipated to produce assemblages with high proportions of retouched artifacts and comparatively low volumetric densities. Conversely, low mobility is expected to produce assemblages with relatively high volumetric densities and low frequencies of retouched artifacts. When graphed by scatter-plot and log-scaled on both axes, WABI values tend to exhibit a negative linear relationship with curated assemblages appearing towards the top-left (grey dots) and expedient assemblages appearing at the bottom-right (black dots)(Figure 3.3). Plotted values thus indicate relative degrees of production intensity that can in turn inform archaeologists as to the likely mobility strategies 57

exercised by ancient peoples. Retouch Frequency Retouch

Artifact Density (count/m 3 soil)

Figure 3.3 - An example WABI value scatter-plot. The log-scaled density values produce a negative linear trend, as indicated above by the dashed line and white dots. The grey dots represent assemblages with high retouch frequency and high artifact density. The black dots represent assemblages with low retouch frequency and high artifact density. The marked dot on the far left represents an assemblage with very low artifact density and retouch frequency. 58 4.0 - Research Methods and Study Sample

The following section begins by briefly describing the field methods used during the excavation of the study sites. This includes those practiced by Taylor and those used by Friesen for the Iqaluktuuq Project. Data collection methods used during assemblage analysis are outlined next, followed by an overview of the study assemblages. Details of each site and its assemblage are summarized, including a description of site location, topography, features of interest, extent of excavation, artifact counts and radiocarbon dates.

4.1 - Field Methods

Artifact collection methods differed substantially for Taylor’s excavations in the 1960s and 1980s, and Friesen’s more recent excavations. Taylor’s early collection (1963 & 1965) was performed as part of a rapid, large-scale regional survey and therefore lacked much of the horizontal and vertical provenience control practiced today. Trenches of various sizes were excavated using hand-picks and shovels at promising loci (Taylor 1967, 1972). Specimens were collected by hand and only approximate provenience depths were recorded (e.g. ‘0-6” below surface’). Excavated soil was not screened. As his primary motivation was the identification of cultural affiliations, Taylor collected mostly formal tools and very few faunal or debitage samples. Consequently, Taylor’s assemblages housed at the Canadian Museum of Civilizations have disproportionately high numbers of large and complete formal tools and relatively few expedient, broken and small artifacts, such as burin spalls and flake scrapers. The assemblages collected in 1988 benefitted from a more formalized grid system and the sifting of soil, resulting in improved vertical and horizontal control and artifact recovery rates (Taylor, et al. 1988).

The Iqaluktuuq Project employed substantially more detailed excavation and recording methods. Grids of 1m square units were established by transit for each site, aligned whenever possible to Taylor’s trenches. Each unit was excavated by trowel to maximize the likelihood of recovering artifacts in situ. Provenience was then recorded in three dimensions relative to the south-east corner of the excavation unit through manual measurement with a line level and hand-tape. Excavation proceeded by natural layers, often in 50cm square quadrants, and all soil was screened through 59 3mm wire mesh by layer and quadrant. In addition to formal artifacts, all observed debitage, faunal material and likely manuports were retained. As a consequence, virtually all cultural materials larger than 3mm in maximum dimension were recovered and many artifacts smaller than this were also collected. Thus, the Iqaluktuuq assemblages represent an atypically high resolution sample for the region and indeed for many other Arctic regions.

Although the assemblages are not especially comparable in terms of recovery methods and sampling, these two samples are decisively complementary. Taylor’s assemblages contain excellent formal tool specimens necessary for typological categorization and inter-regional comparison while Friesen’s Iqaluktuuq assemblages have excellent representative samples of all artifact classes, debitage and faunal remains, including high resolution spatial data for inter-site comparison within the study area.

4.2 - Data Collection

Metric and non-metric data were collected from direct observation and measurement of the lithic artifacts. Digital calipers with direct data feed and 0.01mm precision were used to capture metric data on all artifacts including debitage. Attempts at reproducing measurements of length and width for the same artifact revealed that small variations in artifact alignment introduced significant error. Accordingly, all measurements made with calipers have been rounded to the nearest tenth of a millimetre (0.1mm). Artifact weights were collected using an Ohaus Scout Pro digital scale with a precision and accuracy of 0.01g. Edge angles were calculated using a contact goniometer. Intra-observer error generated by inconsistent placement of the goniometer along artifact margins or on adjacent surfaces necessitated the rounding of angle measurements to the nearest multiple of five degrees. All data were recorded in a Microsoft AccessTM database for easy parsing, export and analysis. In addition, digital images were captured of all artifacts and linked to the associated database entry for easy reference.

The measurements recorded for each artifact type vary considerably. A glossary of artifact features and specific measurements is provided in Appendix A. Tables summarizing the data and relevant 60 statistics are provided in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively.

Tests for significance in the distribution of metric attributes within a sample were performed using a One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and a P-value significance threshold of 0.05. Assumptions of standard deviation equivalency and normalcy for ANOVA were tested using Bartlett’s Statistic and the Kolmogorov and Smirnov Method, respectively. The Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparisons test was employed to facilitate comparison of multiple samples. The Chi- Square statistic was used as a test for independence in sample composition frequencies (see below).

4.3 - Study Sample

Beyond the cursory treatment of lithic materials provided by Taylor (1967; 1972) and Gordon’s (1975) analysis of a burin sample from Taylor’s collections, no detailed descriptions of stone tool assemblages have been published for the Pre-Dorset, Early or Middle Dorset periods on southeastern Victoria Island. Considering the significant regional variability that has been reported for other sites in the western archipelago and adjacent mainland (Arnold 1980; Gordon 1975, 1976; McGhee 1970a; Muller-Beck 1977), a thorough description of the Ekalluk River assemblages can do much to situate these more western assemblages within the greater context of inter-regional Palaeo-Eskimo economic adaptation. Below I provide a brief summary of the lithic materials recovered from the Pre-Dorset and Early/Middle Dorset components of the following sites at Iqaluktuuq (Figure 4.1): Buchanan (NiNg-1), Ballantine (NiNg-3), Ferguson Lake (NiNg- 5), Wellington Bay (NiNg-7) and Menez (NiNg-10). This summary includes materials recovered by Taylor’s excavations and material recovered by Friesen as part of the Iqaluktuuq Project from 2000-2007. Note, however, that the debitage counts provided in the assemblage summary tables below represent only material recovered from the Iqaluktuuq Project. A technological analysis of the lithic assemblages is provided with the analyses in Section 5.0.

4.3.1 - Buchanan (NiNg-1)

The Buchanan site is a large multi-component site abutting the south bank of the Ekalluk River approximately half a kilometer west of Ferguson Lake. The site extends from the eroding river 61

Iqaluktuuq Location of Study Sites Canada

Ferguson Lake

Ekalluk River Ferguson Lake Wellington Bay (NiNg-5) Buchanan Ballantine (NiNg-1) Menez (NiNg-3) Wellington Bay (NiNg-10) (NiNg-7)

Figure 4.1 - Map showing the approximate location of the study sites. Red represents Pre-Dorset sites, blue represents Early Dorset sites, and yellow represents Middle Dorset sites. Note that Buchanan (NiNg-1) contains both Pre-Dorset and Middle Dorset components, as well as two components of indeterminate temporal affiliation not indicated here. (Adapted from base map provided by Friesen) 62 bank southward about 150m onto terraced relic beach ridges overlooking the river. A low marshy area flanks the site to the east. Taylor (1967) identified three cultural components at the site and excavated in six loci that he referred to as trenches. Friesen (2002) refers to the trenches as ‘areas’ on account of there being multiple excavation trenches at some loci. For the purposes of this study, Friesen’s site terminology is used.

Buchanan is divided into six areas, numbered one through six, after Taylor’s original trenches. Areas 2 and 3 are immediately adjacent to one another and are thus grouped into a single locus here referred to as Area 2. Descriptions of each area are provided below.

Area 1 (BA1) Area 1 is the component located furthest from the Ekalluk River on a beach terrace judged by Taylor (1967:226) to be approximately 17m above the river bank. This component consists of a

Figure 4.2 - Aerial view of the Buchanan site looking west along the Ekalluk River towards Wellington Bay. The field camp is located adjacent to the Middle Dorset component called ‘Area 6’. Earlier components (Areas 1-5) are found upslope to the south on relic beach ridges. Photo credit: Max Friesen 63 diffuse surface scatter of lithic artifacts and a potential tent ring feature. Site stratigraphy is fairly simple, consisting of a patchy vegetated layer overlying a large cobble and soil matrix that becomes progressively less organic towards the base 25cm below surface. No radiocarbon dates have been obtained for this component but its elevation above the river suggests that the occupation here was likely the earliest of those for the Buchanan site. Isostatic rebound has caused the land to rise gradually since the receding of the glaciers; it is assumed that human populations preferred to reside near the river, and therefore those sites positioned higher on beach ridges tend to be older than those positioned closer to the river (cf. Meldgaard 1960). Interestingly, Taylor (1967, 1972) indicates that artifacts recovered from the surface and an approximately 1.5m x 1.5m test unit are more indicative of a Dorset period occupation than a Pre-Dorset occupation, which is at odds with the expected pattern of Palaeo-Eskimo settlement. In 2002, Friesen (2003) excavated an additional 50 x 50 cm test unit in Area 1 immediately adjacent to Taylor’s trench, recovering a small sample of formal tools and lithic debitage that also suggest a Dorset period origin (Friesen 2003:10). Nevertheless, the assemblage cannot be classified as exclusively Dorset and thus Area 1 is considered ambiguous in its temporal affiliation for the purposes of this study. The aggregate artifact assemblage from Area 1 is presented in the table below.

Table 4.1 - BA1 Lithic Assemblage Summary Artifact Type IP Taylor Endblade 0 1 Biface 0 2 Burin 0 1 Spall 0 0 Microblade 1 14 MB Core 0 0 Core 1 0 Scraper 1 0 BLT 0 0 Knife 0 0 Ground 0 1 Total Tools 3 19 Debitage 25 64 Area 2 (BA2) Buchanan Area 2 is located downslope from Area 1 on a nearby terrace at an elevation of 15m (Taylor 1967) above the river bank. Area 2 encompasses Taylor’s trenches 2 and 3, which were placed next to one another on the same terrace only a short distance apart. No definite features are apparent on the site surface, although lithic and bone artifacts and several boulder clusters are present (Friesen 2002:13). Taylor excavated extensively at Area 2, uncovering a total area of approximately 10m2 in 1965 that consisted of two large trenches and six small test pits. Taylor, Brink and Helmer (1988) further expanded excavations in 1988 with additions to the Trench 2 and Trench 3, as well as a new trench a short distance southward. Friesen opened a total of six additional

1m x 1m units next to Taylor’s trenches during the 2000 and 2007 field seasons, recovering a substantial amount of formal tools and flake debitage, as well as faunal remains and a small sample of organic artifacts. Caribou bone recovered from Area 2 yielded a radiocarbon date of 4250 BP (2850 calBC). The specimen was deemed to have low collogen content and is likely too early

Figure 4.3 - The author (left) and Quintin Crockett excavating a test unit at Buchanan Area 2. Photo credit: Max Friesen 65 (Friesen pers. comm. 2010), but remains consistent with Friesen’s observation (2002:13) that all excavated diagnostic artifacts appear to be Pre-Dorset in origin. A summary of the aggregate lithic assemblage from Area 2 is provided in Table 4.2.

Table 4.2 - BA2 Lithic Assemblage Summary Artifact Type IP Taylor Endblade 8 2 Biface 1 71 Burin 2 31 Spall 4 27 Microblade 0 25 MB Core 0 2 Core 2 6 Scraper 1 13 BLT 0 0 Knife 4 57 Ground 1 1 Total Tools 23 235 Debitage 2234

Area 4 (BA4) Buchanan Area 4 is situated 2m lower than BA2 (13m elevation above river [Taylor 1967]), approximately 15m closer to the present river bank on a less-pronounced terrace edge overlooking the Ekalluk River and nearby Ferguson Lake. The site surface exhibits a diffuse scatter of bone and stone refuse and no discernable features are evident (Friesen 2002:14). In 1965, Taylor excavated a small area of approximately 3m2, and Friesen excavated a 1m x 1m test unit in 2000. No radiocarbon dates have been obtained for this component and the artifact assemblage suggests a mixed Pre-Dorset and Dorset assemblage. For the purposes of this study, Area 4 is considered ambiguous in its temporal affiliation. 66 Table 4.3 - BA4 Lithic Assemblage Summary Artifact Type IP Taylor Endblade 1 0 Biface 2 6 Burin 1 0 Spall 1 0 Microblade 7 0 MB Core 0 0 Core 0 0 Scraper 0 0 BLT 1 0 Knife 1 1 Ground 0 0 Total Tools 14 7 Debitage 2367

Area 5 (BA5) Buchanan Area 5 is located approximately 10m from the eroding river bank at an elevation of approximately 11m (Taylor 1967) above the river on a gently sloping relic cobble beach. Taylor (1967) excavated a long but narrow trench approximately 2m2 in area, as well as five small test pits in adjacent areas. Friesen excavated one square meter in 2000 and two square meters in 2007. A radiocarbon sample collected in 2007 yielded a date of 4230 +- 200 years BP (2880 calBC) This sample also contained low collagen and is deemed to be unreliable, but suggests an early Palaeo-Eskimo occupation. The lithic assemblage confirms an early occupation date for BA5, as it contains artifacts consistent with Pre-Dorset assemblages (Friesen 2002:15). The aggregate lithic assemblage is summarized in the table below. 67 Table 4.4 - BA5 Lithic Assemblage Summary Artifact Type IP Taylor Endblade 0 4 Biface 5 14 Burin 6 3 Spall 0 4 Microblade 6 3 MB Core 0 3 Core 1 0 Scraper 2 10 BLT 0 0 Knife 13 14 Ground 0 0 Total Tools 33 55 Debitage 4762

Area 6 (BA6) Buchanan Area 6 is a very rich Middle Dorset period site located about 80m north-west of BA5 along the edge of the eroding river bank. The site covers an area of approximately 100m2, over which there are concentrations of small boulders that may be the remnants of features. Friesen (2002) notes that the active erosion of the bank has revealed “a relatively thick, dark organic soil . . . with frequent bones and artifacts”(16). Taylor camped at this site during the 1965 field season and excavated a large trench consisting of nine test units, each about 1m2 based on the published site map. Further work was completed by Friesen in 2000 and 2007, 17 1m x 1m units yielding a large assemblage of lithic, organic and faunal material. The 1965 assemblage includes a suite of artifacts that Taylor identified as being Early Dorset in origin, although Friesen (Pers. Comm.) asserts Area 6 to represent a Middle Dorset occupation site based on the more recently collected material, as well as a radiocarbon date on caribou bone of 1860 +- 50 years BP (50 - 250 calAD). Table 4.5 summarizes the aggregate lithic assemblage from Buchanan Area 6. 68 Table 4.5 - BA6 Lithic Assemblage Summary Artifact Type IP Taylor Endblade 12 1 Biface 11 4 Burin 0 0 Spall 0 0 Microblade 111 49 MB Core 6 5 Core 6 5 Scraper 5 6 BLT 3 1 Knife 7 3 Ground 5 4 Total Tools 166 78 Debitage 5048

Figure 4.4 - View northeast along the Ekalluk River from Buchanan Area 6. Lesley Howse (right) and Sherry Kaniak (left) are pictured excavating Feature 1 along the eroding river bank. Photo credit: Max Friesen 69 4.3.2 - Ballantine (NiNg-3)

The Ballantine site is located on an exposed beach ridge overlooking Ferguson Lake and the head of the Ekalluk River. The site covers an area of about 70m x 20m as indicated by a diffuse bone scatter and contains numerous stone features including caches and tent rings (Friesen 2003:22). Taylor (1967) excavated thirteen units approximately 1m2 in size, collecting what he terms a ‘pure’ Early Dorset sample. Friesen’s 2002 and 2007 excavations support Taylor’s conclusions, as the assemblages collected contain numerous Early Dorset harpoon heads and a high frequency of microblades. Friesen surface collected from the site and excavated four 1m x 1m test units that also yielded an unusually high number of harpoon heads (Friesen 2003:24). Radiocarbon dates taken from terrestrial mammal bones indicate Ballantine was occupied very early in the Dorset period, circa 975 calBC (2810 +- 60 years BP), and is likely associated with the cold season Ferguson Lake site described below.

Figure 4.5 - View east towards Ferguson Lake from the Ballantine site. Quintin Crockett (left) and the author (centre) excavate a test unit while Lauren Norman (right) screens unit fill. Photo credit: Max Friesen 70

Table 4.6 - Ballantine Lithic Assemblage Summary Artifact Type IP Taylor Endblade 0 1 Biface 10 3 Burin 0 0 Spall 0 0 Microblade 65 24 MB Core 3 1 Core 0 3 Scraper 5 3 BLT 5 4 Knife 0 4 Ground 5 4 Total Tools 93 47 Debitage 2308

4.3.3 - Ferguson Lake (NiNg-5)

The Ferguson Lake site is an Early Dorset winter occupation locale on the south side of the lake approximately 500m east of the Ballantine site. Overlooking the lake and environs, this site contains two semi-subterranean houses reported by Taylor (1967), only one of which could be verified by Friesen (2003:24). The 1965 excavations included the recovery of artifacts from four trenches of unreported size and yielded “high frequencies of both harpoon heads and caribou bones”(Taylor 1963:223). The more recent excavations undertaken by Friesen in 2003 included the excavation of one of the Dorset houses and its associated midden. The aggregate lithic assemblage collected from the Ferguson Lake site is summarized in Table 4.7. 71

Table 4.7 - Ferguson Lake Lithic Assemblage Summary Artifact Type Count Frequency Endblade 6 3 Biface 6 7 Burin 0 0 Spall 0 0 Microblade 30 5 MB Core 0 1 Core 3 3 Scraper 2 1 BLT 1 1 Knife 0 4 Ground 2 6 Total Tools 50 31 Debitage 2636

Figure 4.6 - View west towards the Ekalluk River and Wellington Bay from the Ferguson Lake site. This image shows the initial stages of excavation at House 1. Photo credit: Max Friesen 72

4.3.4 - Wellington Bay (NiNg-7)

Of all the sites examined in this study, the Wellington Bay site represents the earliest Palaeo-Eskimo occupation based on a radiocarbon date of 3420 +- 60 years BP (1890 - 1536 calBC) and artifact assemblage composition. The Wellington Bay site is located on a prominent knoll one kilometer south of the Ekalluk River’s western terminus where it empties into the bay of the same name. At the time of occupation, the site was situated on a small spit of land extending into a large inlet/ bay that would later become the Ekalluk River and Ferguson Lake after isostatic rebound altered the regional topography (Friesen 2002:20). Some of the soil deposit has been deflated by wind, particularly around the edges of the knoll (Taylor 1967:225), revealing much flake debitage and formal tools characteristic of the Pre-Dorset period. The scant faunal material recovered thus far indicates that seal was an important resource for the site’s inhabitants, standing in stark contrast to the caribou-dominated faunal assemblages from other sites in the region. Taylor excavated a single test cut of undisclosed size in 1965 and surface collected artifacts and faunal material from the site’s deflated periphery. Friesen also excavated at Wellington Bay in 2000, 2003 and 2007; twelve 1m2 test units were opened, yielding a large lithic sample, primarily flake debitage, and a modest faunal sample. The aggregate lithic assemblage from Wellington Bay is summarized in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8 - Wellington Bay Lithic Assemblage Summary Artifact Type IP Taylor Endblade 3 4 Biface 14 11 Burin 5 7 Spall 1 9 Microblade 2 0 MB Core 0 0 Core 0 4 Scraper 1 3 BLT 0 0 Knife 7 14 Ground 0 1 Total Tools 33 53 Debitage 11742 73

Figure 4.7 - Looking northwest from the Wellington Bay site towards the mouth of the Ekalluk River and partially ice-covered Wellington Bay. Sandy blow-outs, where many artifacts were initially collected at the site, are visible in the foreground to the right and beyond the buckets. Photo credit: Max Friesen

4.3.5 - Menez (NiNg-10)

The Menez site was identified by Taylor in his original survey of the region in 1965 and was subsequently studied by Taylor, Brink and Helmer (1988) in 1988, and by Friesen (2004, 2008) in 2003 and 2007. Menez is located approximately 100m from the bank of the Ekalluk river, a short distance east of the Buchanan Site, on a cobble beach terrace “a little higher above sea level than the highest part of the Buchanan site”(Taylor 1967:225). As with other Pre-Dorset sites in the region, this locale offers a good view of the river and the west end of Ferguson Lake. Taylor excavated four test cuts in 1965 and expanded the trenches in 1988 to encompass most of the site. In his surface assessment of the site in 2002, Friesen states that “Taylor and his crews . . . excavated almost all of the primary occupation areas”(2003:25); however, a portion of the site beneath Taylor’s backdirt pile was found to be undisturbed and was partially excavated in 2007. The lithic and organic artifact assemblages from Menez appear to be pure Pre-Dorset and the faunal assemblages are dominated by caribou bone. A summary of the lithic assemblage is provided in Table 4.9. 74 Table 4.9 - Menez Lithic Assemblage Summary Artifact Type IP Taylor Endblade 0 12 Biface 5 39 Burin 4 28 Spall 25 21 Microblade 4 6 MB Core 2 0 Core 2 5 Scraper 1 9 BLT 0 0 Knife 5 19 Ground 0 1 Total Tools 48 139 Debitage 3417

Figure 4.8 - Quintin Crockett (left) and the author (right) excavating a test unit beneath one of Taylor’s backdirt piles at the Menez site. The Ekalluk River and 2007 field camp is visible at left and Ferguson Lake is pictured in the distance. Photo credit: Max Friesen 75 An important note must be made here regarding artifact collection and study sample construction. For the majority of this work, I treat the Taylor and Friesen collections as a combined sample; however, Taylor and Friesen employed significantly different excavation and artifact collection methods. Perhaps the most significant difference is that Friesen employed 3mm hardware mesh to seive all excavation unit matrix. Taylor did not employ hardware mesh seiving in his early excavations and it is unclear if it was used in the 1988 excavations. Consequently, there is likely a bias against the collection of very small artifacts in the Taylor collections. This poses somewhat of a problem when discussing artifact frequencies, and therefore it is necessary to examine the composition of each of these two collections to determine to what extent field methods may have skewed the sample.

To this end, a subset of the tool type frequency data was subjected to a Pearson Correlation test for independence to determine if the Taylor sample frequencies differed significantly from those of the Iqaluktuuq Project sample. The Buchanan Area 1 and Area 4 assemblages are deemed to be too small and were excluded from the analysis; all other site assemblages were included. The Iqaluktuuq Project sample distributions were taken as the expected distribution of the following tool class categories: small bifaces (< 2cm in maximum dimension), large bifaces (>= 2cm in maximum dimension), burins, burin spalls, endblades, microblades and scrapers. Burin spalls, small bifaces and microblades are the smallest of the tool types included here and are therefore most likely to be subject to bias in collection. Table 4.10 summarizes the data used to create the correlation matrix and the results of the Pearson Correlation tests. 76

Table 4.10 - Summary of assemblage composition data and results of Pearson Correlation test. Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ballantine Ferguson BA6 Artifact Type IP T IP T IP T IP T IP T IP T IP T Biface Large 15 19 4 94 13 21 4 43 2 5 7 5 14 6 Biface Small 6 6 1 26 5 6 6 15 8 2 2 2 4 1 Burin Spall 1 9 4 26 0 4 15 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 Burin 5 7 2 30 6 3 4 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 Endblade 3 4 1 9 0 3 0 7 0 1 6 3 12 1 Microblade 2 0 0 25 6 4 4 10 65 24 30 6 111 49 Scraper 1 3 1 13 2 10 1 8 5 3 2 1 5 6 Total 33 48 13 223 32 51 34 130 80 35 47 17 146 63 Critical Value 11.05 20.08 13.56 21.97 7.44 5.41 5.18 df 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 P-Value >0.1 <0.01 <0.05 <0.01 >0.1 >0.1 >0.1

P-Values calculated for three samples (italicized) are less than 0.05 and therefore indicate a statistically significant deviation from their expected distribution. In the case of BA2, while the P-value is quite low, the Iqaluktuuq Project sample is quite small and is unlikely to be representative of the site as a whole. Consequently, the test results for BA2 are deemed to be invalid and not reflective of sampling bias. The P-value for the BA5 samples indicates slight statistical significance; yet, comparison of the tool class frequencies shows a higher proportion of burin spalls, the smallest of the tool classes, in the Taylor sample rather than the Iqaluktuuq Project sample. This is not consistent with the expected pattern if the assumption of a sampling bias is valid. Nevertheless, small bifaces and microblades have higher frequencies in the Iqaluktuuq Project sample, and this would seem to suggest a slight sampling bias against the collection of smaller artifacts.

The most convincing evidence for sampling bias is provided by the Menez assemblages, where burin spalls comprise only 15% of the Taylor sample and nearly 43% of the Iqaluktuuq Project sample. Small bifaces and microblades also comprise a smaller proportion of the Taylor sample, further suggesting a bias against small artifact collection.

In light of these results, it is reasonable to conclude that the Taylor samples under-represent 77 proportions of small artifact types, especially burin spalls, to some degree. Even so, I do not believe that the bias adversely affects the present study in a significant way. The only aspect of this study potentially influenced by the bias is the calculation and interpretation of assemblage compositions in sections 5.10 and 6.7. Accordingly, this issue is addressed in these sections where deemed prudent.

4.4 - Analysis Methods

4.4.1 - Utility and Portability

Modified versions of Kuhn’s utility and portability indices (UPIs) were applied to the Iqaluktuuq assemblages to identify the potential influences of changing mobility on tool design. Utility indices for four types of formal tools were produced: end-scrapers, endblades, knives and burins/ burin-like tools (BLTs). End-scraper indices were calculated according to the method outlined by Kuhn (1994; 1996), utilizing length as the primary measure of utility. Mass was approximated by calculating the volume of a box having the length, width and thickness of the artifact from a standardized orientation. In addition, a second set of indices was calculated using actual tool weights as a proxy for mass. Both methods are estimations; the volume calculation incorporates space that is not actually occupied by an artifact, and weight assumes equal material densities for all artifacts. These limitations are not deemed to be significant biases for the purpose of this analysis. Minimum usable size (Kuhn 1994:430) is not considered in this analysis because the value was considered uniform within tool classes and no evaluation of between-class differences is performed.

Modified utility measurements are necessary for the remaining tool classes. Endblades, knives and burins/BLTs require different approaches to systematic rejuvenation than do end-scrapers, owing to different working edge alignments. While scrapers are typically rejuvenated from the distal end towards the proximal end, endblades are rejuvenated along their oblique lateral margins. Further, knives and burins are rejuvenated laterally from one or both margins, with burins having inconsistent working edge lengths throughout their use-life. Consequently, implement length is not always a suitable proxy measure for utility. Volume and mass calculations, however, remain the 78 same as described for end-scrapers.

To resolve this issue, unique indices were developed for each of the three remaining tool classes. Knife utility is calculated as half the width of the blade. Cutting edges are rejuvenated by removing flakes inwards along the edge (Figure 4.9), and so the potential for producing working edges is reflected by the width of the knife blade. Where possible, measurements are taken from the most proximal portion of the working edge. There is, however, a problem with this method; the length of the cutting edge being produced is not accounted for in the calculation of utility. As a result, a short knife with the same width as a long knife will score higher in utility because it weighs less. To compensate, portability is calculated as indices of mass or volume over implement length. The overall utility/portability indices are thus calculated as (0.5 x width) / (weight or volume) / length. This approach has the added advantage of allowing for the inclusion of knife fragments, which significantly outnumber complete knife specimens in the study assemblages.

Endblade utility is calculated in two ways for the purposes of this study (Figure 4.10). The first method (UPI) utilizes implement length as the primary measure of utility, which is divided by implement mass to derive the UPI index value. The second method (UPI-A) utilizes implement surface area instead of length as a proxy for utility. This value is also divided by implement mass to determine the endblade’s UPI value. Triangular endblade UPI values are calculated differently from notched endblade UPI values; portions of the artifact involved exclusively for hafting, that is notched and basal portions of such tools, are not included in the utility calculation as they cannot contribute to edge production.

The method employed to calculate burin/BLT utility departs somewhat from Kuhn’s method in that it evaluates differences in the edge production efficiency of two rejuvenation methods characteristic of the burin and burin-like tool, namely spalling and grinding. While burins are spalled in order to remove damaged or worn working edges, BLTs are ground on one or multiple faces to achieve the same result. Grinding is more controlled and requires less material removal than spalling to rejuvenate unsuitable working edges. Consequently, grinding should exhibit a higher potential for edge production, that is, higher relative utility than spalling. 79

Blade Blade Length

Blade Width

Basal Element

Figure 4.9 - Knife utility calculation method.

Standard Method (Effective Length)

Alternate Method (Effective Area)

Figure 4.10 - Endblade utility calculation methods. 80 To quantitatively compare the relative efficiencies of burin and BLT rejuvenation, working edge length was selected as a proxy for implement utility. If one asserts that the goal of burin production is to create edges suitable for a particular task, the planing of hard organics for instance, it follows that the production of more and longer working edges is desirable. Thus in comparing techniques of edge production and rejuvenation, their relative efficiency can be evaluated by comparing the total length of working edge produced by each for the same mass of material. Assuming each unit of edge length provides an equal amount of potential utility for scraping, planing, and so on, more edge length implies greater overall utility. If Method A produces ten units of working edge and Method B produces five units of working edge, the former has twice the relative utility of the latter. Furthermore, if it is assumed that usable edges are depleted at a relatively uniform rate given a particular mode of use, greater edge length implies longer overall tool use-life.

An important caveat must be added here. The portion of the work edge that comprises the burin ‘bit’ is the only part of the burin used in graving. Thus, if a burin was intended for use in this activity, the amount of lateral working edge is less important than the condition of the lateral margins. A broken tip is ineffectual for graving and would therefore require rejuvenation of the burin’s working edge. The calculations used here to evaluate the relative utility of burins assumes both graving and planing activities were practiced by the people producing these tools. If graving was the only task any particular tool was used for, this has important implications for calculating utility and UPI indices, since changes in the length of working edge would be most irrelevant.

The method used to evaluate relative utility/efficiency of spalling and grinding involves the digital, three-dimensional reproduction of six burin specimens. The archaeological specimens used for this purpose were selected from two sites at Iqaluktuuq (NiNg-1 and NiNg-10). Each specimens had been spalled a minimum of two times during their uselives and exhibited as many as ten spall scars. The digital three-dimensional models of the specimens were produced using a NextEngine 2020i laser scanner housed in the Archaeology Centre at the University of Toronto.

To quantitatively evaluate utility, working-edge length was selected as a proxy measure for potential utility. In other words, a tool having greater total working edge length is considered to have greater 81 overall potential utility. The following process is used to calculate total working edge length: First, missing portions of each burin are reconstructed according to facial and marginal curvatures (Figure 4.11) consistent with the form of burin blanks and lightly rejuvenated specimens identified in the study assemblages. Once complete, these six reconstructed burin ‘blanks’ comprise the base forms from which edge lengths are calculated. An additional model having the form of a uniform box with a single pointed end (Figure 4.12) serves as a control for variation in burin model shape. Edge lengths are calculated by taking cross-sections of the models at various orientations and spacings to simulate material removal and edge production. As many cross-sections as possible are taken given the morphology of the artifact and the spacing of the removals. Once produced, cross- sections are cropped from the base to the point where they intersect the virtual removal surface in order to simulate the limit of the working edge on an actual burin. Four methods are used to collect edge length data:

Method A – This first method uses the existing spall scars on the artifacts to determine the angle and spacing of cross-sections (Figure 4.13-1). Cross-sections are aligned roughly parallel with the model’s long axis beginning at the spall scar and terminating at the distal end of the model. Sections are cropped where they intersect with the existing burin facet or spall scar, thereby taking into account the progressively shortening spall facet length. Where spall removals are not parallel or are ambiguously angled, such as illustrated in Figure 4.4, cross-section angle is estimated to be equally spaced between known spall orientations. While this method is not necessarily reflective of actual spall thicknesses, it is a conservative approximation that assumes relative uniformity in spall size.

Method S – This method employs standardized values of spall spacing to align and crop cross- sections. The average burin spall thickness for the Iqaluktuuq specimens is 2mm (N = 92; sd 0.65). A conservative value of 1.5mm is thus used as the width between cross-sections. Also, based on observation of several specimens, progressive shortening of burin spalls was estimated at 2mm per spall. Cross sections are therefore created at 1.5mm intervals parallel to the burin margin and are cropped an additional 2mm for each ‘removal’ (Figure 4.13-2). 82

Figure 4.11 - Burin reconstruction method. The curvature of the burin periphery are used to approximate burin blank shape. Spall scar orientation is used to approximate arrangement of spall facets.

Figure 4.12 - Burin model before and after reconstruction (top left), example cross-sections (bottom left) and control model (right). 83

Figure 4.13 - Working edge reconstruction methods. 1 - Method A (Actual spalling); 2 - Method S (Standardized); 3 - Method G (Grinding); 4 - Method GP (Parallel Grinding) 84

Figure 4.14 - Burin-like tool oblique fore-edge grinding examples.

Method G – This method simulates the oblique grinding observed in many burin-like tools (Figure 4.14). Observation of burin spall edges revealed that edge rounding typically extended 0.5mm along the lateral face. Assuming that at least this much material would need to be removed in order to rejuvenate the edge, a conservative 50% increase to this value is applied and the resulting value of 0.75mm is used to space cross-sections. Instead of a parallel spacing, however, cross-sections are aligned obliquely from a common point at the base of the original working edge. Cross-sections intersect the distal end at a regular spacing of 0.75mm (Figure 4.13-3).

Method GP – This final method takes the same general form as Method S, spacing cross-sections in a parallel manner from the lateral burin margin. In this case, the 0.75mm value used in Method G is again used here and cross-sections are uniformly cropped to the length of the initial working edge (Figure 4.13-4). Method GP is only applied to the control model and simulates the kind of rejuvenation pattern observed in some burin-like tools having working edges that protrude laterally and can thus be ground in this manner. 85 The lengths of the cross-sections are then calculated by a built-in software function in 3D Studio Max 9™. Graphs produced from these data illustrate the changing length of working edges throughout the tool’s virtual use-life and can thus be used to compare the relative efficiency of spalling and grinding as means of burin rejuvenation. Results of these analyses are presented in Section 8.1.

4.4.2 - Risk Management

As indicated in Section 3.8.2, neither reliability nor maintainability is indicative of a particular mobility strategy. Instead, technological elements are designed for reliable or maintainable patterns of manufacture and use depending on perceived risk in resource acquisition activities. Therefore, consideration of subsistence activities in relation to mobility strategies and technological design can inform archaeologists about how ancient populations dealt with economic uncertainty differently through time. With the known changes in Palaeo-Eskimo mobility strategies and the known local resource base of Pre-Dorset and Dorset populations occupying Iqaluktuuq, technological analysis of the present assemblages provides a means of characterizing the approaches to risk management in this cultural and environmental context. To this end, the manufacture, use and rejuvenation processes associated with each tool type are described in Section 5.0. From this information, the Pre-Dorset and Early/Middle Dorset lithic toolkits are subsequently compared in Section 8.2 in regards to two aspects of risk reduction: equipment failure and production/maintenance scheduling.

Equipment failure includes the ways in which damage is caused to tools and their sub-elements during use and how such damage is remedied. Damage to equipment is inevitable and somewhat unpredictable but it can be anticipated and therefore compensated for to a limited degree in toolkit design and preparation. Production and maintenance scheduling concerns the timing and frequency of tool manufacture and repair activities relative to periods of tool use. Different scheduling strategies arise from different approaches to dealing with anticipated and perceived equipment needs. Evidence of tool design and activity scheduling observed in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages are compared to determine if Palaeo-Eskimo risk management strategies change appreciably through time and in what ways. Where possible, reference is made to the organic components 86 of the composite implements; in the absence of preserved specimens of this sort, any inferences resulting from this exercise are largely speculative.

4.4.3 - Raw Material Use

There are four major categories of raw material in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages: chert, quartzite, crystal quartz and slate. As discussed in Section 3.8.4, differentiation in acquisition, manufacture and use patterns across material types is an important aspect of technological organization that is influenced by subsistence economy and, by extension, human mobility strategies. Therefore, changes in mobility patterns should be evident in raw material selection and use.

In this study, characterization of raw material use patterns is performed in three ways. First, raw material types are correlated with formal tool types to identify any observable patterning in raw material usage. It is expected that uses of different raw materials change through time as a result of changing technological requirements and procurement activities related to mobility. Thus, an attempt is made to explain the preferential use of particular materials for certain tool classes in terms of technological and procurement-related factors. Because of the limited data available on material sources, some of the inferences will, by necessity, be speculative.

Second, the kinds of reduction activities taking place on site with different material types are examined. Modification activities are summarized, including stages of reduction, surface treatment and reduction techniques, in order to identify potential differences in the treatment of materials. The local availability of materials is also considered, as it is an important factor influencing procurement and manufacturing activities related to site occupation.

Lastly, raw material variety is used as a measure of relative mobility. Greater mobility brings foragers into proximity with more dispersed material sources more frequently. It is assumed that, all else being equal, a greater number of material types should be present in assemblages produced by more mobile Palaeo-Eskimo populations than in those produced by less-mobile populations. Considering the known pattern of decreasing mobility around the beginning of the Dorset period, it is expected that raw material richness will likewise decrease in assemblages dating to this time. 87 Results of these analyses are presented in Chapter 5.

4.4.4 - Production Intensity and Investment

As outlined by Riel-Salvatore and Barton (2004), the relative intensity of material use is here evaluated using the Whole Assemblage Behavioral Indicator (WABI), comparing retouched artifact proportions with artifact densities. For each site and intra-site area, the frequency of retouched pieces including formal and informal artifact types is graphed against the density of all lithic material recovered from the site that exceeds a specific size threshold. This threshold, set at 2cm (for any dimension), is an approximation of the minimum size for a toolstone fragment to be considered viable for further production. Pieces of toolstone smaller than 2cm are here considered to be too small to be included in the pool of material available for tool production activities and therefore are not included in calculations of production intensity. In addition, only samples from the Iqaluktuuq Project assemblages are included in the calculations, as the Taylor assemblages do not include debitage and little data is available from which to calculate areas excavated and, thus, artifact density.

Although volume of excavated soil is used in the aforementioned study to determine artifact densities, the thin soil horizons at Iqaluktuuq make this unnecessary. Instead, excavated area is used to calculate density, assuming a relatively uniform or averaged unit depth across all sites. Any difference in unit depth across a site is asserted to reflect localized topographic factors influencing soil accumulation and not relative differences in culturally-related depositional intensity. Density is therefore calculated as total pieces recovered divided by total excavated area. WABI values are calculated for all artifacts at each site and separately for each major material type. Scatter-plots of the results are provided in Section 7.4.

It is hypothesized that more mobile foraging populations will exhibit a greater intensity of material use than less mobile populations because portability restrictions would have encouraged thorough exploitation of the resources on hand. Accordingly, a greater proportion of worked pieces should be present in the assemblages of mobile populations. It is thus expected that Pre-Dorset assemblages, particularly those from sites dating to the earliest occupations of Iqaluktuuq, should exhibit greater 88 proportions of retouched/worked artifacts than observed in later Dorset assemblages. 89 5.0 – Technology-Related Analyses

The following is a technological summary description of the aggregate Iqaluktuuq lithic assemblage; this chapter provides brief overviews of morphological variability, manufacture and maintenance, use evidence, raw materials and diachronic trends for each formal tool type. The artifact categories examined here include burins and burin spalls, burin-like tools, endblades, knives, microblades and microblade cores, scrapers, bifaces (including sideblades), flake cores, and ground slate tools. An inter-site comparison of tool type frequencies and the debitage sample is provided following the summary. Interpretations of the findings for each artifact category are discussed in each sub- section.

Two brief notes regarding terminology and typology should be made here. Where prudent, I have followed the morphological and typological guidelines set out by Taylor (1962; 1964; 1967; 1968; 1972), Maxwell (1973; 1976; 1984; 1985), McGhee (1969; 1970a; 1970b; 1976; 1979; 1996), Milne (2003b), Schledermann (1978; 1990), Larsen and Meldgaard (1958) and Fitzhugh (1972; 1976). Nevertheless, I have found the technical specificity of some terminology lacking, especially in the earlier works. The utmost effort has been made to provide new, clearly defined terminology only where necessary to avoid confusion. Additionally, Appendix A provides a summary of the terminology used in this paper and diagrams to illustrate some of the features and phenomena described herein.

The typology used here is a combined product of the existing typologies presented in Arctic scholarship to date and my own interpretations of the lithic assemblages from Iqaluktuuq. These categories are not intended to represent any necessary (sub-)division of Palaeo-Eskimo stone artifacts; rather, they are intended to provide an organization of the lithic materials from Iqaluktuuq that facilitates description and ready comparison with other published materials. As such, morphological (i.e. bifaces), technological (i.e. groundstone, burins and BLTs), and functional (i.e. scrapers) criteria are used. I will be the first to assert that this system is not ideal and leads to inevitable conflicts, such as between burin-like tools and other groundstone implements. A purely technological system that considers form, production methods, hafting and use would be more 90 consistent but would also create a myriad of types that would be utterly incomparable to other published data. The present system, while imperfect, serves the present purpose while highlighting the need for typological revision in Arctic scholarship.

5.1 - Burins and Burin Spalls

Bandi (1963) provides a useful overview of Palaeo-Eskimo burin technologies and their relation to better known Old World burin technologies. The common element between these technologies is the employment of the burin-blow, or burination, to create a working edge; however, Palaeo- Eskimo burins differ from Old World burins in several ways, which can cause considerable confusion if not sufficiently explained. For instance, Old World Mesolithic burins have chisel- shaped bit created through two intersecting burination facets. In contrast, Palaeo-Eskimo burins only have a single facet and the shape of the bit is determined by surface and edge preparation (flaking and grinding) prior to burination. Also, Palaeo-Eskimo burins are sequentially spalled from a common platform, the distal edge, whereas Old World burins are rejuvenated by a burin- blow near the bit on one of the existing facets. Consequently, manufacturing and rejuvenation trajectories are significantly different for these distinct yet related tools, something that must be borne in mind for the discussion presented below. The differences have led some scholars to suggest distinguishing the Palaeo-Eskimo variant as a ‘pseudo-burin’ (Bandi 1963:24), but I am disinclined to agree. From a technological perspective, the method of edge creation is the defining characteristic of burins and therefore the use of burination to create a working edge suffices as a classificatory criterion, regardless of the alignment and relationship of burinated edges.

5.1.1 - Morphological Variability

Although Maxwell (1973) identifies thirteen types of burins based on morphological characteristics such as distal edge shape and spall scar alignment, it is my opinion that this typology misrepresents the variability present in archaeological specimens. Sequentially rejuvenated tools like burins have dynamically changing forms that are influenced as much by unintentional action (breakage) as by intentioned action. For instance, some of the types Maxwell defines erroneously identify edge damage as intentioned edge shaping. While I do not argue with Maxwell’s assertion that different 91

Plano-Convex Ground - Rounded Concave (Sheared) Flaked

Ground - Pointed Flaked - Pointed Notched

Figure 5.1 - Burin tip shapes (cross-section), after Maxwell (1985:92 Figure 5.5) edge forms could have served different functional needs (see Figure 5.1), the contribution of use- related modifications to tool form (i.e. edge damage) should be differentiated from production and rejuvenation-related characteristics (e.g. Gordon 1975). Accordingly, I do not provide a typology of burins at Iqaluktuuq but instead offer a description of morphological characteristics and describe their distribution at the sites investigated. This approach is more compatible with the interpretive framework proposed in Chapter 3 as it speaks to variability in technical process rather than strict adherence to and reproduction of a ‘mental template’.

The distribution graphs in Figure 5.2 - Figure 5.4 show the distributions of burin length, width and thickness for the Pre-Dorset sites at Iqaluktuuq. The distributions show no statistically significant differences in burin width between assemblages (p > 0.05). Burins in the Wellington Bay assemblage are significantly thicker than those in the BA2 and Menez samples (p < 0.05), however the difference is less than a millimeter and sample size is a likely factor in this observed pattern since the Wellington Bay assemblage contains comparatively fewer specimens (n=12) than either BA2 (n=33) or Menez (n=32). Length of burins in the BA5 assemblage is significantly lower 92 Burin Length by Site Assemblage 35 30 25 20 15

Length (mm) Length 10 Figure 5.2 - Burin Length Distributions 5 by Site Assemblage. Box-plot shows median, one-sigma range and total range. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez (n = 12) (n = 33) (n = 9) (n = 32) Site Assemblage

Burin Width by Site Assemblage 25

10 Width (mm) Figure 5.3 - Burin Width Distributions 5 by Site Assemblage. Box-plot shows median, one-sigma range and total range. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez (n = 12) (n = 33) (n = 9) (n = 32) Site Assemblage

Burin Thickness by Site Assemblage 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5

Thickness (m m) 4 Figure 5.4 - Burin Thickness 3 Distributions by Site Assemblage. Box- 2 plot shows median, one-sigma range and 1 total range. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez (n = 12) (n = 33) (n = 9) (n = 32) Site Assemblage 93 than for other Pre-Dorset samples (p < 0.01), but I attribute this to the high frequency of broken burins in this sample.

From a functional standpoint, that is the material-transformative aspect of tool application, working edge morphology, including that of the bit, is the primary characteristic of spalled burins. The shape of working edges is determined by three factors: a) ventral/dorsal surface preparation; b) distal edge form; and c) spall facet angle. Surface preparation determines the character of the working edge adjacent to said surface; unmodified or ground surfaces produce uniform edges and transversely-flaked surfaces produce scalloped edges. Distal edge form is a product of surficial preparation of the implement’s distal end, the cross section of which determines the shape of the groove produced during graving/gouging activity. Pointed tips produce pointed grooves, rounded tips produce rounded grooves, and so on. Spall facet angle refers to the skewing of the burin facet (twist) from its typical parallel alignment, creating an obtuse edge angle on one margin and an acute edge angle on the other. Together, these three factors determine edge shape and thus the resulting effects that a burin has on the material being worked. Spall facet angle displays little variation in the sample and insufficient data was collected to facilitate any meaningful analysis of its variation. Accordingly, only the first two factors will be discussed here.

Burins surface modification includes flaking and grinding. All specimens exhibit bifacial flaking, at very least on their basal portion. Nine specimens (14%) exhibit only dorsal flaking for the majority of the tools length, leaving the ventral surface largely unmodified. Ground surfaces are common in the BA2, BA5, Menez and Wellington Bay assemblages, appearing on 38 (60%) of the 63 specimens for which data could be collected. The extent of grinding varies greatly between specimens, ranging from slight marginal grinding to full distal surface polish (see Figure 5.5).

Bit form is represented in the Iqaluktuuq specimens by three variants: plano-convex, pointed and rounded (see Figure 5.1). Plano-convex bits are typically formed by a convex dorsal surface, either flaked or ground, intersecting with a planar ventral surface that can be unmodified, flaked or ground. Pointed bits are flaked and/or ground to a symmetrical point, and rounded bits are shaped into a pronounced convex edge by grinding. Pointed bits may also have slight rounding of the 94

Figure 5.5 - Variation in the extent of burin surface and edge grinding. Horizontal lines depict extent of surficial grinding and dots indicate location of edge grinding. very distal portion, and so the distinction between ground pointed and rounded bits is somewhat subjective. Of the burins with preserved distal ends, plano-convex bits account for 19 specimens (34%), pointed bits 14 specimens (25%), and rounded bits 23 specimens (41%). Thirty-two burins are incomplete or too damaged to identify distal edge form.

Distal edge shape includes two broad categories: linear and convex. Linear specimens have a straight distal edge extending partially or completely from the fore-edge to the back edge. Specimens appearing to have straight distal ends are invariably damaged, exhibiting distal edge shearing (e.g. #1-443). Likewise, heavily rejuvenated specimens may retain so little of their distal ends that reconstruction of edge form is not possible. Aside from damaged tools, all burin specimens recovered from Iqaluktuuq have convex distal edges. The arc of the edge varies for each burin 95 and, although quantitative data for this feature was not collected, there does not appear to be any consistency in distal edge curvature.

While they do not impact the functional effects of planing and graving activities, burin margin and facial morphology influence the means of prehension (hafting) and thus force application. Some burins are large enough to be wielded in the hand; nevertheless, considering the prevalence of hafting in Palaeo-Eskimo technologies in general, and the lithic technology in particular, it is unlikely that Palaeo-Eskimo burins were ever intended for use outside of a composite assembly. Lateral and proximal edge shape and proximal thickness are important characteristics for the hafting of burins. In the Iqaluktuuq assemblages, the lateral margins of burins vary considerably in form. More informal burin-on-flake specimens have minimally retouched margins tending to be irregular in shape and often retaining a removal platform at the proximal end. Bifacial burins have proximal ends ranging from concave to convex, pointed to squared, and there is no consistency in basal thinning. Many specimens have bases with unmodified breakage surfaces, suggesting instances of breakage both prior and post conversion to their use as burins. Lateral margins tend to expand proximal-distally from the base, sometimes terminating in a defined ‘shoulder’ just slightly proximal to the spall facet (e.g. #1-964). The asymmetrical spurred base form (e.g. #1-606) is a common feature of minimally retouched burins that also appears on fully bifacial specimens. Waisting and notching are rare features in the burin sample, the only two specimens exhibiting this trait being recovered from a surface scatter at Wellington Bay. Lastly, proximal thinning is inconsistent and tends to appear on flat-based bifacial burins. The common appearance of unmodified bases suggests that tolerances were high and base thickness likely had an upper threshold of acceptability for hafting.

5.1.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance

The manufacturing process for spalled burins is not especially complicated, though the trajectories for reduction can vary widely depending on the origin of the material. All Palaeo-Eskimo burins are flake tools. The primary differences in burin morphology are created by more or less extensive edge and surface preparation. 96 Beginning with the minimally prepared burin-on-flake type, a flake of suitable shape would first be selected for reduction. Excluding the distal edge, dorsal flaking rarely originates from the flake margins; consequently, the form of the dorsal surface is usually that of the flake prior to detachment. Likewise, minimal marginal preparation is exhibited by these artifacts, but one can posit that irregularities impairing use or, more likely, hafting would be expediently removed with retouch. Distal flake edges were flaked dorsally, via pressure flaking, creating a regular, plano- convex edge in section (see Figure 5.1) that extends perpendicular to the working edge, curving proximally towards the back edge (in plan). Additional edge treatment sometimes included uni- or bi-surficial grinding, presumably on a manual or fixed sandstone abrader. The working edge and bit were then created by spalling (described below).

Bifacial burins follow a similar overall process of manufacture. A flake of suitable dimensions is procured and is bifacially flaked in order to regularize the margins and the distal surfaces adjacent to the working edge. The degree and invasiveness of flaking varied considerably, again at minimum meeting the morphological requirements of hafting. In the cases of both pointed and rounded bits, the distal edge was flaked initially. Grinding was then applied to the dorsal and ventral faces and the distal edge to create the desired symmetry and cross-sectional shape. Primary burin spalls indicate that both surface and edge grinding occurred prior to initial spalling, but it is likely that additional grinding would also have occasionally taken place post-spalling. Refitting of adjacent ground burin spalls could, in theory, substantiate this proposition.

In all cases, spalling was initiated from the distal edge, apparently without preparation of the platform as judged from primary spalls and the absence of modification to the bit. The lack of crushing or pronounced bulbs of percussion further suggests spalling was performed using pressure rather than percussion, although soft percussion could produce similar results. Maxwell (1985:91) suggests this was accomplished by pressing the distal burin edge against a suitable surface, such as a segment of antler. There is no empirical evidence to distinguish this tool-on-flaker approach from the more commonly cited flaker-on-tool method. Nevertheless, Maxwell’s method allows the tool to remain in its haft during spalling (Gordon 1975:199) and requires less dexterity, 97 necessitating manipulation of only one object (the hafted burin) against a stationary surface rather than manipulation of both the pressure-flaker and the hafted burin. My own experimentation with burin spalling confirms that Maxwell’s suggested method is both convenient and simple to execute consistently with relatively little effort.

A likely, though admittedly less easily demonstrated production process would be the conversion of existing bifaces and biface fragments into burins. Several specimens in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages appear to be conversions, including a knife fragment (#1-414) and an endblade (#7-128b). Modification to these pieces would be unique and depend on the shape of the edge intended for burination. The overall process of edge preparation would remain the same. Thoroughly reworked fragments may not retain diagnostic features of their previous use and therefore it is difficult to quantify the frequency with which broken or expended tools were converted into burins.

5.1.3 - Use Evidence

Three primary forms of use evidence were observed on burins and spalls. Edge rounding is an expected consequence of tool use and is observed to varying degrees on most burins and spalls. Systematic microscopic use wear analyses were not performed on the Iqaluktuuq sample, nevertheless this form of use evidence can be posited as the primary reason for tool rejuvenation barring more serious edge damage. The degree of rounding that would have necessitated rejuvenation would have varied by use and by user. Observation of the remnant working edges on burin spalls reveals that rounding extended approximately 0.5mm along the adjacent tool surfaces, thereby necessitating the removal of a spall having at least the same thickness as this value.

Bit damage is the second most common evidence of use on burins as well as the most commonly inferred reason for tool discard. Bit damage ranges from slight crushing of the edge margin to irregular flaking along the distal edge to complete removal of the distal end. In the latter two cases, portions of the working edge are removed by flakes initiated at the spall facet face. The result of this damage is a change to the cross-sectional shape of the tool that would have impacted the resulting effects of its use in gouging. The direction and degree of force necessary to create this flaking indicates that damage was caused in the course of use as a graving/gouging instrument with 98 the bit being pulled (or pushed) along the substrate. Bit damage was observed on 51 specimens (58%), including distal burin fragments that appear to have been sheared in a similar manner.

Catastrophic removal of the distal edge accounts for the ‘convex spalled’ distal edges reported by Maxwell (1973: 19; 1985)(see Figure 5.1: Concave sheared). Contra Maxwell, I believe that the proliferation of this feature on burins speaks more to the seriousness of the break than to its utility as an alternate graving bit. Loss of the distal edge in this fashion, especially a completely ground distal edge, rendered the tool unusable, thus requiring either extensive reworking or discard. This interpretation is further supported by a lack of burin spalls exhibiting flat or U-shaped platforms, something that would be expected if this was an intended form. Additionally, preparation of the spall platform prior to removal would invariably leave some trace on the remaining burin bit, something not observed on the Iqaluktuuq specimens.

Flaking damage is also apparent on dorsal and ventral surfaces adjacent to the working edge. Small broad flakes originating at the burin facet are occasionally observed on these surfaces, both on burins and spalls, and are indicative of use of those edges in planing or scraping activities. In many cases this damage could be removed simply though additional spalling. Severe damage necessitated additional surface preparation, primarily through grinding, to rejuvenate the edge. Of course, damaged edges would not preclude the continued use of the burin for bit gouging, and vice versa.

5.1.4 - Materials

The burin samples from Iqaluktuuq are composed exclusively of chert. Material colours include white, tan, brown, pink, red, and banded combinations of these. Uniform light and dark grey varieties are the most common. No burins have been recovered from any other material, including chalcedony, silicified slate, or crystal quartz, all of which possess fracture qualities that would allow for predictable burination. Quartzite, on the other hand, is likely too granular to produce sufficiently regular working edges via burination. That being said, I know of no replicative experiments conducted to date on the orange-pink quartzite found at Iqaluktuuq to support this claim and it is possible that particularly vitreous and homogenous fragments might allow for burin 99 manufacture.

5.1.5 - Diachronic Trends

Burins and burin spalls have only been recovered from the Pre-Dorset Buchanan (BA2 and BA5), Wellington Bay and Menez sites. As none appear in the Dorset sites or components, it is not possible to comment on trends in burin production and use across the transition period when Iqaluktuuq was abandoned by Palaeo-Eskimos. There are, however, some distinct trends in burin production during the Pre-Dorset period that are worthy of note.

Burin form changes noticeably from the earliest occupation of the region at Wellington Bay to the late Pre-Dorset Menez occupation(s). While a variety of burin forms are present in the Wellington Bay assemblage, only three specimens were collected from subsurface contexts and can thus be tied to the earliest occupations of the site. These artifacts are small even for burins (mean 15.8mm x 11.3mm x 5.1mm, 1.11g), and significantly shorter than the average specimen recovered from Menez (mean 23.4mm). They are also heavily rejuvenated (8+ spalls), have expanding lateral margins and spurred bases. In general, these burins appear roughly made, thick for their length and thoroughly expended. In contrast, the burins from the late Pre-Dorset Menez site are larger and more consistent in form, having flat to rounded bases and parallel to slightly expanding margins. Most are of the classic ‘mitten’ shape and have rounded distal ends and bits. Similarly-shaped burins were also collected from surface deposits at Wellington Bay and thus we can infer short later-period occupations of that site. BA2 and BA5 have burin assemblages similar to Menez, with the former locus having a greater frequency of minimally-worked burin-on-flake specimens.

Surface preparation changes markedly as well. Bifacial flaking is more common and more complete in the later sites (BA5 & Menez) than in the earlier sites (BA2 & Wellington Bay). Perhaps of most interest is the increase in grinding on distal edges and adjacent ventral and dorsal surfaces throughout the Pre-Dorset period. No grinding is apparent on the early Wellington Bay specimens. Fifty-five percent (n = 19) of BA2 burins have indications of grinding, largely on the distal edge. Seventy percent (n = 7) of BA5 burins have grinding, which is also restricted to the distal end. Seventy-five percent (n = 30) of burins from Menez have been ground, and 36% of 100

Burin Spall Surficial Grinding Frequencies by Site

100% 1 3 90%

80%

70% 22 2 60% 16 All Flaked 50% 6 Part-Ground All Ground Frequency 40%

30% 19 20% 8 1 10% 1 0% Wellington Area 2 Area 5 Menez Site

Figure 5.6 - Complete burin spall surficial grinding frequency by site. those show significant grinding of the surfaces adjacent to the working and distal edges. The high degree of grinding on some of these specimens (e.g. #10-63a & #10-135) is reminiscent of the uniform flat surfaces one sees in Dorset Period burin-like tools.

Surprisingly, burin spalls do not tell the same story (Figure 5.6). Examining only complete burin spalls from subsurface contexts, eighty-eight percent of spalls from BA2 (n = 23) and Menez (n = 31) are ground, 33% (n = 1) of BA5 spalls are ground, and 100% (n = 2) of Wellington Bay spalls are ground. While the latter two sub-samples are too small to draw any meaningful inferences, the high percentage of ground spalls at BA2 is significantly different from the expected frequency based on the burin sample. Considering the variability in facet scar numbers observed on burin specimens from all sites (mean 4.0, range 10) and the potential for inconsistent recovery of these diminutive artifacts, burin spalls are an unreliable measure of the relative frequency of surficial treatment on burins. That being said, evidence from burin spalls is useful as an indicator of the presence of surface treatments and other burin characteristics.

Lastly, few clear trends in burin spall size are apparent (Figure 5.7 – Figure 5.9). Length, width, and thickness values vary considerably both between and within assemblages and do not show 101 Burin Spall Length by Site 30

10 Length (mm) Length Figure 5.7 - Burin spall length distributions by site assemblage. Box-plot shows median, one-sigma range and total range. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez (n = 10) (n = 31) (n = 4) (n = 46) Site Assemblage Burin Spall Width by Site 7.5

5.0

Width (mm) 2.5 Figure 5.8 - Burin spall width distributions by site assemblage. Box-plot shows median, one-sigma range and total range. 0.0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez (n = 10) (n = 31) (n = 4) (n = 46) Site Assemblage

Burin Spall Thickness by Site 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 Figure 5.9 - Burin spall thickness

Thickness (mm) Thickness 1.0 distributions by site assemblage. Box-plot 0.5 shows median, one-sigma range and total range. 0.0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez (n = 10) (n = 31) (n = 4) (n = 46) Site Assemblage 102 consistent increases or decreases through time. Burin spalls from the Menez assemblage exhibit a lower and tighter range of widths, statistically distinguishing them from the other samples (p < 0.05). Spall width reflects the parent burin’s thickness, which is consistent with the previously stated observation that mean burin thickness was lower in the Menez sample than for the Wellington Bay sample. Considering the known variability in burin shape and the inherent unpredictability of spall fracture mechanics, these results are not wholly unexpected. Increases in surficial grinding in later Pre-Dorset assemblages could be expected to limit variability in burin widths by regulating surface shape. The high proportion of ground burin spalls in the Menez sample combined with the tighter range of spall width values would appear to support such a scenario.

5.1.6 - Interpretations

The changes in burin manufacture and maintenance activities observed in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages reveal important shifts in Pre-Dorset technological organization and practice. One such change is observed in surficial preparation. Surficial preparation is minimal at first, limited to unifacial or incipiently bifacial flaking of the ventral and dorsal surfaces as seen in the Wellington Bay sample. Later, fully bifacial flaking becomes the norm, as at BA5, and is combined with marginal grinding of the distal surfaces. Surficial grinding on burins results in the regularization of surfaces, yielding uniform working edges and facilitating consistent spalling by removing irregularities. The use of unmodified ventral flake surfaces in the early Pre-Dorset assemblages indicates that the user was content to employ the bit and a single edge, thus necessitating minimal preparation of the burin flake blank. Bifacial surface flaking and grinding on burins in late Pre-Dorset assemblages provided two working edges in addition to the bit, immediately increasing the amount of edge available for use without changing implement size. Besides providing greater potential utility (see Section 8.1), these changes resulted in greater overall investment in tool manufacturing activities. The difference in time and effort required to unifacially and bifacially flake a burin preform are, for the most part, insignificant to an experienced knapper. Pressure flaking is quickly and accurately performed in only a few minutes. Grinding of chert, on the other hand, requires significantly more energy and time than flaking, even if the surface being ground is small. Furthermore, bifacial 103 flaking typically preceded grinding, likely as a means of minimizing the amount of material that had to be abraded. Thus, it can be concluded that grinding did not replace bifacial flaking as a means of burin surface shaping but was appended as an additional technique to the evolving production process. It permitted the smoothing of uneven edge margins, such as can be seen on numerous burin spalls that retain the uneven dorsal surfaces of their unifacially-prepared parent.

Changing bit forms are somewhat more enigmatic in their significance. While the intuitive explanation for bit form change would point towards changing functional needs/purposes, there is no reason to believe that the shape of the groove was important for hard-organic processing activities. Grooving and splitting of antler or bone yields blanks that are further processed and thus the shape of the cut blank edge is inconsequential. It seems more likely that the wide pointed and rounded forms of later burins were created with durability rather than groove shape in mind. Plano-convex tips would create asymmetrical grooves and be more easily fractured by the forces applied during graving than symmetrically pointed or rounded tips. Rounded and pointed tips create similarly shaped grooves and are more robust than plano-convex forms, making them a more durable graving implement. Burins with plano-convex tips may have been used primarily for planing and those with rounded or pointed tips were used for both planing and graving; usewear evidence somewhat supports this conclusion as bit crushing is rare on plano-convex tips. Flaking damage is present on burins of both types, however, and therefore this interpretation is suspect. Rounded tips are, by necessity, ground into shape and thus the proliferation of rounded tips in later Pre-Dorset sites at Iqaluktuuq is certainly related to the broader changes in chert-working techniques being used at this time. Thus, variation in burin bit form through time may not reflect functional differences at all and simply be a concomitant development of related grinding activities.

Hafting methods also appear to have changed slightly, although the evidence for this is largely circumstantial. The wide and irregular lateral margins of some burins, especially the earlier forms, would have required a different hafting arrangement than the parallel- or converging-based burins that dominate late Pre-Dorset assemblages. Gordon (1975:215) suggests a slotted haft for the latter type, which appears quite feasible based on my own experimentation. Split hafts have also been 104 proposed, examples of which have been recovered from the Saqqaq site Qeqertasussuq (Grǿnnow 1994:210 [Figure 11]). Burins could also be side-hafted to any suitably robust fragment of bone, antler or wood. Considering the variation in burin shape observed within the study assemblages, and in particular the lack of regularity in width and thickness, hafting methods were likely flexible and included a combination of arrangements as required. If this is the case then developments in hafting techniques are negligible except perhaps for a shifting preference for slotted hafts.

Neither burins nor spalls show any evidence of changing approaches to spall removal. Small platform size and the lack of pronounced bulbs of force indicate that spalls were removed via pressure rather than percussion. The proximal ends of spalls show no modification that could be attributed to pre-spalling preparation of the platform. Alignments of burin facets show no discernable patterning and can be explained as stochastic variation introduced during individual spall removals.

Damage and wear patterns evidence consistency in burin usage. Minor flaking of dorsal and ventral surfaces adjacent to the working edge is consistent with a planing mode of usage. Shearing of distal burin segments and cresting flake removals along the distal end provide evidence for a graving mode of use. Both forms of damage are evidenced in all Pre-Dorset burin and spall samples and from this it is concluded that mode of use remained the same throughout the period. Additional surficial evidence could supply more information regarding the angle and direction of motion during burin usage. Contra Gordon (1975), however, I do not believe that lateral surface striations on burins and spalls reflect angle of motion during use. The duration of use and repetition of motion required to generate parallel striations on a chert burin far exceed the use-life of any given working edge and, for that matter, any burin. It is more likely that the striations observed on burins and spalls represent surficial preparation (grinding) and are not usewear, per se.

The aforementioned trends speak primarily to changes in production process through time, rather than to use and rejuvenation. Techniques for defining and modifying edge shape both prior to and after spall removal are expanded throughout the Pre-Dorset period to include bifacial flaking and grinding. Despite these additions to the technique pool, the ordering of techniques remained largely 105 the same; blanks were flaked marginally into a form that suited the desired hafting arrangement and distal morphology for spalling. Blank selection criteria did not change appreciably, although this is difficult to state with complete certainty due to the thorough modification exhibited by some burins. Nevertheless, the presence of specimens in the late Pre-Dorset Menez assemblage that have the blank’s removal platform and unmodified ventral surfaces preserved indicates a relatively uniform practice of choosing large chert flakes for burin production. Chert remained the sole material deemed suitable for making burins. Surficial grinding was appended as a final treatment to abrade away irregularities that might affect the shape of the working edge. Spalling was then performed to create the initial working edge and subsequent edges at each rejuvenation episode. There is no clear evidence for the use of grinding as a rejuvenation method, yet it is reasonable to assume that minor flaking and crushing damage was occasionally rectified through abrasion rather than spalling.

The variation seen in overall shape, surficial preparation, facet alignment and other characteristics of burins in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages is a reflection of the case-specific contexts of manufacture, use and rejuvenation for individual tools. Proximal ends were shaped to varying degrees to fit extant hafts. Distal surfaces were ground in locations and to extents deemed prudent and appropriate to the anticipated mode(s) of use. Spall facet recession and twisting occurred according to the skill of the user, the form of the preceding facet and the character of the raw material. Edge damage was inadvertently caused during unique use events where applied force exceeded the tensile strength of the stone. Worn and damaged edges were reworked according to the perceived condition of the tool and its ability to meet present or anticipated needs. All of these factors contributed to the specific form of each specimen throughout its tenure in the active toolkit. Consequently, an assessment of change in burin technology via typological classification in this case is at best uninformative and at worst misleading. The co-occurrence of traits on which such types are based is not a product of intentioned design but rather the consequence of numerous technical actions executed in the course of tool manufacture, use and discard. Similarities in burin forms speak more to a shared suite of techniques and tool maintenance strategies than a diverse and specialized assortment of 106 bone and antler working tools.

5.2 - Burin-Like Tools (BLTs)

Burin-like tools are groundstone implements believed to have the same general function as burins, that of a graving and planing tool (Collins 1953:39). Larsen and Meldgaard (1958) postulated that they were a later incarnation of spalled burin technology, and this seems to be accurate. Like spalled burins, burin-like tools have a steep-angled edge suitable for planing or scraping, as well as a bit that serves as a graver. The primary difference between BLTs and burins is the extensive use of grinding to shape the tool’s surfaces. The flat, three-sided form of some early specimens led archaeologists to classify them as ‘boot creasers’, on account of their similarities to antler and bone implements of the same general shape (Bandi 1963:26). Several types of burin-like tools are recognized (see Maxwell 1973), and are distinguished by the shape of the bit and the alignment of ground surfaces and edges.

5.2.1 - Morphological Variability

Maxwell (1973) provides a typology of burin-like tools that defines types according to edge morphology and basal element shape. This typology suffers from the same disregard for tool use and retooling histories as discussed previously for burins; nevertheless, the nature of BLT rejuvenation (i.e. grinding) does not permit the same inference of use histories as spalling. Discrete evidence of specific rejuvenation events is not preserved on the tool and, consequently, original artifact form is subject to a good deal of conjecture. As a result, the following discussion of burin- like tools is restricted in its interpretive scope, particularly in regards to morphological variability.

Fourteen BLTs, including fragments, were identified from three sites at Iqaluktuuq: Ballantine (n = 9), Ferguson Lake (n = 2), and BA6 (n = 3). Complete specimens (n = 9) range in length from 16.0mm to 34.1mm (mean 21.9, sd 5.6), in width from 10.1mm to 17.6mm (mean 13.5, sd 2.7) and in thickness from 2.9mm to 6.6mm (mean 4.9, sd 1.2). Distal edge lengths on complete specimens and distal fragments average 9.0mm (sd 3.9). Fore edge lengths have a mean of 10.5mm (sd 2.6) and back edge lengths average 9.7mm (sd 5.1). Fore-tip angle ranges from 75 to 155 degrees 107 (median 92.5) and back-tip angle ranges from 75 to 150 degrees (median 120).

The burin-like tools from Iqaluktuuq are partially ground to varying degrees, primarily on the medial and distal portions of the dorsal and ventral surfaces and adjacent edges. All nine complete specimens are notched; seven are double notched (fore-back), one is single notched (fore), and one exhibits multiple bilateral notching (#1-479, 1 fore, 2 back). Bases are typically flat, although some specimens exhibit slight concavity or convexity, and are rarely ground to the same extent as on distal surfaces. Fore-faces are ground flat and perpendicular to the dorsal and ventral surfaces in all but one specimen (#1-1612), which is instead angled giving an acute fore-ventral angle and an obtuse fore-dorsal angle. Distal edges are ground and are either pointed (straight or convex) or flat. The overall shape of the burin-like tools from Iqaluktuuq conform to the “Dorset Burin-Like Tool” type described by Maxwell (1973). Back edges exhibit flaking and/or grinding, and the overall shape of the back edge varies considerably depending on the extent of modification. Three specimens exhibit an additional bevel between the distal edge and fore-face (Figure 5.10).

5.2.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance

The early stages of burin-like tool production processes can be difficult to discern because

Figure 5.10 - Examples of burin-like tools exhibiting an extra facet (indicated by arrow) between the fore-face and the distal tip. Specimen materials (left to right): silicified slate, nephrite and chalcedony. 108 grinding obliterates many diagnostic surface details. Specimens in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages, however, retain a high proportion of their flaked surfaces, especially along the back edge and base, and to a lesser extent on the dorsal and ventral faces. All chert specimens were flaked bifacially prior to grinding. The steep lateral edge and notching angles on most specimens suggest thick toolstone blanks, be they flakes or tabular fragments. One specimen made from silicified slate (#3- 132) has notches fashioned by grinding instead of flaking, which is not surprising considering the poor flaking qualities of that material. Both basal and lateral edges are typically ground but retain flake scar detail in most cases. Nephrite and slate have poor flaking properties and therefore would have had to be initially shaped by some other means.

After rough shaping, which likely included notching, the implement was ground on some abrasive surface. Grinding of the fore-face, a primary diagnostic characteristic of BLTs, and the distal edge is the most consistent evidence of surface treatment. The planar character of distal and facial surfaces indicates use of a relatively flat surface for grinding, and the polished appearance of many such surfaces indicates the abrasive was fine-grained; a tabular piece of sandstone or similar material would serve as an effective and portable grinding device. Flat-ground, tabular fragments of a fine-grained sedimentary stone with rounded edges were recovered from BA6 (#1-1813) and appear to be pieces of just such an instrument. Striations observed on polished BLT surfaces are oriented along the tool’s width, running from fore-face to back edge, revealing the direction of movement during grinding. Subsequent rejuvenation of the working edge and tip was presumably executed through grinding and would only involve flaking if catastrophic breakage occurred and required complete reshaping of the working surfaces. In most specimens (71%), dorsal and/or ventral surfaces adjacent to the fore-face are ground flat, creating a near-right angle; the remaining artifacts have irregular rounded surfaces.

Like burination, rejuvenation of BLTs – and likely some initial grinding as well - would have occurred while the tool was hafted. As a result, the orientation of the tool surfaces and the direction of grinding reflect gestural constraints imposed by the process; lateral movement of thetool provided a longer grinding stroke than a lengthwise movement because the haft would be in the way 109

Figure 5.11 - Inferred alignment of BLT surfaces during rejuvenation (grinding) based on facet alignment and surface striations on assemblage specimens: A) Profile of lateral surface grinding; B) Planview of lateral surface grinding - note direction of motion as indicated by arrows; C) Profile of fore-face grinding - same direction of motion as for lateral surface. Illustration credit: T. Alexandra Sumner 110 in the latter case (Figure 5.11). Also, the fore-face becomes progressively more oblique towards the back edge as it is ground down since the position of both the haft and the tool base interferes with the original vertical alignment when grinding. Consequently, the haft must be tilted upwards during grinding, creating an oblique fore-face. As this occurs, fore-tip angle becomes more obtuse, eventually requiring modification of the distal edge to regain a suitably acute working edge angle.

5.2.3 - Use Evidence

Burin-like tools are believed to be used in the same fashion as spalled burins, with the bit serving to gouge and grave, and the fore-edges used to plane the surfaces of hard organics like wood, antler and ivory. Evidence of use is therefore to be found on the bit and working edge(s) in the form of rounding and flaking. Rounding was observed on all but one BLT; however, it is difficult to distinguish use-related rounding from intentional production-related rounding without microscopic analysis. The sole unrounded specimen is a distal edge fragment made from nephrite that is interpreted as being sheared off during use in gouging. An additional four distal edge fragments that include the working bit were also identified as evidence of use-related damage from gouging. Unilateral flaking damage was observed on at least one specimen (#3-382).

5.2.4 - Materials

The aggregate BLT sample from Iqaluktuuq is dominated by cherts (white, grey, tan), but also includes a dark grey silicified slate, a tan chalcedony, and one small fragment of green nephrite. BA6 yielded the greatest variety of materials, which includes chert, chalcedony and slate. The Ferguson Lake assemblage contained only nephrite and chert, and Ballantine yielded only slate and chert specimens. Judging from the fracture surfaces of the slate and nephrite fragments, flaking of these materials would have been comparatively unpredictable, particularly in the latter case.

5.2.5 - Diachronic Trends

Since burin-like tools only appear in Dorset Period assemblages at Iqaluktuuq, we will have to be content with a comparison of the Early and Middle Dorset assemblages. Unfortunately, the low sample sizes for BA6 and Ferguson Lake also impede the elucidation of meaningful trends in 111

Tiered Portion

Ventral View Left Lateral View Dorsal View (Rotated left from ventral view)

Figure 5.12 - Burin-like tool (#1-1612) exhibiting ‘tiered’ grinding on the ventral surface. Directionality of grinding is evident in the alignment of striations on basal and distal portions. Note also that the basal grinding on the ventral surface is slightly concave, curving upwards towards both lateral margins. The distal portion of the burin-like tool is missing. form and manufacture. In most respects, BLT form remains quite similar throughout these periods, retaining many of the same tip shapes, notching types and basal treatment. Surficial grinding is slightly more complete on the BA6 artifacts, but this observation is likely biased by the low sample size. Multiple notching appears on only one Middle Dorset specimen at BA6 and therefore likewise cannot speak to the prevalence of this trait. ‘Tiered’ grinding of the chert specimen from BA6 (#1- 1612, Figure 5.12) is the only example present of this phenomenon in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. Surficial grinding adjacent to the working edges also shows no clear trend as unifacial and bifacial specimens are present in all assemblages. Both Early and Middle Dorset assemblages include materials with poor flaking properties. In sum, no clear trends in burin-like tool manufacture or form are evident during these periods. It is perhaps worth noting, however, that the Middle Dorset sample contains specimens with unusual characteristics that may prove to be significant technological developments given a larger sample.

5.2.6 - Interpretations

The development of the burin-like tool represents one of the most significant changes in Palaeo- Eskimo lithic technology at Iqaluktuuq up to the Middle Dorset period. This implement supplants 112 spalled burins as the primary hard-organics working tool. Functionally, there is no change; the BLT’s bit and edges were used for graving and planing in the same manner as spalled burins. The great innovation, however, is the replacement of spalling with grinding as the primary means of edge production and rejuvenation. Surficial grinding was commonplace in Pre-Dorset burin manufacture, but it is not until the Early Dorset period at Iqaluktuuq that grinding is applied extensively to surface shaping and integrated into edge rejuvenation processes. This innovation resulted in several important consequences. First, it permitted gradual, controlled removal of material that reduced wastage during rejuvenation. As detailed in Chapter 6, the reduction of lost material, both in the initial shaping of the tool and in subsequent rejuvenation episodes, meant that a greater number of rejuvenations could be performed, thereby extending the uselife of the tool. Second, the unpredictabilities of spalling mechanics were avoided, along with the accompanying loss in working edge length. The slow progress of grinding meant greater control over final edge and bit shape and the amount of force applied during the process remained sufficiently below a threshold beyond which accidental breakage might be caused.

Importantly, grinding drastically increased production and rejuvenation times. Whereas burin spalling required but a few seconds to execute, grinding required much more time and effort. No quantitative data are available for comparison of burin and burin-like tool sharpening times but, from my limited experience in grinding chert for experimental purposes, the latter would require a time investment several orders of magnitude greater than the former. One must question, however, if such a change would have significantly impacted technical activities beyond extending total work times. Would a Palaeo-Eskimo burin-like tool user think anything of spending thirty minutes or more to rejuvenate a dull tool in the middle of processing caribou antler blanks? Ethnographic and ethnoarchaeological accounts of northern populations (e.g. Brown 1967, Balikci 1970; Briggs 1970) suggest this kind of investment would unlikely have been prohibitive, provided it was not required on a frequent basis. Perhaps more prohibitive was the time required to initially produce this tool. Rough shaping conducted by flaking would require little more time than a spalled burin of the same size. Complete or near-complete grinding of the dorsal, ventral, fore-face and distal edge 113 surfaces, on the other hand, required multiple hours of grinding to achieve the desired uniformity. However, this investment of initial labour could reasonably be worked into a production schedule when convenient, tool breakage would have represented a much greater inconvenience in the BLT case than for burins. Consequently, I find it reasonable to assume that multiple burin-like tools would be kept on hand in anticipation of such a scenario.

As with burins, dulling and minor edge damage were dealt with by removing material inward from the fore-face/facet towards the back-face. The use of grinding as a rejuvenation method also permits material removal from other surfaces, what I have termed multi-axial rejuvenation. Thus a dulled or chipped fore-edge can be ground on the fore-face as well as the adjacent dorsal and ventral faces. Worn tips can likewise be reworked from the distal edge inward, towards the base. In comparison with the uniaxial rejuvenation of spalled burins, grinding provides greater flexibility in the rejuvenation process by allowing the user to remove unwanted material from specific surfaces in gradual increments. For instance, edge flaking damage typically caused during planing could be repaired via dorsal surface grinding rather than having to remove a large enough spall to extend beyond the damaged surface. In theory, such freedom was available to Pre-Dorset burin makers since grinding was in use for surface modification activities. However, the presence of flaking damage and rounding on burin spalls and the incomplete grinding of distal burin surfaces suggests such an approach was not used. Nevertheless, the possibility that multi-axial rejuvenation techniques were used by Pre-Dorset burin users can not be discounted entirely and deserves further examination.

Another advantage to the grinding-based burin-like tool production process is the accompanying increase in potential raw materials. Slate and nephrite were not used to make spalled burins because such materials do not fracture in a predictable and conchoidal manner and thus could not be burinated. As such, chert was the only material used for burin production and it continued to be used for burin-like tools. BLT production, however, does not require the same material flaking qualities as chert because the burination technique is no longer part of the rejuvenation process. Slate, nephrite and other non-isotropic or non-siliceous stones can be adequately formed by 114 grinding and therefore become viable materials for tool production.

There are two important perspectives to consider when characterizing technological change in burin-like tools. If one categorizes BLTs as being distinct from burins, there is little evidence to suggest significant change took place in this tool type in the Early and Middle Dorset periods at Iqaluktuuq. The types of BLTs found at Iqaluktuuq are confined to Maxwell’s (1973) ‘Dorset’ type and were likely hafted and used in a similar manner. When alternatively viewed as a derivative successor of the Pre-Dorset spalled burin, it becomes clear that fundamental changes took place in how these tools were created and maintained. Central to this is the integration of grinding techniques into edge production and rejuvenation processes, which changed the way tool maintenance took place and the ways in which raw materials were chosen. Judging from similarities in edge form, damage patterns and hafting evidence, tool function was largely unchanged. The changes in technical process that did occur were first manifested outside Iqaluktuuq region, likely before the Palaeo-Eskimo occupational hiatus from the region beginning around 900 calBC. When populations returned to Iqaluktuuq, spalled burins were no longer part of the toolkit and grinding had become an integral technique of tool manufacture and rejuvenation processes.

5.3 - Endblades

Endblades are a sub-category of bifaces, comprised of end-hafted stemmed or notched tools typically fitted into composite assemblies. Endblades are distinguished from knives, another sub- category of bifaces, by their use as piercing armatures for thusting or missile weaponry, such as arrows, lances and harpoons.

5.3.1 - Morphological Variability

Of all the formal tools present at Iqaluktuuq, endblades exhibit the most regularity in trait clustering. Basal elements can typically be characterized according to the presence or absence of notching and the concavity of the proximal end. Concave bases are present on 38% (n = 22) of all endblades (n = 58) and concavity ranges from negligible to 2.5mm (mean 1.1, sd 0.7). Notching is present on twelve endblade specimens: one from BA1, one from BA2, five from BA6, one from Ballantine 115 and four from Ferguson Lake. The sole specimen from BA2 was a surface find and is considered intrusive. Notch width on endblades varies from 3.8mm to 15.6mm (mean 8.3, sd 3.3) and depth ranges from 0.3mm to 3.9mm (mean 2.1, sd 0.9). All but one of the notched specimens (#1- 1087) is double-notched. Basal ears adjacent to notches along the proximal ends include pointed, rounded and squared forms. Lateral margins for all specimens vary widely in shape, from straight (#1-1560), to lanceolate (#1-18b), to convex (#1-T59). Bi-pointed endblades are represented by three specimens, two from Wellington Bay and one from BA5.

The most common groupings of traits (i.e. types; Figure 5.13) are:

1) concave base, convex sided and unnotched (n = 10) 2) concave base, lanceolate and unnotched (n = 7) 3) triangular with slight basal concavity (n = 9) 4) concave base, convex-sided and side-notched (n = 4) 5) flat base, straight-edged and side-notched (n = 4) 6) bi-pointed (n = 3) For the sake of simplicity in the following discussion, Types 1, 2 & 3 are referred to as ‘triangular’ endblades, Types 4 and 5 are referred to as ‘notched’ endblades, and Type 6 is referred to as ‘bi- pointed’ endblades.

Complete endblades (n = 27) vary in length from 13.7mm to 51.4mm (mean 26.4, sd 8.5), in width from 8.7mm to 33.0mm (mean 13.3, sd 5.4), and in thickness from 2.4mm to 7.3mm (mean 4.0, sd 1.3). Notched endblades are longer, wider and thicker than unnotched varieties on average (Figure 5.14 - Figure 5.16); however, variance in length and thickness are similar at the one sigma range. Width, on the other hand, exhibits less variance in unnotched forms.

Tip fluting is a special form of surface and edge modification that appears on a total of seven specimens from Iqaluktuuq, three from BA6 and four from Ferguson Lake. The process of tip fluting, described by Plumet and Lebel (1997) involves pressing flakes from the tip of an endblade along either side of a medial ridge. A distinct triangular-shaped flake is removed, creating sharp edges where the flute intersects the tool margins. Tip fluting is unifacial in the Iqaluktuuq sample, 116 6 4 5 3 1 2 Figure 5.13 - Generalized endblade types identified in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. 117

Triangular Endblade Length by Site 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 Figure 5.14 - Triangular endblade length Length (mm)Length 15 distributions by site assemblage. Box-plot 10 shows median, one-sigma range and total 5 range. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ferguson BA6 BA4 (n = 3) (n = 5) (n = 1) (n = 1) (n = 5) (n = 3) (n = 1) Site

Triangular Endblade Width by Site 35 30 25 20 15 Figure 5.15 - Triangular endblade width Width (mm) 10 distributions by site assemblage. Box-plot 5 shows median, one-sigma range and total range. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ferguson BA6 BA4 (n = 3) (n = 5) (n = 1) (n = 1) (n = 5) (n = 3) (n = 1) Site

Triangular Endblade Thickness by Site 6.5 6.0 5.5 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 Figure 5.16 - Triangular endblade 2.0 thickness distributions by site assemblage. Thickness (mm) Thickness 1.5 1.0 Box-plot shows median, one-sigma range 0.5 and total range. 0.0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ferguson BA6 BA4 (n = 3) (n = 5) (n = 1) (n = 1) (n = 5) (n = 3) (n = 1) Site 118

Notched Endblade Length by Site 50

20 Figure 5.17 - Notched endblade length Length (mm)Length distributions by site assemblage. Box-plot 10 shows median, one-sigma range and total range. 0 BA2 Ferguson BA6 BA1 (n = 1) (n = 3) (n = 4) (n = 1) Site

Notched Endblade Width by Site 27.5 25.0 22.5 20.0 17.5 Figure 5.18 - Notched endblade width Width (mm) 15.0 distributions by site assemblage. Box-plot shows median, one-sigma range and total 12.5 range. 10.0 BA2 Ferguson BA6 BA1 (n = 1) (n = 3) (n = 4) (n = 1) Site

Notched Endblade Thickness by Site 7.5 7.0 6.5 6.0 5.5 Figure 5.19 - Notched endblade thickness 5.0 distributions by site assemblage. Box-plot Thickness (mm) Thickness shows median, one-sigma range and total 4.5 range. 4.0 BA2 Ferguson BA6 BA1 (n = 1) (n = 3) (n = 4) (n = 1) Site 119 with the exception of a single specimen from BA6 that exhibits bifacial fluting. Dorsal and ventral fluting are represented in both assemblages without apparent preference.

A final trait worth mentioning is the distinct curvature of some triangular and notched endblades from BA6 and BA1. The ventral surface of these specimens curve upwards towards their distal end (Figure 5.20), giving the entire artifact a bent appearance in profile view. This morphology is distinct from the biconvex (ventral-dorsal) profile of triangular endblades recovered from Ferguson Lake. Also of note, the sole endblade specimen recovered from the surface of BA1 exhibits a very pronounced ventral curvature, as well as an unusual squared base more typical of transitional period Groswater Dorset specimens (Fitzhugh 1972).

5.3.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance

Endblade manufacture was performed through pressure-flaking of small flake blanks. Extensive surficial retouch has obliterated most evidence of blank form, yet it is clear from the width and

Dorsal View Right Profile View

Figure 5.20 - Examples of triangular endblades exhibiting upcurving of the ventral surface. The dotted line indicates the feature of interest. 120 thickness of the specimens that microblades were not employed for this purpose. Thin endblade profiles, especially on triangular specimens, suggest that correspondingly thin flakes and/or flake fragments were selected for reduction. All specimens are bifacially worked, many with fine perpendicular, high-invasiveness flaking. Flaking patterning reveals that marginal shaping was performed first, followed by basal shaping and thinning. Notching and tip fluting were likely performed last; however, flaking scars from subsequent rejuvenation and retooling activities makes it difficult to precisely reconstruct sequences of flaking events. Intuitively, basal shaping would be performed with the haft/mounting on hand to ensure proper interface of the endblade base and the abutting surface.

Details regarding dorsal morphology immediately prior to tip fluting are unavailable for the Iqaluktuuq assemblage as no diagnostic fluting flakes have been identified. Such flakes are quite distinct and thus it is unlikely that any are present in these assemblages. Keeping in mind that excavated matrix was screened through 3mm wire mesh, fluting flakes could conceivably pass through the mesh and avoid collection. Alternatively, fluting may have taken place off-site and therefore not be present for collection. In either case, nothing regarding the morphology of the flake scars or the shape of the endblade tip suggests a production process different from those described elsewhere (i.e. Plumet & Lebel 1997).

5.3.3 - Use Evidence

Evidence for endblade use is provided by three phenomena: snap fractures, edge scaling and impact fluting. Endblade breakage typically results in the loss of the distal portion of the tool, the proximal end being retained in the mounting/haft. Not surprisingly, proximal fragments are the more common (n = 17) than distal fragments (n = 5) in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. Basal ear loss is noted on five specimens. Scaling is generated by pressure applied to the endblade margin that is insufficient to produce full flake removal, resulting in (semi-)continuous step- and hinge- terminated flaking. Five endblades (8%) show evidence of scaling on one or both lateral margins and this is considered to be use-related damage rather than the result of rejuvenation; however, the nature of the scaling gives no indication as to the motion of use. Impact fluting (Dockall 121 1997) appears on two endblades (3%), which is consistent with damage sustained through use as a thrusting armature.

5.3.4 - Materials

The majority of endblades are made from cherts of various colours, including white, grey, tan, brown, pink, red and combinations in banded and mottled varieties. Two distinctive materials are represented: a banded red-pink chert distal fragment and a ‘moth’ chert side-notched endblade. One medial fragment is made from translucent vein quartz (#7-59) and four specimens are made from orange quartzite.

5.3.5 - Diachronic Trends

A summary of endblade type frequencies is presented in Table 5.1. Bi-pointed endblades have been reported in early ASTt assemblages (Irving 1964) and are to be expected in early Pre-Dorset assemblages. The two specimens recovered from Wellington Bay are therefore consistent with the early date proposed for this site; however, the bi-pointed endblade recovered from BA5 is seemingly anomalous given the assemblage is believed to be of mid- to late Pre-Dorset origin. The concave-based, convex-sided and lanceolate endblades (Types 1 & 2) are most common in the Pre- Dorset sites at Iqaluktuuq, comprising at least 50% of all Pre-Dorset samples while comprising only a single specimen in the aggregate Dorset sample (BA6). Conversely, notched forms are found exclusively in Dorset Period sites. Triangular (Type 3) endblades account for just less than 50% of the endblades from Ferguson Lake and 23% of BA6 endblades and thus are exclusively associated with Dorset Period sites. In general, concave bases and convex margins dominate in the Pre-Dorset samples and diminish somewhat in the Dorset Period, with an increase in flat bases, straight margins, and notched bases. Both tip fluting and unifacial ventral curvature are exclusively present on endblades from Dorset period sites.

Cherts are used to produce the majority of endblades at all sites. Quartzite comprises 28% of the Wellington Bay sample (n = 2), 10% of the Menez sample (n = 1) and 25% of the BA5 sample (n = 1), restricting its use to Pre-Dorset contexts. The sole vein quartz artifact was likewise recovered 122 from Wellington Bay, an early Pre-Dorset site. Therefore, the predominant trend of material use at Iqaluktuuq for endblade production is a shift away from the use of non-chert materials.

Sample Period Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4 Type 5 Type 6 Indeterm Wellington Bay PD 4 1 0 0 1 2 0 BA2 PD 2 3 0 0 0 0 4 BA5 PD 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Menez PD 5 1 0 0 0 0 6 Ballantine ED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ferguson Lake ED 0 0 5 2 1 0 3 BA6 MD 0 1 3 3 2 0 5 BA1 UNK 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 BA4 UNK 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL PD 12 6 0 0 1 2 11 TOTAL ED 0 0 5 2 0 0 3 TOTAL MD 0 1 3 3 2 0 5 Table 5.1 - Summary of endblade type frequencies by site assemblage. PD = Pre-Dorset ED = Early Dorset MD = Middle Dorset UNK = Unknown temporal affiliation. 5.3.6 - Interpretations

Morphological differences in Pre-Dorset and Dorset endblade assemblages signal changes in production processes and hafting methods. The primary functional role of these tools was as armatures for piercing weaponry, such as harpoons, spears and lances. As such, they were end- hafted to shafts or harpoon heads. Pre-Dorset endblades usually exhibit thinned concave bases, indicating that they were inserted into tapering split slots, likely abutting a rounded surface at the proximal end. The bi-pointed specimens could have been affixed using a slotted or split arrangement. Considering their small size, margin shape and basal thinning, the trianguloid Pre- Dorset endblades from Iqaluktuuq are probably harpoon endblades. Unfortunately, no harpoon heads have been recovered from the Pre-Dorset components at Iqaluktuuq and therefore it is not possible to compare hafting slots with endblades for this period. Aside from the disappearance of bi-pointed endblades by the time Menez was occupied, there are no evident changes to endblade production in the Pre-Dorset period.

The similarly-shaped triangular endblades in the Dorset assemblages are also interpreted as being 123 for harpoon heads. In this case, slotted harpoon heads were preserved and interfaced nicely with the endblades. Basal margins are less concave than in the Pre-Dorset sample and are thus presumed to have abutted a less curved surface in the haft. Indeed, the endblade slots on harpoon heads in the associated organic artifact assemblages have flat or slightly convex bases. While all chert endblades are bifacially pressure-flaked from thin flake blanks, some Dorset specimens exhibit evidence of a technique that is absent from the Pre-Dorset repertoire. Tip fluting is present on Early and Middle Dorset endblades only, indicating that the technique was developed after the abandonment of Iqaluktuuq and, in all likelihood, prior to Palaeo-Eskimo reoccupation of the region. Fluted tips are sharper than unfluted ones, but it is not possible at this time to evaluate the relative importance of this characteristic. Regardless of its functional consequences, the presence of fluted tips on endblades reflects an expansion of production techniques.

The curvature of some Dorset period endblades is also worthy of note because it is clear from the flaking patterns on the curved surface – termed the ventral surface here – that the flake blank had this curvature prior to bifacial reduction. This implies that the collection of blank selection criteria in the production process was appended to include curved flakes as suitable for acquisition and tool production. What significance this had for endblade function is unclear; curved endblades may have been used exclusively for specific prey or were perceived as more efficacious in some application than non-curved endblades by some users. Endblade curvature may be correlated with harpoon head curvature, but I have insufficient data at present to verify if this is the case.

Side-notched endblades are an entirely new tool form that appears in the Early Dorset period at Iqaluktuuq. Besides having a different hafting arrangement than the thinner triangular specimens, these armatures have thicker cross-sections that do not fit harpoon head slots. A split-haft arrangement on a shaft sharing approximately the same width seems logical and would suggest use as a small spear. Maxwell (1985) classifies these endblades either as knives or arrow tips. It seems unlikely that the larger, thicker side-notched endblades would be used as arrow tips rather than the lighter triangular specimens. I find the knife explanation plausible but not especially convincing on account of the limited rejuvenation potential and thus use-life of such a tool, although one 124 asymmetrical specimen (#1-1478) would certainly qualify. A throwing-dart technology is another possibility that Maxwell suggests for Pre-Dorset triangular endblades at the Umingmak and Igloolik sites (1985:87) which may also apply here. Thus far, the organic material culture assemblages provide no evidence to support such a possibility. At present I can provide no explanation of what role(s) this tool filled in the post-transition Palaeo-Eskimo toolkit. Nonetheless, the production of side-notched endblades required its own technical process that included many of the same techniques used to make triangular endblades. Notable differences are evident in blank selection criteria, a notching sub-process, and the absence of a fluting sub-process.

Large triangular endblades made of quartzite have been interpreted as lance blades. Maxwell states (1985:138) that no significant changes to lance foreshafts are evident through the Palaeo- Eskimo period; lances were either self-bladed or lithic blades were secured in slots at the distal end. Aside from differences in blank size selection criteria and material type, two factors that are unquestionably related (see Section 8.3), the production process for lance blades was the same as for smaller triangular armaments.

With the integration of grinding techniques into other tool production processes, its application to endblade production does not come as a surprise. However, grinding is only applied to Early and Middle Dorset slate endblades and does not appear on chert or quartzite specimens. The planar character of slate lends itself well to endblade production; fragments can be approximately cut, snapped or roughly flaked to the desired size and shape without extensive thinning and then sharpened by grinding. This process would have provided simple triangular endblades of suitable thickness more easily than by chipped stone methods but would also require a good deal of time. It is debatable whether slate endblades would be more or less robust than chert or quartzite endblades. Considering the drastically different production process for slate endblades in comparison to flaked stone variants, it is reasonable to classify these tools as an innovation deserving of its own typological category despite having a shared functional role. From the technological perspective taken here, ground slate endblades represent a distinct production process sufficiently different from other endblade manufacturing processes to warrant separate classification. 125 Part of the difficulty in characterizing the significance of changing endblade form and production processes is that these implements are but one piece of a complex composite tool. Harpoons in particular integrate multiple elements that serve specific functions during the use of the whole assembly. Endblades simply provide a sharp edge to allow an implement to penetrate prey. While slight changes may be evident in how an endblade is mounted or the tip is shaped, these modifications do not necessarily reflect other changes in the composite assembly that could have impacted how the armature functioned. For instance, a shift from a fixed to detachable foreshaft system in a harpoon assembly would not necessarily be reflected in the design of the harpoon head endblade.

5.4 - Knives (Flaked)

Flaked knives are a sub-category of bifaces, comprised of end-hafted stemmed or notched tools typically fitted into composite assemblies. Knives are distinguished from endblades, another sub- category of bifaces, by their use as lateral-edged cutting implements. For the purpose of this study, knives are defined as bifaces with low edge angles, typically less than 45 degrees, and having some kind of hafting feature. Biface fragments with forms consistent with knife fragments were also included in this category. These criteria, of course, present problems for reliably and objectively identifying fragments of knives lacking hafting features and also exclude non-bifacial objects that may have been used in a knife-like manner.

5.4.1 - Morphological Variability

Flaked stone knives and fragments thereof (n = 154) are found in all of the assemblages included in this study and can be divided into two categories based on raw material type: quartzite (Figure 5.21 - Figure 5.23) and chert (Figure 5.24 - Figure 5.26). Chert knives range in length from 11.3 to 54.5mm (mean 24.7, sd 9.7) in width from 7.9 to 21.6mm (mean 14.2, sd 3.3), in thickness from 2.1 to 7.1mm (mean 4.3, sd 1.1) and in weight from 5.8 to 0.3g (mean 1.7, sd 1.1). Median edge angle for chert knife specimens, including fragments, is 35 degrees (sd 9.4). Quartzite knives and fragments are distinctly larger than chert specimens, ranging in length from 8.2 to 111.6mm (mean 30.5, sd 17.0), in width from 8.1 to 47.6mm (mean 20.9, sd 6.1), in thickness from 2.8 to 20.4mm 126

Quartzite Knife Specimen Length by Site Assemblage 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 Length (mm)Length 30 20 Figure 5.21 - Length value distributions of 10 quartzite knife specimens by site assemblage. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ferguson BA6 BA4 (n = 17) (n = 47) (n = 24) (n = 12) (n = 1) (n = 3) (n = 2) Site Assemblage

Quartzite Knife Specimen Width by Site Assemblage 50

20 Width (mm)

10 Figure 5.22 - Width value distributions of quartzite knife specimens by site assemblage. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ferguson BA6 BA4 (n = 17) (n = 47) (n = 24) (n = 12) (n = 1) (n = 3) (n = 2) Site Assemblage

Quartzite Knife Specimen Thickness by Site Assemblage 25

10 Thickness (mm) Thickness 5 Figure 5.23 - Thickness value distributions of quartzite knife specimens by site assemblage. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ferguson BA6 BA4 (n = 17) (n = 47) (n = 24) (n = 12) (n = 1) (n = 3) (n = 2) Site Assemblage 127

Chert Knife Specimen Length by Site Assemblage 60

Length (mm) 20

10 Figure 5.24 - Length value distributions of chert knife specimens by site assemblage. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ballantine Ferguson BA6 (n = 4) (n = 17) (n = 3) (n = 11) (n = 4) (n = 2) (n = 7) Site Assemblage

Chert Knife Specimen Width by Site Assemblage 25

10 Width (mm)

5 Figure 5.25 - Width value distributions of chert knife specimens by site assemblage. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ballantine Ferguson BA6 (n = 4) (n = 17) (n = 3) (n = 11) (n = 4) (n = 2) (n = 7) Site Assemblage

Chert Knife Specimen Thickness by Site Assemblage 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 Figure 5.26 - Thickness value distributions Thickness (mm) Thickness 2 of chert knife specimens by site 1 assemblage. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ballantine Ferguson BA6 (n = 4) (n = 17) (n = 3) (n = 11) (n = 4) (n = 2) (n = 7) Site Assemblage 128 (mean 6.1, sd 2.5) and in weight from 0.5 to 96g (mean 6.3, sd 12.9). The median edge angle of quartzite knives is the same as chert specimens: 35 degrees.

The forms of complete knife specimens in plan view fall into two categories: lanceolate and broad- bladed (see Appendix B, Plate B.13). Lanceolate knives (n = 127) have bases measuring wider than the rejuvenated blade portion, which can be either straight or curved. When straight, the blade tends to taper distally and has one edge that curves towards the other near the tip, giving the distal portion a plano-convex appearance. The base of lanceolate knives tends to be rounded but can also be pointed or irregular. In contrast, broad-bladed knives (n = 19) have bases that are less wide than their blades, which tend to have one distinctly convex lateral margin. This category also includes symmetrical stemmed knives and asymmetrical knives such as those described by Maxwell (1985:226), Linnamae (1975:226 Figure 15), and Schledermann (1990:304).

Breaking down the aggregate fragment sample, proximal fragments appear in the highest frequencies at 41% (n = 56). Medial and distal fragments have frequencies of 32% (n = 44) and 27% (n = 37), respectively. When the sample is separated by temporal period, the vast majority of fragments are from Pre-Dorset assemblages (90%, n = 123), while Early Dorset fragments account for 4% of the sample (n = 5) and Middle Dorset fragments account for 6% of the sample (n = 7). Within the Pre- Dorset sample, 42% (n = 52) are proximal fragments, 34% (n = 42) are medial fragments, and 24% (n = 29) are distal fragments. The Early Dorset sample (n = 5)contains primarily distal fragments (n = 4) and a single proximal fragment, and the Middle Dorset sample exhibits similar frequencies of proximal (29%, n = 2), medial (29%, n = 2), and distal fragments (43%, n = 3).

Seven knives show evidence of notching; five are made from chert and two are made from quartzite. For the chert specimens, notch width averages 7.9mm (sd 2.2), notch depth averages 1.6mm (sd 0.3mm) and inter-notch width averages 11.4mm (sd 3.1). Notching on the two quartzite knife fragments is very slight and therefore both width and depth could not be effectively measured. Inter-notch width averages 16.7mm (sd 6.2). While notching tends to be bilateral, some specimens exhibit pronounced notching on one side and only minor modification on the opposite side where the existing concave form of the tools edge sufficed (e.g. #1-182). One ovate stemmed chert 129

Dorsal View Right Lateral View Ventral View

Figure 5.27 - An example of a broken quartzite knife preform.

Figure 5.28 - Examples of shouldering above the basal element on lanceolate knives. This feature is created by the progressive retouching of the blade while the basal element remains unmodified. 130 specimen from BA6 (#1-1168) exhibits a finely-flaked basal stem with bilateral notching and a concave basal margin.

5.4.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance

Lanceolate and broad-bladed knives were created by slightly different production processes. Lanceolate knives were produced from relatively large pieces of toolstone that were bifacially worked into a long preform approximating the shape of the intended tool. An example of a broken knife preform made from quartzite is presented in Figure 5.27. The preform was then bifacially thinned on all margins until it achieved the desired width and edge thickness and was subsequently pressure-flaked perpendicular to the tool edge. Proximal edges were ground in preparation for hafting, although the size of the lanceolate knives was sufficient for manipulation without a haft. Rejuvenation of dulled edges was performed by retouching the blade margin via pressure-flaking while the tool remained in the haft as indicated by the shouldering of the proximal segment (Figure 5.28). This reconstruction of the lanceolate knife production process is based largely on the quartzite knife industry; no chert preforms, complete or fragmentary, were recovered from the study assemblages.

The thinness and irregular shape of broad-bladed knife margins suggests that these tools were produced from large flake blanks. As in the production of lanceolate knives, the blank was bifacially flaked but there is no evidence that a bifacial preform was created or that thinning was necessary. Margins were pressure-flaked to create uniform edges, occasionally leaving a small portion of the proximal edge unmodified, presumably to facilitate hafting. Flaking invasiveness is lower in these specimens than in the more extensively worked lanceolate specimens. Edge rejuvenation was limited to marginal retouching.

5.4.3 - Use evidence

Proximal edge treatment and tool margin shape suggest that both lanceolate and broad-bladed knives were hafted prior to use and remained hafted throughout their use-lives, including during rejuvenation. A split-haft arrangement would be suitable for hafting knives of both types. 131 These artifacts are presumed to be cutting/slicing tools based on their low edge angles and long retouched edges. Precisely what materials were processed with these tools is unclear; soft animal tissues including skins, meat, sinew and blubber are likely possibilities considering the limited robusticity of Palaeo-Eskimo flaked knives. Furthermore, it is possible that broad-bladed and lanceolate knives were employed in different activities. Residue and use-wear analyses may help to resolve this issue. Breakage in lanceolate knives tends to occur as a snap fracture distal to the thicker proximal end. Curvature of the fracture surface indicates that pressure applied during knife breakage was directed edge-on in many cases, which is consistent with use as a cutting implement. Fracture surfaces also indicate snap and torque breaks, which are more ambiguous in regards to tool use but could also result from cutting activities. 5.4.4 - Materials

Knives in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages are made from a variety of coloured cherts and from locally available quartzite. The source of the cherts is unknown but the sample includes distinct varieties that are almost certainly from non-local sources (e.g. #1-255). Quartzite knives (n = 106) are more common than chert knives (n = 48), although this is likely a result of local material availability rather than any particular preference for quartzite. No knife specimens were made from moth chert.

5.4.5 - Diachronic Trends

Knives and knife fragments comprise between 14.6% (Menez) and 33.7% (BA5) of Pre-Dorset assemblages by count (mean 24.7) and only between 10% and 18.3% of Early and Middle Dorset assemblages (mean 15.0), suggesting an overall decrease in knife production and/or use in the Dorset period. Focusing exclusively on complete specimens, the Pre-Dorset assemblages contain only ten knives, half of which are made from chert and half from quartzite. Dorset assemblages contain only five complete knives, three are made from chert and two from quartzite. These small sample sizes make it difficult to infer robust trends in knife production or material use. There does not appear to be a trend in lanceolate and broad-blade knife production; both forms appear in Pre-Dorset and Dorset assemblages, with broad-bladed knives appearing in significantly lower frequencies than lanceolate knives in Pre-Dorset and Middle Dorset assemblages. The Early Dorset 132 Frequency of Knife Types by Material Type and Period 1 1 0.9

0.8 92 26 0.7

0.6 4 2 PD 0.5 ED 2 2 MD

Frequency 0.4 0.3 2 0.2

0.1 4 11 0 Lanceolate Broad Lanceolate Broad

Chert Quartzite Material and Knife Type Figure 5.29 - Knife type frequencies categorized by material type and temporal period. PD - Pre-Dorset; ED = Early Dorset; MD = Middle Dorset knife sample is too small to reveal significant trends.

As stated above, quartzite knives tend to be wider and thicker than chert knives. Accordingly, Dorset knives, which tend to be made from chert, are smaller on average than Pre-Dorset knives. Thus, there seems to be a trend towards the production of smaller knives throughout the Palaeo- Eskimo period even if this trend can reasonable be explained by material choice rather than functional concerns. Edge angle does not differ significantly between periods, further suggesting function did not change in any significant way.

5.4.6 - Interpretations

Differences in bifacial knife size between Pre-Dorset and Dorset assemblages are unquestionably related to material choice. Complete Pre-Dorset quartzite knives are larger than complete Dorset chert specimens in overall length and width. Also, quartzite knife fragments are wider and thicker on average than chert knives. This observation is consistent with a disparity in raw material sizes; quartzite is present at Iqaluktuuq in large tabular pieces each capable of yielding sufficient material 133 to produce multiple large knives. I am unaware of any comparable source of chert in either cobble or tablet form that would have been readily accessible to Palaeo-Eskimo populations on southern Victoria Island. The smaller size of Dorset knives can therefore be explained in part as a reflection of smaller chert fragment size. This is further supported by the similarity in size of Pre-Dorset and Dorset chert knives, which are presumed to have been produced from the same pool of available chert sources.

Despite the correlation between raw material size and tool size, one cannot ignore the possibility that the larger quartzite knives were employed in different activities than the chert knives. Perhaps the selection of a ubiquitous, large raw material was motivated by the need to perform a task requiring larger knives. Alternatively, the same task – intensive caribou processing perhaps – may have been specific to this locale and the knives were only required during that particular seasonal camp. In this scenario it would be prudent to make use of the local quartzite to conserve ones existing tools and other raw materials. Unfortunately, edge angle alone provides no clues as to how chert and quartzite knives were used differently, if at all.

The introduction of ground slate knives represented an important innovation in the Dorset period. It is therefore regrettable that too few fragments of this tool type were recovered to comment on their form and related production activities. Their existence alone indicates a diversification of production processes and techniques in line with those noted for endblades and burin-like tools. Slate provides some advantages over cherts and quartzite in knife production, most notably the time and material saved by its naturally thin tabular form. Edges must be ground, but the softness of slate expedites the process. Greater consistency in edge shape and lower edge angles are theoretically possible with slate, but no quantitative data are available from Iqaluktuuq to substantiate this. Furthermore, it is unclear whether slate knives were produced to satisfy a specific functional role in the Palaeo-Eskimo toolkit. Maxwell (1985:142) suggests that slate knives are ideal for separating blubber from skin, which points to one potential explanation: slate knives were developed in association with the Dorset maritime adaptation as specialized sea mammal processing equipment. This would by no means exclude such tools from use in other contexts 134 but might in part explain the increased frequency of slate tools in the Dorset assemblages. The relative paucity of slate knives and fragments thereof in the study assemblages might therefore be a reflection of the subsistence focus on caribou and fish, rather than seal.

5.5.0 - Microblades and Microblade Cores

5.5.1 - Morphological Variability

Few microblade core specimens have been recovered and less than half can be termed complete, that is, having forms suggestive of use and/or exhaustion prior to discard. Removal faces or platforms that appear to have been removed from a core as a rejuvenatory method are here

classified as fragments. Twenty-one cores and core fragments were recovered from Iqaluktuuq in total: two from BA2, four from BA5, ten from BA6, three from Ballantine and two from Menez. The complete specimens total ten artifacts and range in standardized volume from 2.1cm3 (20.9 x 10.4 x 9.7mm) to 72.6cm3 (54.2 x 24.5 x 54.4mm). Figure 5.30 shows the distribution of complete specimen volumes, all of which are made from light to fine-grained cherts that vary widely in colour (Figure 5.31). Core forms range from wedge- and boat-shaped (#1-1363; #1-1669) to cuboid (#3-155) to amorphous multidirectional (#1-1828). Removal platforms are typically flat or concave in form and have no surficial modification except immediately adjacent to the platform edge. This modification can include low invasiveness flaking, crushing and light grinding. No more than two distinct platforms were identified on any specimen; however, some cores exhibited multidirectional parallel flaking that indicates the previous existence of platforms having different orientations than those evidenced by the core’s present form. Hinge terminations appear frequently on the removal faces of core fragments and are also present on some complete specimens. The angle of removal faces varies from near 90 degrees in the cuboid specimens to approximately 50 degrees (approx. mean 65 degrees) in the wedge-shaped specimens. Larger specimens, especially wedge-like forms, exhibit minimal or no flaking of the surfaces laterally adjacent to the removal surface(s).

These observations are almost completely in line with the observations made by Owen (1988) in her survey of Arctic microblade technology. Owen (1988: 184-185) reports that Palaeo-Eskimo 135 Complete Microblade Core Volume by Site Assemblage and Period 80

60 ) 3 50 BA5 Ballantine 40 Ferguson 30 BA6 Volume (cm 20

0 Pre-Dorset Early Dorset Middle Dorset

Period Figure 5.30 - Complete microblade core volume distributions by site and period.

Figure 5.31 - A sample of chert microblade core material varieties from Iqaluktuuq 136 microblade cores from Pre-Dorset and transitional period assemblages tend to be wedge-shaped, cuboid, semi-cylindrical or amorphous in shape, have battered and ground platform edges that extend onto the fluted removal surface, unmodified simple platforms and platform angles of between 55 and 95 degrees. She further states that core morphology and production/preparation techniques diversify in the transitional period and this pattern continues into and through the Dorset period. The limited sample size in the present study precludes comparison with this second observation, but my sense is that the Dorset cores exhibit greater variation in shape and arrangement.

The morphological criteria used to identify microblades for this study are a length-to-width ratio greater than two, parallel longitudinal flaking and parallel lateral margins. Nevertheless, identification of microblade fragments and non-parallel flaking on primary and secondary microblades necessarily introduces a certain degree of subjectivity into the process. Ideally, all flakes removed from the platform of a microblade core across the prepared removal surface should qualify as microblades; unfortunately, this is difficult to determine based on morphological qualities alone. Consequently, it is possible that some microblade fragments have been excluded while flakes of suitable form and character but not produced from microblade cores have been inadvertently included.

The shape and size of microblades recovered from Iqaluktuuq do not differ appreciably between sites. Figure 5.32 and Figure 5.33 show scatter-plots of microblade length-to-width and width-to- thickness ratios, demonstrating the considerable overlap of microblade sizes. Assuming uniform proficiency in flake detachment, microblade length is largely a function of core surface length. Thus, the lengths of complete microblades provides a rough measure of core surface lengths at the time of detachment. Average microblade length for all specimens is 23.7mm (sd 5.1), and the variation observed between site assemblages is minimal. Widths and thicknesses likewise vary little for the assemblage as a whole and between sites. These values correspond well to the widths and thicknesses reported by Owen (1988:Appendix B6) for the Tyara, Tikilik, Umingmak and Gull Cliff assemblages.

Microblade platform morphologies include several configurations: flat, simple concave, simple 137 BA2 BA5 Menez Ferguson Ballantine BA6 BA1 ellow = Middle Dorset; White = Uncertain ellow = Middle Dorset; Y Width(mm) Microblade (W/L) Distributions by Site Assemblage Shape 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

5 0

45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 Length (mm) Length Figure 5.32 - Microblade size distributions (width/length) by site assemblage. Red = Pre-Dorset; Blue Early Dorset; Temporal Affiliation. Temporal 138 BA2 BA5 Menez Ferguson Ballantine BA6 BA1 ellow = Middle Dorset; White = ellow = Middle Dorset; Y Width (mm) Width Microblade (W/T) Distributions by Site Assemblage Shape 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Thickness (mm) Thickness Figure 5.33 - Microblade size distributions (width/thickness) by site assemblage. Red = Pre-Dorset; Blue Early Dorset; Uncertain Temporal Affiliation. Temporal Uncertain 139 convex, ground convex, and faceted convex. Lateral margins are typically near parallel and often exhibit some contraction near the distal end. Irregular margins are common on primary and secondary microblades where the lateral edges are defined by the cortical and/or transversely flaked surface of the core. Dorsal scar counts range from one to nine per microblade; however, higher counts (above 5) are often associated with primary and secondary microblades or microblades with distal portions that have extended beyond the prepared removal surface (i.e. overshot). Cortex appears on 7% of all microblades, and 50% of these cortex-bearing specimens are primary or secondary microblades. Termination forms include feathered (56%), abrupt (20%), overshot/ overpassing (7%), hinge (5%), step (5%) and irregular/unclassified (7%). Incidentally, the steep character of abrupt terminations provides a useful indication of the distal shape of microblade cores, further supporting the observation that the latter have a pronounced keel.

Modification of microblades after detachment is restricted to retouch of proximal-lateral margins. Proximal-lateral retouch is present on 83 specimens, or 25% of the aggregate Iqaluktuuq assemblage, and examples can be found in all sites/loci albeit in differing proportions (see below). Retouch patterning is 49% alternate (14% left-ventral, 25% right-ventral, 10% unspecified), 29% bilateral unifacial (20% dorsal, 2% ventral, 7% unspecified), 7% unilateral dorsal, 7% unilateral ventral, and a single specimen (1%) exhibits bilateral bifacial retouch. Figure 5.34 shows the distribution of microblade proximal widths at the point of retouch; there is no significant difference in the mean width of retouched promimal ends (p > 0.05).

5.5.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance

The paucity of complete microblade cores somewhat inhibits attempts to reconstruct the production process for this artifact type. Despite this, the few cores that are present, as well as core fragments and microblades, provide sufficient information to create a basic outline that follows very closely the process described by Odell (2004:94-95). Rounded cobbles and tabular fragments of toolstone were procured for core manufacture, and the unmodified surfaces present on some specimens indicates that the stone was not extensively shaped by bifacial flaking, for example, in the Dry Creek Denali or Kelly Creek assemblages (Ackerman 2007). Instead, flaking was largely limited 140

Microblade Retouched Proximal Width by Site 10 9 8 7 6 5 4

Width (mm) 3 2 1 0 BA2 BA5 Ballantine Ferguson BA6 Site Assemblage

Figure 5.34 - Microblade proximal retouch width distributions by site assemblage. Box-plot shows median, one-sigma range and total range. to the removal surface, which was prepared by alternate transverse flaking to create a ridge running vertically from the top of the core to the keel. This ridge is used to guide the removal of primary microblades, also known as ridge blades or lames à crête, which exhibit this flaking pattern along a single dorsal ridge. It is unclear how the initial ridge was created, although the maker could have used an existing natural ridge or created one by percussion flaking from the top of the core.

Platforms are created through a transverse flake removal from the flaking surface or a lateral margin, creating what is termed a ‘tablet’. The unmodified tablet scar on the core then becomes the platform, although microblade platforms show evidence of subsequent modification of the platform edge prior to removal. One multi-directional core (#1-1828; Figure 5.11 [bottom left]) utilizes edges of former removal faces as secondary platforms. Core platforms and upper portions of the flaking surface can be removed in this manner for core rejuvenation, reshaping and the removal of hinged microblade scars. It is clear from blade and core specimens that microblade cores were used extensively prior to exhaustion and could be reworked multiple times to accommodate the changing shape of the material.

One specimen from Ferguson Lake (#5-447) is an example of a core in the early stages of 141 production. It appears to have been discarded after minimal use, perhaps because of poor material quality. The flaking surface of the core is relatively narrow and has two microblade removals from the core flaking surface. Its sides are minimally prepared and do not exhibit transverse flaking or similar shaping.

The precise method(s) of microblade removal are presently unclear. According to Owen (1988:122), microblade removal was likely accomplished through a pressure method (see also Esdale 2009). Microblade platforms tend to be of the small, single facet variety and rarely exhibit pronounced crushing, which might be expected if direct hard percussion was used (Andrefsky 1998:115; Flenniken 1987; Inizan et al. 1992); however, both soft percussion and indirect percussion are also possibilities, as they can produce flakes without the crushing and pronounced bulbs associated with hard percussion while still providing comparable dynamic loading. The small size of the bladelets being produced would not necessitate more force than could be provided by pressure techniques. The primary microblade, lame à crête, was removed along a prepared ridge of the core’s intended flaking surface, thereby creating two new ridges on either margin of the resulting scar. Secondary and tertiary microblades were subsequently removed according to ridge position and flaking surface morphology. Secondary microblades remove a portion of the flaked and/or cortical core surface adjacent to existing removal scars, as evidenced on their dorsal surface. In contrast, tertiary microblades exhibit only (near-)parallel, longitudinal flake scars on their dorsal surface as they are removed along existing microblade scars.

Once detached, microblades were occasionally modified for hafting through proximal lateral retouch, as reported by Linnamae (1975), McGhee (1970), Owen (1988), Wyatt (1970) and others. This was accomplished in an expedient manner through pressure applied to the blade’s margin(s). The small size of the resulting flake scars on some specimens indicates that they are not produced by retouch in the typical sense (i.e. pressed off with the tip of a flaker), but likely are the result of pressing and ‘dragging’ the microblade edge against a suitable surface/material. The process in either case would have been very quick to execute and could easily be repeated as necessary until the blade fit a slotted haft. As detailed above, the side and surface retouched varied considerably. 142 5.5.3 - Use Evidence

The lack of microscopic analyses of tool edges in this study restricts the identification of use evidence to edge flaking damage. Crushing and microflaking were the criteria used to identify microblade edge use on the Iqaluktuuq specimens. In total, 145 specimens (46%) exhibited some form of edge damage consistent with cutting or scraping modes of use. Of these, twelve were secondary microblades with use exclusively on the ‘interior’ margin. Forty-two percent of use is bilateral, forty-six percent is unilateral (27% left, 19% right) and twelve percent is unspecified in the dataset. Figure 5.35 shows the proportions of used microblades in the site assemblages. Note that all assemblages have used microblade frequencies between 30% and 50% except for BA1, which exhibits usewear on 71% of specimens (n = 14).

An interesting pattern emerges when the widths of retouched proximal elements are graphed for each assemblage. Figure 5.36 shows the widths of retouched proximal ends ordered by increasing value for specimens collected from BA2 (n = 5), Ballantine (n = 9), Ferguson Lake (n = 13) and BA6 (n = 34). One can clearly discern plateaus in the values of the BA6 and Ballantine samples and to a lesser extent in the other two as well. Considering the narrow range of microblade widths exhibited in the aforementioned assemblages (see below – Diachronic Trends) it is not surprising that one finds some regularity in retouched microblade dimensions. Nevertheless, the pronounced plateaus evident in the data and the distances separating them, particularly those between 3mm and 6mm, are unusually well-defined. One is tempted to speculate that the plateaus represent intentionally sought widths as defined by the corresponding widths of slotted hafts employed in their use. Speculating further, these data may indicate use of a common haft for several microblades over an indeterminable length of time or it may represent standardization in haft and microblade production (Friesen, pers. comm.). Further discussion of microblade retouch and hafting is presented in Section 6.2.

5.5.4 - Materials

Chert, chalcedony and crystal quartz (including vein quartz) were used to make microblades at Iqaluktuuq. The colours present in the aggregate chert microblade assemblage are diverse and 143

Microblade Use and Retouch Frequency by Site

100% 1 3 1 11 12 2 5 25 80% 4 5 13 5 4 3 Retouched 6 38 60% 7 30 Used & Retouched

Used

Frequency 40% 5 Neither 5 6 18 83 20% 11 35 3 0%

Area 1 Area 2 Area 5 Menez Area 6 Ferguson Ballantine Site

Figure 5.35 - Microblade use and retouch frequencies by site assemblage.

Microblade Retouched Proximal Width by Site

10 9 8 7 BA2 6 Ballantine 5 Ferguson 4

Width Width (mm) BA6 3 2 1 0

Figure 5.36 - Microblade proximal retouch widths organized by site and ordered by increasing width value. Note the plateau-like patterning, particularly in the Ballantine, Ferguson Lake and BA6 assemblages. 144

Figure 5.37 - An example of the ‘moth’ chert variant found at Iqaluktuuq almost exclusively in Early and Middle Dorset assemblages. include whites, tans, greys, reds, browns, and many combinations thereof. All cores were made from cherts, including tan, red, white and grey varieties, and a distinctive mottled ‘moth’ chert (Figure 5.37). There are several microblade specimens from Ferguson Lake and Ballantine, and a single surface collected specimen from BA6 made from ‘moth’ chert. Another distinctive material, a fossiliforus grey speckled chert, is represented by a single microblade from Ballantine (#3-460). Nothing resembling a microblade core made from chalcedony or crystal quartz has been recovered to date, although some undiagnostic crystal fragments may represent heavily reduced core shatter.

5.5.5 - Diachronic Trends

Based on the morphology of complete and fragmentary specimens, there does not seem to be significant change in production of microblade cores from Early to Middle Dorset. Similar forms are represented at BA6, Ballantine and Ferguson Lake; the paucity of specimens does not, however, permit a statistical assessment of core form frequencies. Platform preparation, or lack thereof, remains largely unchanged. This assessment concurs with Owen’s observation (1988:185) that Early and Middle Dorset production processes remained similar to those of the transitional period 145 and it is not until the latter part of the Middle Dorset period and Late Dorset period that microblade production becomes “less carefully controlled”(1988:187). Pre-Dorset specimens at Iqaluktuuq are fragmentary and provide few clues as to how core form may have differed across the transition period. A fragment from Trench C at BA2 reveals long, continuous microblade removals from a distally-rounded flaking surface but the nature of the platform or adjacent surfaces cannot be discerned. The overall pattern that emerges is one of flexible and opportunistic exploitation of chert cores, utilizing suitable surfaces for microblade production that were reorganized with the evolution of the core’s shape.

Microblade size changes little through time at Iqaluktuuq. Figure 5.38 – Figure 5.40 show the one- sigma ranges for microblade length, width and thickness for each site. Mean microblade length, including fragments, ranges from 17.5mm5 to 19.8mm6, suggesting similar core sizes. Similarly, microblade widths vary little at 6.8mm for BA6, Ballantine and Ferguson Lake up to 8.0mm at BA5. These data indicate a weak temporal trend for a reduction in microblade widths as indicated by the one-sigma ranges. The ambiguous temporal situation of the BA1 lithic assemblages prevents further refinement of this potential trend. Mean microblade thickness ranges from 1.8mm at BA1 to 3.0mm at Ferguson Lake, with no consistent temporal trends being evident.

Slight trends in material use are discernible for microblades and, by extension, microblade cores. Sample sizes for Wellington Bay, Menez and BA5 are too small for making reasonable interpretations regarding preferential material use at those sites. The expected overall trend would be an increase in the use of crystal quartz relative to chert through time, especially into the Dorset period (Maxwell 1976; 1985:176, Owen 1988:124). For instance, Odess (1996) observes that crystal quartz appears prominently in Dorset period assemblages from the Frobisher Bay region of Baffin Island. Interestingly, crystal quartz microblades are more common in the Pre-Dorset assemblages from Iqaluktuuq than the Early and Middle Dorset assemblages. In fact, this material appears exclusively in Pre-Dorset sites at Iqaluktuuq, and comprises 26% (n = 12) of the aggregate Pre-Dorset microblade sample. Chert is the sole material represented in the Early and Middle Dorset microblade samples. 146 Microblade Length by Site Assemblage 45 40 35 30 25 20 15

Length (mm)Length Figure 5.38 - Microblade length 10 distributions by site assemblage. Box-plot 5 shows median, one-sigma range and total range. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ballantine Ferguson BA6 BA1 (n = 2) (n = 25) (n = 9) (n = 10) (n = 89) (n = 35) (n = 160) (n = 15) Site Assemblage

Microblade Width by Site Assemblage 15

Width (mm) 5 Figure 5.39 - Microblade width distributions by site assemblage. Box-plot shows median, one-sigma range and total 0 range. Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ballantine Ferguson BA6 BA1 (n = 2) (n = 25) (n = 9) (n = 10) (n = 89) (n = 35) (n = 160) (n = 15) Site Assemblage

Microblade Thickness by Site Assemblage 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

Thickness (mm) Thickness Figure 5.40 - Microblade thickness 2 distributions by site assemblage. Box-plot 1 shows median, one-sigma range and total 0 range. Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ballantine Ferguson BA6 BA1 (n = 2) (n = 25) (n = 9) (n = 10) (n = 89) (n = 35) (n = 160) (n = 15) Site Assemblage 147 ‘Moth’ chert appears as 20 specimens (20%) and 4 specimens (4.5%) of the Early Dorset Ferguson Lake and Ballantine assemblages, respectively, and one specimen (0.6%) of the Middle Dorset BA6 assemblage. A single complete wedge-shaped microblade core of moth chert was recovered from Ferguson Lake. The absence of this material from Pre-Dorset assemblages and very low frequency at BA6 suggests a brief period of acquisition, likely from a distant source, during the Early Dorset period occupations of Iqaluktuuq (see Section 8.2 for more regarding this material).

Platform width and thickness distributions (Figure 5.41 & Figure 5.42) show no meaningful differences between site assemblages. Total range is noticeably higher in the later Pre-Dorset and Early/Middle Dorset assemblages, which seems to be a function of sample size; larger samples have greater top range values. This is also the case for platform thickness, where the Ballantine, Ferguson Lake and BA6 samples have higher maximum range values than the Pre-Dorset samples, with the exception of BA5. One-sigma width value ranges for Pre-Dorset and Dorset samples fall between 2mm and 5mm, and one-sigma thickness value ranges fall between 0.75mm and 2mm, demonstrating minimal variability in platform size between sites and through temporal periods.

Figure 5.43 shows the relative proportions of primary (lame à crête), secondary and tertiary microblades in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. Notwithstanding the low specimen counts for BA1, BA5 and Menez, proportions of the three types are fairly similar across the board. Excluding BA5, tertiary microblades comprise between 77% and 89% of all microblade specimens at the remaining sites. Only BA5 and Menez lack ridge blades, but their low counts suggest this is an artifact of sampling. Taken together, the type data do not indicate significant differences in microblade production activities at these sites and, therefore, limited change through time.

Use evidence on microblades shows reasonable consistency through time. Excluding BA1, proportions of used microblades range from 30% (BA5) to 48% (Ballantine). The BA1 assemblage exhibits use evidence on 71% of microblades, but again this value is likely inflated due to small sample size. Similarly, proportions of retouched microblades remain relatively 148

Microblade Platform Width Distributions by Site Assemblage

10 9 8 7 6 5 4

Platform Width (mm) Width Platform 3 2 1 0 BA1 (n = 7) BA5 (n = 8) BA2 (n = 12) Menez (n = 7) BA6 (n = 74) (n = 1) Ferguson (n = 22) Ballantine (n = 40) Wellington

Site Figure 5.41 - Microblade platform width distributions by site assemblage. Variation in mean values is not statistically significant (p > 0.05).

Microblade Platform Thickness Distributions by Site Assemblage 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 Platform Thickness (mm) 0.5 0.0 BA1 (n = 7) BA5 (n = 8) BA2 (n = 12) Menez (n = 7) BA6 (n = 74) (n = 1) Ferguson (n = 22) Ballantine (n = 40) Wellington

Site Figure 5.42 - Microblade platform thickness distributions by site assemblage. Variation in mean values is not statistically significant (p > 0.05). 149

Microblade Type Frequency by Site

100%

80% 4 11 Tertiary MB 60% 21 9 77 33 129 Secondary MB 40% Primary MB Frequency Frequency 20% 3 3 2 11 24 2 0% Figure 5.43 - Microblade type Area 2 Area 5 Menez Area 6 Area 1 Ballantine Ferguson frequencies by site assemblage. Numbers in columns represent Site artifact counts.

Microblade Platform Shape Frequency by Site

100% Other 80% Ground Edge 60% Faceted 40% U-Convex Frequency 20% U-Concave U-Flat 0%

BA5 Figure 5.44 - Microblade BA2 BA1 BA6 (n = 8) (n = 6) Menez (n = 7) (n = 14) (n = 78)

(n = 18) platform shape proportions by (n = 78) (n = 1) Ferguson Ballantine Wellington site assemblage. The prefix ‘U-’ Site designates unmodified simple surface.

Microblade Termination Type Frequency by Site

100%

80% Snap Step 60% Over Hinge 40% Frequency Frequency Abrupt 20% Feather

0% Figure 5.45 - Microblade BA5 BA2 BA1 BA6 (n = 4) (n = 6) Menez (n = 9) (n = 14)

(n = 82) termination type frequencies by site (n = 22) (n = 45) Ferguson Ballantine assemblage. Site 150 steady between 20% and 29% (Figure 5.46), with the exceptions of BA1 (42%) and Menez (9%). Comparison of retouch position (Figure 5.47) shows a strong similarity between Ballantine, Ferguson Lake and BA6 in the relative proportions of unilateral, unifacial bilateral and alternate bilateral retouch. This pattern differs from those observed for BA2, BA5 and Menez, particularly in its high proportion of unilateral retouch. In all cases, bilateral retouch was the most common treatment observed, accounting for between 66% (BA1) and 100% (BA5 & Menez) of all microblade modification. Owen (1988:Table 18) reports a wide range of retouch frequencies for Dorset period microblade assemblages, but in general the ‘two-sided tang’ variety (bilateral retouch) is most common. It is also the most common retouch type in the Late Pre-Dorset Tikilik site, setting that assemblage apart from the other Pre-Dorset components examined that exhibit somewhat lower retouch frequencies. Both McGhee (1970:95) and Linnamae (1975:138) also report high proportions of bilateral retouch, yet McGhee identifies alternate bilateral retouch as the most common while Linnamae specifies unifacial bilateral retouch as being more common.

5.5.6 - Interpretations

Before addressing technological observations regarding microblades, it is worth noting that this tool type unquestionably appears in Palaeo-Eskimo assemblages from all periods of occupation at Iqaluktuuq. Taylor’s (1967:221) assertion that microblades found in Pre-Dorset components at Buchanan are intrusive is inaccurate, as demonstrated by the recovery of multiple specimens from secure subsurface contexts at BA5. No microblades were recovered by Friesen as part of the Iqaluktuuq Project excavations at BA2, but Taylor himself collected a substantial number of microblades from the lower levels, which further suggests the technology was in common use in Pre-Dorset times. Nevertheless, the frequencies of microblades are indeed much lower in the earlier period assemblages and so Taylor’s suspicions are understandable given the nature of the survey conducted in 1965.

The increasing proportion of microblades in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages throughout the Pre- Dorset and Dorset periods mirrors trends noted by Maxwell (1985:90). It is clear that this implement played an increasingly important role in the Palaeo-Eskimo toolkit. There is limited 151

Microblade Retouch Frequency by Site

100%

80% 8 5 Unretouched 60% 18 65 28 121 10 Non-Prox Ret 40% Prox Ret Frequency 20% 1 6 7 21 8 32 1 1 0%

BA2 BA5 Menez BA6 BA1 Ballantine Ferguson Site

Figure 5.46 - Microblade retouch frequency proportions by site assemblage.

Microblade Proximal Retouch Location Proportions by Site

100% 90% 5 2 2 80% 5 70% 4 2 60% 7 Unilateral 1 1 50% 2 Bilateral 40% 13 Bilateral- Proportion 30% 3 12 5 Alternate 20% 2 10% 0%

BA2 BA5 BA6 BA1 Menez Ballantine Ferguson Site

Figure 5.47 - Microblade retouch location proportions by site assemblage. 152 evidence for technological change in microblade production activities and I believe this to be the case largely because of the physical limitations imposed by fracture mechanics on core and microblade shape, what Pye (1988) terms a constrained system. In order to remove parallel-sided flakes consistently from a core, one requires ridges for the fracture to propagate along (Owen 1988). This is accomplished by removing a primary flake along a natural or modified ridge and then using the edges of the resulting flake scar to guide subsequent secondary and then tertiary removals. As a result, primary and tertiary microblades exhibit a good deal of regularity in their dorsal surface characteristics. In the Iqaluktuuq assemblages, primary microblades tend to have transverse alternate flaking from a medial ridge running along the full length of the dorsal surface. No naturally-ridged primary microblades have been identified in the samples. Tertiary microblades typically have either two or three flake scars near the removal platform, giving a triangular or trapezoidal cross-section. Additional microblade scars are often cross-cut near the distal portion of the core, thereby increasing dorsal scar counts in some cases. Secondary microblades, those removed along the scar left by the primary microblade or from the edge of the flaking surface in later stages or reduction, typically have one lateral margin that is irregular and exhibits transverse flake scars from the prepared core surface.

Raw material shape also influenced microblade core form. The frequency of cortical and banded chert specimens in the study assemblages indicates that nodules and irregular fragments thereof constituted an important raw material source for Iqaluktuuq’s inhabitants. This material may have been acquired locally from beaches and till deposits. The small size of such material would not permit extensive bifacial preparation of the core prior to microblade production. Consequently, core design and exploitation strategies were dependent on the initial shape of the material fragment and thus do not exhibit the same degree of uniformity observed in other microlithic industries. Nevertheless, the processes followed during core preparation and exploitation permitted the controlled and efficient production of microblades despite the variability inherent in theraw material itself.

Microblade platform morphology, size and distal termination shape likewise exhibit no significant 153 patterning through time. The former is dictated by the preparatory modification of the core platform and, to a lesser degree, the adjacent flaking surface. As observed on the few core specimens on hand, platform preparation was limited and the typical platform surface was the edge of an unmodified flake scar. Grinding appears on a single platform at BA6 and otherwise flaking (faceting) of the platform is the most common modification observed, appearing on 34% of all microblades with platforms and from 16% (Ferguson Lake) to 42% (BA2) of site assemblages. Relative proportions of modified (faceted & ground) and unmodified (flat, concave, convex) platforms showsno significant difference in platform treatment through time. Likewise, distal termination proportions vary little, with feathered and abrupt variants constituting the majority of all assemblages. These observations, combined with the lack of significant differences in microblade sizes discussed in Section 6.2, confirm that very little changed in microblade removal strategies.

Further to this, there is no strong evidence to support a change in microblade core design and exploitation strategies. While cores with particular shapes referred to elsewhere as ‘types’ (e.g. Linnamae 1975, Owen 1988:221 Figure 5) have been identified in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages, I find no reason to conclude that their present form necessarily reflects distinct approaches to production. Similar to burins, one must consider microblade cores as dynamically changing forms resulting from the sequential removal of material. The removal of material changes the form of the toolstone mass, necessitating constant reevaluation of platform and removal surface shape to ensure adequate and/or desirable conditions for microblade removal. A consistent shape cannot be maintained indefinitely and thus rejuvenation or reorientation of the core is inevitable. Cores at Iqaluktuuq universally have convex sloped removal faces and adjacent surfaces that slant inward to varying degrees, often creating a basal ridge or keel. However, observation of surficial flaking on several specimens reveals that platforms were occasionally abandoned and new platforms created adjacent to suitably shaped surfaces. Therefore, the overall shape of the core (wedge- shaped, cubic, lenticular, etc.) is less significant for microblade production than the relationship between flaking surface and platform. Cores would have changed form throughout their uselives, perhaps beginning with a wedge-like orientation and, through microblade removals and platform 154 rejuvenations, becoming more cubic in appearance. The process was flexible and its trajectory varied according to the initial and developing shape of the core, to say nothing of failed removals and platform damage. From this perspective on microblade production and core life histories, the Iqaluktuuq core sample reflects no significant differences in core production and rejuvenation processes. In light of Owen’s (1988:185) conclusions regarding the uniformity of microblade production across the transitional and Early/Middle Dorset periods, these results make sense. The Iqaluktuuq sample contains few complete specimens for the Pre-Dorset period and, as such, the differences between Pre-Dorset and post-transition production processes are difficult to evaluate.

Hafting arrangements appear to remain unchanged as well. As stated previously, proportions of retouched microblades relative to unretouched specimens remain fairly consistent throughout the Pre-Dorset and Early/Middle Dorset periods. While there are some differences in the location of proximal end retouch between Pre-Dorset and Early/Middle Dorset specimens, the way in which the tool was attached to and manipulated with the haft remains the same; the trimmed portion was likely inserted into a slot and secured with a binding and/or mastic (see Owen 1988 Figures 25-27 for alternate arrangements). The unmodified portion extended outwards from the slotted end and could be used in the same manner as a small knife. It is assumed that non-modified microblades were hafted in a similar manner, perhaps in a split haft or a simple side-haft as reported by Grǿnnow (1994) at Qeqertasussuq. In all cases, the hafting arrangement allowed the microblade edges to be used like a knife, albeit a fragile one. The lack of lateral edge blunting (backing) on any specimens indicates that microblades were not side-mounted into hafts or other organic tools during the periods under study (cf. Wyatt 1970:96).

Raw material use patterns reveal no meaningful trends in material selection behaviours. With the exception of twelve crystal quartz specimens from Pre-Dorset sites, chert is the only material used to make microblades. There being no information regarding the provenience of any specific material type, it can not be determined at present if the procurement strategies for chert used in microblade production changes appreciably. My sense, based on the comparative diversity of chert varieties/ colours in these assemblages, is that material selection was not influenced in any special way by 155

Length Distributions of Retouched and Unretouched Microblades by Site Assemblage 45 Unretouched Retouched 40 35 30 25 20 Figure 5.48 - Retouched and unretouched microblade Length (mm) 15 length distributions by site assemblage. Note higher 10 value ranges in retouched category compared to 5 unretouched within the same assemblage. 0 BA2 BA5 BA6 BA1 BA2 BA5 BA6 BA1 Menez Menez Ferguson Ferguson Ballantine Ballantine Site

Width Distributions of Retouched and Unretouched Microblades by Site Assemblage

16 Unretouched Retouched 14 12 10 8 6 Figure 5.49 - Retouched and unretouched microblade Width (mm) width distributions by site assemblage. Note higher 4 value ranges in retouched category compared to 2 unretouched within the same assemblage. 0 BA2 BA5 BA6 BA1 BA2 BA5 BA6 BA1 Menez Menez Ferguson Ferguson Ballantine Site Ballantine

Thickness Distributions of Retouched and Unretouched Microblades by Site Assemblage 45 Unretouched Retouched 40 35 30 25 20 Figure 5.50 - Retouched and unretouched microblade 15

Thickness Thickness (mm) thickness distributions by site assemblage. Note 10 higher value ranges in retouched category compared to 5 unretouched within the same assemblage. 0 BA2 BA5 BA6 BA1 BA2 BA5 BA6 BA1 Menez Menez Ferguson Ferguson Ballantine Site Ballantine 156 microblade production needs and therefore was not subject to technological change. The paucity of crystal quartz in the Dorset period assemblages at Iqaluktuuq is very interesting and makes one wonder whether its prevalence elsewhere is more a function of material availability, be it through direct procurement or trade, rather than material preference. Assuming crystal quartz is not readily available in the vicinity of Iqaluktuuq, the material was likely imported in the small quantities exhibited by the study samples. If this is the case, this pattern of material use is consistent with a reduction in population interaction frequency, precisely what one would expect when mobility decreases such as it does in the Dorset period.

Wyatt (1970:103) observes that there is correlation between microblade size and proximal retouch; retouch tended to appear preferentially on larger, thicker microblades in the samples he examined. Comparison of length, width and thickness distributions for retouched and unretouched microblades reveals a similar pattern in the Iqaluktuuq sample (Figure 5.48 - Figure 5.50). Although the aggregate distributions appear similar, comparison of unretouched and retouched samples from the same sites reveals a definite trend towards preferential retouching of longer and thicker microblades. There does not appear to be such a trend for microblade width. For the most part, the differences between distribution means are not statistically significant (p > 0.05), but the general pattern seems to support Wyatt’s conclusion that longer and more robust microblades were selected for proximal retouching and subsequent end-hafting. This begs the question: how were the unretouched microblades used? I suspect that the preference for larger microblades is, in fact, largely a preference for thicker microblades that would be more resistant to the torque and bending forces exerted on the hafting element during even light use. Thinner microblades would be less resistant to such forces and could be more effectively hafted (i.e. less likely to break) without a tang in split-haft or side-hafted arrangements, as indicated by Owen (1988:240 Figure 27). The lack of retouch backing on microblade margins indicates that lateral slot-mounting of microblades was not common or else microblade edges were not prepared prior to insertion.

In sum, microblade technology does not appear to change significantly throughout the periods under study. Slight differences in microblade form and manufacturing processes in specimen- 157 specific cases can be explained by changing platform and flaking surface shape throughout the core’s uselife. Changing surficial morphology of microblade cores ensures variation in product form (length, width, curvature, etc.) and necessitates reorientation of the flaking surface(s) and rejuvenation of removal platforms. Such variation is to be expected in a technology of this kind and there is no evidence to suggest the small range of variability in microblade and microblade core forms is indicative of meaningful change in production processes or use applications. Retouch and hafting practices remain, for the most part, consistent throughout the Pre-Dorset, Early and Middle Dorset periods at Iqaluktuuq.

5.6 - Scrapers

5.6.1 - Morphological Variability

Sixty-one complete and fragmented scraper specimens were identified in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. Complete specimens range in length from 11.1mm to 151.4mm (mean 31.9, sd 19.6), in width from 9.4mm to 97.1mm (mean 23.1, sd 13.5), in thickness from 2.3mm to 29.7mm (mean 7.2, sd 4.1) and in weight from 0.75g to 456.84g (mean 13.8g, sd 62.8). Distinguishing between different orientations of the working edge, 19 are unifacial endscrapers (36%), 11 are bifacial endscrapers (20.8%), 4 are sidescrapers (7.5%), 3 are oblique scrapers (5.7%), 2 are convergent oblique scrapers (3.8%), 1 is a combination end- and sidescraper, and 18 are expedient flake scrapers (34%). Edge angles range between 20 and 90 degrees for unifacial endscrapers (median 60), 25 to 75 degrees for bifacial endscrapers (median 52.5), 60 and 75 degrees for sidescrapers (median 67.5), 65 and 75 degrees for oblique scrapers (median 65), and 20 to 85 degrees for expedient flake scrapers (median 55).

Expedient scrapers are most often made from pink quartzite (61%) and exhibit the highest range of both tool sizes and edge angles. Bifacial chert scrapers have the lowest and narrowest range of edge angles. Chert specimens are, generally speaking, more often and more thoroughly worked than quartzite specimens. Basal lateral edge modification, likely for hafting purposes, is present on 61% (n = 37) of all specimens. Eighty-four percent of basally retouched specimens have contracting proximal ends, 8% have parallel ‘stemmed’ margins, 3% exhibit waisting, and 2% exhibit basal 158 thinning. Convex-edged endscrapers with contracting proximal ends (e.g. #1-1529), also referred to as ‘triangular’ scrapers, are the most easily identifiable and most widely represented scraper forms, appearing in all site assemblages excluding BA1 and BA4.

5.6.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance

Production of scrapers at Iqaluktuuq was almost universally performed by marginally retouching suitably shaped flakes. With the possible exception of the bifacial bi-convex scrapers recovered from several sites (#3-U15a; #1-747; #5-73), ventrally-concave flakes often having expanding distal ends were selected. A working edge was subsequently chosen and modified via dorsal and/or ventral pressure flaking. Steep retouch was applied to most working edges, especially sidescrapers and unifacial endscrapers, creating a suitable edge angles. More acute bifacial edges were likewise created by flaking. Grinding was not employed in the production of chert and quartzite scrapers.

Energy and time investment in scraper manufacture varies by piece, but in all but a few cases production would have required no more than a few minutes to achieve the desired edge and basal shape. In contrast, the large bifacial lunate scraper recovered from Menez (#10-227) was thoroughly and carefully shaped via soft percussion and pressure flaking and would undoubtedly have required substantially greater investment.

5.6.3 - Use Evidence

The small size of the scrapers, and in particular their proximal portions, indicates that hafting was essential to their use in most cases. Simple basal modification applied to the scrapers at Iqaluktuuq suggests that hafting arrangements were flexible and likely included slotted and split-shaft types. Slight shouldering proximal to the working edge on the lateral margins (e.g. #1-776; 1-747) provides further evidence of proximal hafting in a slot-like arrangement. Expedient quartzite scrapers, on the other hand, tend to be larger than their more thoroughly retouched chert counterparts and could have been used without hafts.

Edge and surficial evidence for use includes scaling, edge rounding and fracture patterns. It is inferred from the high edge angles of these tools that pressure was applied perpendicular to the 159

Figure 5.51 - Inferred method of unifacial endscraper (A) and bifacial endscraper (B) use based on flaking damage and rounding along the working edge. The absence of flaking damage on ventral surfaces of unifacial scrapers indicates scraping was limited to a single direction. Bifacial scrapers exhibit flaking on both surfaces and could have been used in an alternating scraping or planing arrangement. Illustration credit: T. Alexandra Sumner 160 working edge in either a pushing or pulling motion along a substrate. Scaling was observed on 25 specimens (78%), 20 having unifacial scaling and 5 having bifacial scaling. Unifacial scaling appears on only the dorsal surface of all but one specimen. Considering the location of scaling, one can infer that those implements exhibiting unifacial scaling were drawn along the substrate with downward pressure on the distal portion of the surface opposite the scaling (Vaughan 1985:20), as depicted in Figure 5.51. Breakage patterns on scraper fragments support this observation, as fracture surfaces are consistent with downward pressure (dorsal). Bifacial scaling was produced through application of force to both distal surface margins with alternating strokes or by utilizing both pushing and pulling motions. Edge rounding was observed on 8 specimens, 5 of which also exhibited scaling. Both hard and soft substrates can cause edge rounding (Vaughan 1985:26), but scaling and other forms of microflaking are commonly produced by hard substrates (Vaughan 1985:21). Therefore, the scrapers in the study sample could have been used to work both hard (antler, wood, bone) and soft (skin) materials. Microscopic analysis is required in order for more specific use-wear interpretations to be made. Rejuvenation of working edges via retouch removes evidence of use, and thus it is possible that implements with only rounding or scaling, as well as artifacts having no surficial evidence of use, could have been previously utilized on a variety of materials and in a number of ways throughout their uselives.

5.6.4 - Materials

Only chert (82%) and orange quartzite (18%) were used to make scrapers. The vast majority of cherts are grey, white or tan in colour, and one specimen (#5-73) is made from mottled ‘moth’ chert. Material quality varies from highly vitreous to light-grained and partially cortical.

5.6.5 - Diachronic Trends

There is a general trend towards increased morphological standardization. Chert scrapers tend towards less variation in overall size, becoming progressively more constrained in length and width throughout the Palaeo-Eskimo Period. Pre-Dorset scrapers have a length range of 140.3mm (sd 23.5), noticeably higher than the range of 33.0mm (sd 33.1) for Early Dorset and 10.6mm (sd 3.5) for Middle Dorset. Likewise, width ranges of 87.6mm for Pre-Dorset, 18.5mm for Early 161 Dorset and 10.8mm for Middle Dorset follow this trend. Expedient quartzite scrapers account for much of this variation and therefore examination of only chert specimens (Figure 5.52 – Figure 5.54) reveals reduced length and width ranges of 28.2mm and 34.4mm, respectively, for Pre- Dorset specimens, bringing it more closely in line with Dorset ranges. Also, triangular endscrapers increase in frequency through the Palaeo-Eskimo period, signaling greater consistency in tool hafting methods and, presumably, tool function. Scrapers of this kind account for only 16% of scrapers in Pre-Dorset sites, but constitute 64% of Early Dorset specimens and 81% of Middle Dorset specimens. Edge angles remain relatively constant throughout the assemblages, but the dominant shape of working edge shifts to convex at the start of the Dorset Period, displacing straight oblique and concave side-scraping variants.

Surficial preparation (retouch) is more extensive on Dorset Period scrapers in comparison to Pre- Dorset specimens. Expedient scrapers with limited retouch account for 45% (n = 17) of Pre-Dorset scraper samples but only 5% (n = 1) of the combined Early and Middle Dorset samples. Further, bifacially flaked scrapers represent 45% (n = 9) of the Dorset Period sample and 5%(n=2) of the Pre-Dorset sample. Taken together, Dorset knappers invested increased effort in scraper manufacture relative to Pre-Dorset knappers.

Quartzite comprises a significant portion of the Pre-Dorset scraper samples and is mostly employed for expedient tool production. It would seem that quartzite flakes were being selected for use as ad hoc tools with minimal preparation except in a few cases. Quartzite is absent from Dorset period assemblages, which may indicate a preference for chert as a raw material for making formal tools, a lack of need for expedient scrapers, or a lack of suitable quartzite flakes. The implications of material use trends are expounded upon in Section 8.3.

5.6.6 - Interpretations

As detailed above, scrapers exhibit greater morphological standardization and surficial preparation in the Dorset period assemblages at Iqaluktuuq than in the Pre-Dorset assemblages. They tend towards bifacial triangular forms in the Dorset period compared to the less invasively flaked, unifacial specimens that predominate in the Pre-Dorset samples. The changes in surficial preparation 162

Chert Scraper Length by Period 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 Length (mm) Length 15 Figure 5.52 - Chert scraper length distributions 10 by period. Box-plot shows median, one-sigma 5 range and total range. 0 Pre-Dorset Early Dorset Middle Dorset (n = 27) (n = 11) (n = 11) Period

Chert Scraper Width by Period 50

20 Width (mm) Figure 5.53 - Chert scraper width distributions 10 by period. Box-plot shows median, one-sigma range and total range. 0 Pre-Dorset Early Dorset Middle Dorset (n = 27) (n = 11) (n = 11) Period

Chert Scraper Thickness by Period 20

Thickness (mm) Thickness 5 Figure 5.54 - Chert scraper thickness distributions by period. Box-plot shows median, one-sigma range and total range. 0 Pre-Dorset Early Dorset Middle Dorset (n = 27) (n = 11) (n = 11) Period 163 (i.e. bifacial modification) do not represent a significantly greater investment of time or energy in scraper manufacture, but it does imply greater concern for the shape of the implement. This may relate to a change in hafting arrangement, a proposition further supported by standardization in form. The sub-trianguloid shape of the later scrapers, especially those with incipient or pronounced shouldering proximal to the working edge, strongly suggests common usage of a slotted haft. Split hafts would also suffice but are unlikely to produce the same haft-wear patterns, and similarly side-hafting can not be ruled out entirely. It is questionable whether hafts were used with most flake quartzite scrapers, as most do not exhibit proximal surface modification and are large enough for manual use. The progressively decreasing frequency of expedient quartzite scrapers may mean Palaeo-Eskimo users were anticipating scraper usage and wanted dedicated tools that could be more easily or more effectively manipulated. Standardizing shape for hafting purposes would achieve this goal.

Alternatively, there may have been a change in scraper function. The appearance of acutely-angled bifacial scrapers in the Dorset toolkit suggests a functional distinction between them and unifacial variants. The limited use-wear analyses conducted during the course of this study provide no objective evidence for a functional change; but, at the very least, bifacial scrapers imply a different manipulatory gesture; the thinner working edge is less robust than one created by steep unifacial flaking and thus would be held at a different angle to the substrate. Furthermore, in the case of hide processing, the tool can be pushed or pulled along edge-first to remove tissue (Hayden 1986:66). The functional details of the Iqaluktuuq scrapers remain unclear, but it is likely that both hard and soft organic materials were worked using these tools throughout the periods under study. The appearance of similarly-shaped scrapers with different working edges may suggest a functional diversification along with the overall standardization of proximal tool shape.

The sum of technological change in scrapers at Iqaluktuuq includes changes to surficial preparation and a more significant modification of working edge angle. Rejuvenation techniques remain essentially the same for both unifacial and bifacial scrapers, with the latter having two faces flaked from the working edge rather than only one. It is difficult to contextualize the significance of 164 bifacial scraper development without knowing if it simply represents a change in edge production processes or if it also signals a functional diversification. Further study of scraper usewear evidence is needed in order to resolve these important ambiguities.

5.7 - Bifaces

The majority of specimens included in this category represent non-diagnostic fragments of bifacially worked artifacts. Accordingly, only basic information regarding their size, morphology and manufacture are provided. Limited interpretations of diachronic trends are likewise presented but are restricted to material use and tool size. Sideblades are also discussed in this section because

sideblade fragments are often indistinguishable from other bifacial tools and specimen counts are extremely low in the study assemblages.

5.7.1 - Morphological Variability

The Iqaluktuuq assemblages contain 133 undiagnostic bifaces and fragments thereof ranging in standardized volume from 0.2cm3 (9.6mm x 9.6mm x 2.3mm; 0.21g) to 339.3cm3 (109.2mm x 87.1mm x 35.6mm; 326.65g), with an average volume of 26.8cm3 (43.7mm x 34.7mm x 10.5mm; 27.26g). There is a noticeable difference in biface (fragment) size between the two primary raw material types, chert and quartzite. Figure 5.55 and Figure 5.56 show the volume distributions of quartzite and chert bifaces by site, and Figure 5.57 shows comparative distributions of both quartzite and chert by period. Mean chert volume is 1.3cm3 (sd 1.1) while quartzite specimen volumes average 35.1cm3 (sd 43.1). Edge angles have similar medians for chert (45 degrees) and quartzite (50 degrees). Bilateral notching appears on a single chert specimen (w 3.1mm, d 0.6mm, inw 4.3mm). Grinding was observed on only two fragmentary specimens and was restricted to tool margins.

Bifaces that can confidently be categorized as sideblades are represented by only eight specimens in the aggregate Iqaluktuuq assemblage; three specimens originate from BA6, and one specimen is represented in each of the BA4, BA5, Wellington Bay, Menez and Ferguson Lake assemblages. Sideblades from all periods tend to be bi-pointed and asymmetrical, having one margin that is 165

Quartzite Biface Standardized Volume Distributions by Site

350 300 250 200 150 Figure 5.55 - Standardized volume 100 distributions of quartzite bifaces by site.

Standardized (cm3) Volume Standardized Box-plot shows median, one-sigma range 50 and total range. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ferguson BA6 (n = 5) (n = 51) (n = 12) (n = 20) (n = 4) (n = 3) Site

Chert Biface Standardized Volume Distributions by Site 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 Figure 5.56 - Standardized volume 1.0 distributions of chert bifaces by site. Box- plot shows median, one-sigma range and Standardized (cm3) Volume Standardized 0.5 total range. 0.0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ballantine Ferguson (n = 2) (n = 6) (n = 1) (n = 16) (n = 3) (n = 1) Site

Biface Standardized Volume Distributions by Period and Material

1000 scale)

10 100 , Log Log , 3 10

1 Figure 5.57 - Standardized volume 0.1 distributions of quartzite and chert bifaces by period. Box-plot shows median, one- sigma range and total range. Standardized Volume (cm Volume Standardized 0.01 PD Quartzite ED Quartzite MD Quartzite PD Chert ED Chert (n = 88) (n = 4) (n = 2) (n = 25) (n = 4) Period and Material 166 more convex than the other. All specimens exhibit some form of damage, typically to one of the pointed ends. The sideblade from Wellington Bay is the largest specimen and the only one made from quartzite. It measures 35.4mm long, 17.8mm wide and 4.0mm thick, weighs 2.46g and has an approximate edge angle of 40 degrees. In contrast, the chert specimens range in length from 7.9 to 24.8mm (mean 16.8, sd 5.1), in width from 6.5 to 12.5mm (mean 9.3, sd 1.8) and in thickness from 1.7 to 3.0mm (mean 2.6, sd 0.5). The mean weight of chert sideblades is 0.43g (sd 0.29), and lateral edge angles range between 15 and 35 degrees.

5.7.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance

Judging from the size of sideblades recovered from the study sites, these tools were produced on suitably-shaped flake blanks using pressure flaking techniques to reduce and shape them to fit into existing armature slots. It is not possible to estimate the original size or form of the flake blanks because the dorsal and ventral surfaces are thoroughly flaked. The quartzite specimen from Wellington Bay is less extensively flaked than the chert specimens but has clearly undergone considerable modification. Flaking is fine and directed perpendicular to the tool edgefrom both margins, creating a ridge along the midline of each surface. Debitage resulting from the manufacture and rejuvenation of these tools would be too small for consistent recovery, although very small flakes (< 3 mm in greatest dimension) are present in the Iqaluktuuq debitage samples. Edge blunting was not observed on the edges of these bifaces.

Rejuvenation of sideblades consisted of additional flaking of the tools periphery. The asymmetrical curvature of the lateral edges leads me to believe that sideblades were resharpened and repaired while still embedded in their slots. Presuming that sideblades began their uselives as symmetrical pointed bifaces, the exposed margin would become progressively less convex over successive rejuvenations, creating their present asymmetrical appearance. Hinge fractures and scaling along the medial ridge are largely unidirectional from the less concave edge, which further supports this interpretation. Sideblades would presumably be replaced once broken or worn down until too little edge protruded from the slot to be sufficiently functional.

Few generalizations can be made regarding manufacturing methods for other biface specimens as 167 their diversity is simply too great. Many of the fragments included in the sample likely originated from other formal tool types and therefore would have production processes consistent with that kind of implement. Unfortunately, one can do little more than speculate as to what portions of such tools are represented. Both percussion and pressure flaking methods are evidenced, indicating that a range of reductive activities took place. Large quartzite bifaces were reduced via percussion from large tabular fragments or cobbles. Grinding was rarely applied to biface surfaces but was employed for platform preparation and edge blunting during manufacture.

5.7.3 - Materials

Sideblades are made from chert (83%, n = 6) and quartzite (19%, n = 1). Because of the difficulties inherent in distinguishing sideblade fragments from other bifacial specimens, quartzite sideblades are, in all likelihood, significantly underrepresented. Three basic types of raw material were used to make the remaining bifaces: chert (23%), quartzite (75%) and crystal quartz (2%). Chert appears in several colours: white, tan, light grey, dark grey, pink, red, and both banded and mottled combinations thereof. Two specimens made from ‘moth’ chert are present in the sample as well (#5-131, T-113). The quartzite is mostly of the local orange-pink variety, but also includes light pink-grey and dark red-purple variants also found locally but in smaller quantities. The two crystal quartz specimens are nearly transparent and one has a pinkish hue.

5.7.4 - Diachronic Trends

From the small sideblade sample available, few meaningful trends can be identified. Sideblade size does appear to decrease through time, which is presumably a function of differences in the size of organic components into which the sideblades are slotted. The Pre-Dorset specimens are longer and wider on average than the Middle Dorset specimens but have similar thicknesses. The BA4 specimen is fragmentary but seems to share a similar width with the sideblades from BA6. Considering size and thickness of the sideblade is contingent on the size of its parent slot, I am unsure what significance to ascribe to such subtle differences in morphology. Material use patterns do not seem to exhibit significant change; quartzite is represented only in the early Pre-Dorset sample, but I suspect its use extends into the Early Dorset period and possibly the Middle Dorset 168 period as well.

Low specimen counts for Dorset period undiagnostic bifaces makes it difficult to elucidate meaningful patterns of biface form and production after the Pre-Dorset/Dorset transition. There is a clear change in material usage in the Dorset period away from local quartzite. This material comprises 69.9% of biface production by artifact count in Pre-Dorset assemblages and only 19.2% and 26.7% of biface production in Early and Middle Dorset assemblages, respectively. Chert specimens account for the balance of bifaces in the assemblages with the notable exception of crystal quartz that makes up 1.3% of the Pre-Dorset sample. Thus, quartzite and crystal quartz fall in use after the transition period. Biface size varies to a greater degree in Pre-Dorset assemblages for both chert and quartzite, however this likely reflects sample size more than actual differences in production activities. Nevertheless, there appears to be a general decrease in biface size through time.

5.8 - Cores

The term ‘core’ is here used in a quasi-residual sense to denote all flaked pieces of toolstone that exhibit evidence of flake removals but cannot be classified into any other tool categories, such as biface or microblade core. This is solely a morphological definition; it is assumed that some of these artifacts were used as sources of flakes for a variety of tool producing activities, expedient or otherwise; however, it is also possible that some are examples of a formal artifact in the early stages of production. It is often impossible to objectively determine the intent behind flake removals and therefore cores cannot be usefully categorized based on such a criterion. Consequently, the definition used here includes all otherwise non-classifiable lithic specimens that have been worked, regardless of the intent behind such activity. While this definition may appear interpretively sterile, cores remain a useful artifact category insofar as it denotes raw material that has been used, in one sense or another, for tool production.

The cores in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages do not have a formal shape like other tool classes, and therefore the following discussion is limited in its scope to basic morphological and material 169 observations.

5.8.1 - Morphological Variability

Cores take on many shapes and sizes, ranging from minimally reduced quartzite cobbles to extensively flaked chert fragments. Lacking any standardized orientation, the size of these artifacts are provided in standardized volume (Table 5.2). Quartzite cores (mean 87.9cm3, sd 98.9) are larger on average than crystal quartz (mean 5.2cm3, sd 3.3) and chert cores (mean 9.8cm3, sd 8.5). Platforms are typically unprepared surfaces or flake scars generated by previous removals. Removals are opportunistic in most cases, contrasting with the organization of microblade cores

discussed previously. Some core fragments may have originated from microblade cores but the lack of parallel scarring on the core’s surface makes this difficult to ascertain (e.g. #10-146).

Mean Vol. Min Vol Max Vol. Max Dim. Count St. Dev (cm3) (cm3) (cm3) (mm) PD Chert 10 6.22 4.50 1.45 16.28 52.09 PD Quartzite 4 87.88 98.89 2.50 232.07 252.37 PD Crystal Quartz 6 5.24 3.90 1.40 9.32 33.96 ED Chert 8 14.82 13.63 3.45 45.33 53.34 MD Chert 10 9.55 3.38 5.81 16.29 48.81 Table 5.2 - Summary of core size/volume by material type and period. PD = Pre-Dorset; ED = Early Dorset; MD = Middle Dorset. 5.8.2 - Materials

Quartzite (15.7%, n = 6), crystal quartz (10.5%, n = 4) and chert (73.7%, n = 28) cores were identified in the sample.

5.8.3 - Diachronic Trends

Two related trends are evident in core size and raw material use. First, core size exhibits a decrease through the periods under study. Pre-Dorset cores average 30.5cm3 in volume, which decreases to 14.8cm3 in Early Dorset assemblages and 9.5cm3 in the Middle Dorset assemblage. Importantly, Dorset core sub-assemblages are composed entirely of chert, which as indicated above appears as smaller fragments than does quartzite, but also in larger fragments than crystal quartz. Therefore, the decrease in core size in the Dorset period is likely related to the preference for chert as a 170 raw material. The few large quartzite cores recovered from Pre-Dorset sites at Iqaluktuuq inflate the average core size. When quartzite cores are removed from the Pre-Dorset sample, the mean core size drops to 5.9cm3, below the value for Middle Dorset cores. Therefore, the trend towards declining core size is likely a reflection of material choice rather than any significant change in flake production activities.

5.9 - Groundstone Tools

Groundstone, like bifaces and cores, represents a pseudo-residual category that includes three sub-categories of ground tools: knives, endblades and miscellaneous fragments. Ground knife and endblade specimens are present in sufficiently low numbers and represent significantly different production processes as to warrant categorical separation from their flaked stone counterparts for this discussion. Ground endblades are, however, included with flaked specimens in the utility calculations presented later in section 6.1.

5.9.1 - Morphological Variability

Ten ground tool edge fragments appear to be from large bifacially-ground knives similar to those reported in Dorset assemblages elsewhere in the region and further east (e.g. Maxwell 1985:143; Plumet 1994:117). These supposed knife fragments vary in length from 9.9 to 54.4mm (mean 24.1, sd 12.9), in width from 9.0 to 56.3mm (mean 24.6, sd 14.7), in thickness from 3.2 to 8.3mm (mean 4.6, sd 1.4), and in weight from 0.31 to 13.76g (mean 4.6, sd 5.0). The sample includes 3 proximal, 3 distal, 2 medial and 2 lateral fragments exhibiting varying degrees of grinding modification. Some specimens are ground completely on ventral and dorsal faces with defined beveled edges and tips (e.g. #3-57), while some are minimally ground along the periphery with little to no surficial grinding (i.e. #1-783). One proximal fragment (#1-333) exhibits bilateral multiple notching, four notches to a side, and another (#5-346) has bilateral single notching. Edge angles range from 25 to 50 degrees (median 45).

Endblades are represented by six specimens: four proximal fragments, one lateral fragment, and one complete endblade. The complete specimen (#5-12) is a lanceolate endblade measuring 171 36.1mm x 17.4mm x 5.3mm and weighing 4.04g. It has a flat base and rounded tip, which is slightly damaged. The dorsal and ventral surfaces exhibit a primary triangular facet extending obliquely from the basal corners to the mid-line approximately half-way from base to tip. Two facets extend laterally and distally to the margins from this point, separated by a medial ridge that runs to the endblade’s tip. The primary facet effectively thins the base, which terminates in a rough but linear break surface. The four proximal and one lateral endblade fragments average 27.9mm in length (sd 5.0), 23.9mm in width (sd 12.9), 4.3mm in width (sd 1.3) and 4.25g in weight (sd 3.9). Only two edge angles are recorded for these specimens: 25 and 55 degrees. The sample includes a distal fragment of a notched endblade (#3-363) that exhibits transverse scarfing between its bilateral notches.

Miscellaneous ground tools total eleven specimens and include partially-ground tabular fragments of slate, schist, siltstone, shale and chert that might have served as whetstones or similar grinding tools. Also included is a piece of ground slate from BA2 (#1-154) with two bi-conically drilled holes that from its surface context can be safely associated with a later Neo-Eskimo presence at the site.

5.9.2 - Manufacture & Maintenance

The thinness of the slate tools, and in particular those without extensive grinding of the dorsal and ventral faces, indicates that the raw material was procured in a form close to the desired thickness of the tool. Thick pieces may also have been split along fracture planes by percussion. Variable presence and absence of discernible striations indicate that edges and faces were ground on substrates with different grain coarseness. Sandstone is one likely abrader, but other fine-grained sedimentary stones would also suffice. Rough shaping of edges and notches was occasionally executed by percussion flaking, but the poor flaking qualities of slate limited the invasiveness of such modification. Striations also indicate that grinding was performed both parallel and perpendicular to the long axis of knives and endblades. The clear definition and planar character of surficial facets suggests the tool was ground along a flat surface and held at a consistent angle, possibly with the help of an additional device of unknown type. Edge rejuvenation activities performed with 172 the armature still in a haft would likewise have influenced the forms of some specimens, such as the lanceolate endblade, by preventing further modification of some surfaces, restricting grinding motions and facilitating prehension while grinding.

5.9.3 - Use Evidence

While fracture patterns and edge rounding provide evidence of ground tool use, no systematic analysis of breakage and wear patterns was performed on these specimens. Nevertheless, one can infer from the high proportion of proximal fragments with distal snap fractures, especially of notched endblades, that these implements were broken in their hafts off-site and were likely detached and discarded for armament replacement. Many of the breaks indicate bending forces along the dorsal-ventral plane were responsible for material fracture, a pattern consistent with a thrusting mode of use.

5.9.4 - Materials

Several types of material are present in the ground sample: grey-green slate, dark grey slate, red slate, schist, siltstone, tan chert, and shale. Endblades and knives are made exclusively from slate.

5.9.5 - Diachronic Trends

The majority of ground tools (81%) were recovered from Early and Middle Dorset contexts. Of the specimens originating from Pre-Dorset sites (n = 4; 14%), only two were recovered from secure subsurface contexts: the red slate knife tip (#10-389) and a miscellaneous slate fragment with parallel ground surfaces (#1-1084). Assuming the paucity of ground tools from these sites is representative of material use practices during site occupation, one can conclude that the use of slate increased dramatically during the Dorset Period. This is consistent with material use patterns described elsewhere (Maxwell 1976, 1985) and with the trend described previously for burin- like tools towards an increase in grinding as a production and rejuvenation technique. Without a larger sample of early Palaeo-Eskimo groundstone implements it is not possible to identify any further trends in tool form or manufacture. It is likely that the introduction of slate into production activities represents a progressive and partial material replacement trend that sees the substitution 173 of poorly flaked but easily ground materials, such as slate, for harder siliceous materials like chert in some production activities. The continued presence of chert endblades in Middle Dorset and into the Late Dorset Period (Maxwell 1985:225) verifies that complete replacement never takes place.

5.10 - Assemblage Composition

Taking site assemblage contents in aggregate, similar tool proportions are seen for sites sharing temporal periods. Figure 5.58 shows the typological profile for all confidently dated sites included in this study, and Figure 5.59 shows the same information for the temporally ambiguous BA1 and BA4 assemblages. The Pre-Dorset components at Buchanan, Wellington Bay and Menez share a similar arcing profile while Ballantine, Ferguson Lake and BA6 share a similar stepped profiles. BA1 also displays a stepped profile similar to the Dorset assemblages. BA4, on the other hand, appears as a long plateau that does not resemble any of the other assemblage profiles. .

Examination of the tool type profiles for the study sites at Iqaluktuuq reveals the greatest differences in profile shape to be caused by microblades, burins and burin spalls. Removal of microblades from the profile (Figure 5.60) obscures the more clearly delineated Pre-Dorset and Dorset signatures seen in Figure 5.58. The additional removal of burins and spalls has a similar effect, demonstrating that the composition of Palaeo-Eskimo assemblages differs primarily in the presence and absence of these key tool types. As discussed previously, burins are replaced by the functionally analogous burin-like tool after the transition period as a result of changing tool rejuvenation strategies. Microblades increase dramatically in frequency about the same time, presumably as an alternative to bifacially-flaked cutting implements. Neither change suggests wholly different techno-economic activities were engaged in at Iqaluktuuq before and after the transition period, which is expected considering the faunal evidence collected to date. While the overall subsistence hunting strategies of Palaeo-Eskimos changed to integrate increased reliance on marine resources, the kinds of resources being exploited at Iqaluktuuq (i.e. caribou) remained the same. Arctic char fishing is presumed to have also been an important subsistence activity after the formation of the Ekalluk River, but there is no evidence to suggest that the changes in tool production and frequencies are a reflection of this new seasonal resource. 174 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ballantine Ferguson BA6 Pre-Dorset Early Dorset Middle Dorset COR BIF SCR MBC MB KNF END BLT BSPL Proportional Assemblage Composition by Artifact Type and Temporal Period Temporal and Type Artifact Assemblage Composition by Proportional BUR

0.6 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 Proportion of Assemblage of Proportion Figure 5.58 - Proportional assemblage composition by artifact type and temporal period. 175 BA1 (Dorset?) BA4 (Mixed?) Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez BA6 Ballantine Ferguson Pre-Dorset Early Dorset Middle Dorset COR BIF SCR MBC MB KNF END BLT BSPL Proportional Assemblage Composition by Artifact Type and Temporal Period Temporal and Type Artifact Assemblage Composition by Proportional BUR

0.6 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.7 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.8 Proportion of Assemblage of Proportion Figure 5.59 - Proportional assemblage composition by artifact type for temporally ambiguous assemblages (BA1 & BA4) 176 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ballantine Ferguson BA6 Pre-Dorset Early Dorset Middle Dorset COR BIF SCR MBC KNF END BLT Proportional Assemblage Composition by Artifact Type Type Artifact Assemblage Composition by Proportional Period Excluding Microblades Temporal and BSPL BUR

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.0 Proportion of Assemblage of Proportion Figure 5.60 - Proportional assemblage composition by artifact type and temporal period excluding microblades 177 Comparison of the tool type profiles gives some insight into the chronological affiliation of the ambiguous Buchanan Area 1 and Area 4 sites. The BA1 profile best matches the Dorset profiles when all tool classes are included, largely because of the high proportions of microblades. BA4 seems to fit neither the Pre-Dorset nor the Dorset profiles especially well, suggesting a mixed assemblage. The microblades and single BLT in BA4 are strongly suggestive of a Dorset period origin but are accompanied by knife fragments, a burin, and a burin spall, all indicative of a Pre-Dorset affiliation. Both of these observations concur with my initial impressions of the site assemblages.

Comparing artifact type frequencies across sites, and especially between regions, is a complicated process. Assemblages reflect the site specific activities that took place, in some cases over centuries, in a particular locale within dynamic ecological and geographic contexts. The northern shores of Baffin Island represent a significantly different milieu for human existence than Iqaluktuuq, Ungava Peninsula, or even Frobisher Bay. Even assuming a uniform ecological context, the unique occupational history of any site introduces variation that is nearly impossible to interpret with any great degree of certainty. Consequently, differences in artifact assemblage compositions often cannot be explained in a simplistic, uniform manner. Nevertheless, macroscale differences in assemblage composition can give archaeologists a sense of technological and task-related differences that may be indicative of significant variation in Palaeo-Eskimo lifeways. While a fine-grained comparative study of tool type frequencies is beyond the scope of this work, a cursory comparison of the Iqaluktuuq artifact type frequency data to other sites from elsewhere in the North American Arctic yields some interesting observations. Tool type frequency data published by Nagy (1997) for Ungava Peninsula, and Maxwell (1973) for southeastern Baffin Island provide a useful basis for comparison with the Iqaluktuuq site assemblages; this information is summarized in Figure 5.61 and Table 5.3 below.

Many of the previously discussed trends in tool type frequencies are evident in this dataset. Burins and burin spalls comprise a high proportion of most Pre-Dorset assemblages and very low proportions of Dorset period assemblages, if they appear at all. In general, microblades comprise 178

Scrapers Microblades MBCores Knife Ground Endblades Core Spalls Burin Burins BLTs Bifaces

KdDq-2

KdDq-19,20

KdDq-9-2

KdDq-8-2

NiNg-1-6

KcFr-8A

KcFr-3A

KdDq-9-1

NiNg-5

NiNg-3

Early Dorset Middle Dorset

KcFr-5

KcFr-8B

KcFr-7

KeDr-3

KdDq-13

KdDq-10

KeDr-1 KdDq-11

Pre-Dorset

NiNg-7

NiNg-10

NiNg-1-5 Summary of Inter-Regional, Inter-Site Tool Type Frequency Data Frequency Type Tool Summary Inter-Site of Inter-Regional, NiNg-1-2 0%

90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%

100% Proportion - Summary chart of inter-regional, inter-site tool type frequency data organized by tool type, site assemblage and temporal period. Squares signify tool type frequency data organized inter-site Figure 5.61 - Summary chart of inter-regional, assemblages from Iqaluktuuq; filled circles signify southeastern Baffin Island; and white Ungava Peninsula. 179 2.47% 3.93% 2.37% 8.02% 4.76% 3.45% 6.12% 1.86% 1.65% 3.28% 3.51% 1.72% 2.70% 3.45% 18.66% 18.37% 18.62% 13.65% 10.10% 12.32% 10.02% 15.63% Scrapers 6.90% 5.41% 0.00% 40.11% 11.98% 31.59% 17.69% 31.12% 53.09% 25.28% 59.24% 18.83% 71.43% 51.72% 21.21% 15.22% 29.62% 36.73% 71.69% 36.07% 35.16% 14.04% Microblades 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.16% 1.97% 2.84% 0.41% 1.00% 4.76% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.45% 0.00% 0.00% MB Cores 8.11% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.79% 8.15% 1.90% 3.72% 6.33% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.92% 0.00% 1.72% Knives 21.05% 17.24% 2.04% 9.66% 0.93% 2.25% 8.16% 2.84% 0.00% 1.62% 4.76% 5.17% 3.03% 4.01% 0.72% 1.86% 0.00% 2.34% 0.00% 1.72% 0.00% 3.45% 15.88% 12.24% Ground 7.11% 8.11% 6.79% 9.83% 0.00% 7.07% 8.24% 8.16% 6.52% 4.34% 9.84% 0.00% 0.00% 6.90% 18.11% 37.76% 22.59% 25.51% 10.74% 10.57% 10.34% 19.53% Endblades Cores 1.67% 3.74% 4.91% 6.79% 4.59% 5.69% 0.00% 6.90% 2.02% 2.67% 3.62% 2.27% 6.56% 6.25% 3.51% 3.45% 0.00% 33.43% 18.60% 10.73% 12.24% 17.24% Spalls 0.00% 0.00% 0.16% 1.85% 1.40% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.40% 1.56% 0.00% 2.70% 32.23% 15.12% 20.20% 18.71% 12.24% 35.51% 14.75% 43.10% 17.24% 0.84% 2.04% 2.62% 1.85% 5.90% 4.08% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 4.75% 7.03% Burins 13.64% 20.22% 30.30% 19.82% 12.24% 25.36% 18.03% 21.05% 10.34% 13.51% 10.34% BLTs 1.11% 4.46% 2.04% 5.56% 5.56% 1.97% 3.32% 1.90% 0.00% 0.54% 4.76% 1.72% 1.01% 0.00% 0.72% 1.03% 0.00% 7.03% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 3.34% 1.80% 7.10% 3.09% 1.79% 2.48% 3.78% 9.52% 4.23% 0.00% 4.04% 0.00% 3.93% 3.28% 2.34% Bifaces 13.95% 14.69% 18.97% 35.09% 22.41% 56.76% 24.14% NiNg-3 NiNg-5 NiNg-7 KcFr-7 KcFr-5 KeDr-1 KeDr-3 KdDq-2 NiNg-10 KcFr-3A KcFr-8A KcFr-8B NiNg-1-6 NiNg-1-5 KdDq-11 NiNg-1-2 KdDq-10 KdDq-13 KdDq-8-2 KdDq-9-2 KdDq-9-1 KdDq-19,20 Site (Borden) Site Period Pre-Dorset Early Dorset Middle Dorset Table 5.3 - Comparative Tool Type Frequency Data for Iqaluktuuq (shaded), Ungava Peninsula (Nagy 1997), and southeastern Baffin Island (Maxwell 1973). Type Tool 5.3 - Comparative Table 180 a higher proportion of the Dorset assemblages compared to the Pre-Dorset assemblages but appear in significant quantities in both. Burin-like tools appear almost exclusively in Dorset period assemblages. While they appear in low frequencies in Pre-Dorset assemblages, groundstone tools other than BLTs are present in much higher frequencies in Dorset assemblages.

Despite the expected similarities, important differences in tool type frequencies can be discerned. An interesting quality of the Iqaluktuuq assemblages that sets it apart from other sites in the dataset is the high proportion of bifaces present in Pre-Dorset samples. Bifaces account for between 23%

(Menez) and 57% (Wellington Bay) of total artifact counts, excluding debitage, in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages, compared to 0% and 4% in the Ungava and Baffin Island samples, respectively. This phenomenon is likely a reflection of the Pre-Dorset quartzite tool production activity that took place at the Ekalluk River sites, and which is not found in these other regions. Another interesting difference is the higher proportion of knives identified in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. This may be partially explained by typological differences inherent in the classificatory systems used by different authors, with knife fragments being assigned more often to the general ‘biface’ category. Nevertheless, it seems likely that the quartzite knife industry at Ekalluk River is responsible for the inflated frequencies as well. Microblades are conspicuously less frequent in the Pre-Dorset study sample when compared to other regions, but microblades in the Early and Middle Dorset Iqaluktuuq assemblages are quite similar to frequencies noted for other sites outside the region. It may be that the paucity of suitable local materials is responsible for the dearth of microblades, or else site specific activities differed markedly during this period.

These differences aside, the Iqaluktuuq lithic assemblages are quite similar in terms of tool type frequencies recorded for the other sites in the dataset; however, the degree to which these assemblages compare from a technological perspective, that is in production, and maintenance processes, as well as hafting and modes of use, has yet to be evaluated. One must question the underlying assumptions of inter-regional assemblage comparison at the typological level in the absence of technological characterization, and I would argue that the interpretive value of such an exercise is limited. 181 5.11 - Debitage

The site assemblages examined in this work include nearly 35000 pieces of flake stone debitage, including chert, quartzite, crystal quartz, slate and unidentified materials. A sub-sample of the debitage from each site assemblage was examined in order to establish basic patterns of debitage size and the presence of cortex. Debitage samples from multiple excavation units were judgementally selected for each site so that a significant proportion of the debitage from each site assemblage was examined taking into account the relative size of each debitage assemblage. For instance, only 16% of the Wellington Bay debitage sample (1880/11742 pieces) was analyzed, while 30% (980/3417 pieces) of the Menez debitage sample was analyzed and 100% (25/25 pieces) of the Buchanan Area 1 debitage sample was analyzed. Judgemental sampling was selected over random sampling in part because spatial distribution patterns were not being sought. The kinds of information being compiled (flake size, material type and cortex proportion) are intended for comparison between sites, not between different portions of each site, and as such, only a minimum proportion of the debitage samples need be analyzed. Any bias introduced through judgemental sampling in this case is deemed to be minimal, especially in comparison to the complete lack of data for debitage ‘excavated’ previously by Taylor and not retained. The total number of flakes and flake fragments analyzed slightly exceeds 10000 pieces and therefore represents approximately 30% of the total debitage sample available for aggregate Iqaluktuuq assemblages.

Table 5.4 summarizes debitage material proportions for the study assemblages. Table 5.5 summarizes the morphological and descriptive data collected from the debitage samples according to the methods outlined in Section 4.2. Figure 5.62 - Figure 5.64 show the distributions of debitage size for each assemblage categorized by material type. All three measures – maximum dimension, standardized surface area and standardized volume – reveal similar patterns in debitage size, with quartzite flakes being significantly larger on average than chert flakes. Proportions of cortex are similarly low for all site assemblages with the notable exception of BA6. The conspicuous moth chert appears in the debitage assemblages from Ferguson Lake and Ballantine. Sixty-two percent of the Ferguson Lake debitage sample and 3% of the Ballantine debitage sample consisted of moth 182 chert. Additionally, both assemblages contained multiple fragments of moth chert nodules (not quantified) that appeared unworked.

Count % Analyzed Chert Quartzite Crystal Quartz Slate Wellington Bay 11742 16% 6.2% 93.8% 0 0 BA2 2234 59% 28.7% 68.0% 0.7% 0.3% BA5 4762 60% 13.8% 86.2% 2.6% 0 Menez 3417 29% 35.1% 64.9% 5.4% 0 Ballantine 2308 86% 95.6% 4.4% 0 0.3% Ferguson Lake 2636 15% 81.0% 19.0% 0 0 BA6 5048 13% 97.1% 2.9% 0 0 BA1 25 100% 57.3% 41.4% 0.8% 0.4% BA4 2367 13% 0.3% 99.6% 0 0 Table 5.4 - Debitage sample material type frequencies and proportion analyzed by site assemblage.

Analysis of the Iqaluktuuq debitage samples was limited to a comparison of material types, flake sizes and cortex coverage proportions on complete flakes and proximal flake fragments. As such, the interpretations based on these data should be considered tentative until more detailed analyses can be performed. Nevertheless, the data provide support for several observations noted in the preceding discussion. Material type frequencies in the debitage samples are similar to material frequencies observed in the formal artifact samples for each site assemblage (Figure 5.65). For instance, the BA6 artifact assemblage contained 94.5% chert, 2.9% quartzite and 2.5% slate and the debitage sample contained 97.1% chert, 2.8% quartzite and 0% slate. Considering the low quartzite artifact sample size in the BA6 assemblage and the fact that slate is only flaked in the earliest stages of reduction, the observed differences in debitage and tool material frequencies are deemed to be insignificant. However, quartzite proportions in the debitage sample tend to be greater than in the tool sample, and this is especially evident in the Pre-Dorset assemblages. Assuming material proportions in the tool sample are representative of actual material use proportions in an active toolkit, the greater proportion of quartzite flakes suggests that this material was worked more often and/or more intensively than chert and other lithic materials. The production of a single tool from a quartzite cobble can be expected to generate more debitage than edge maintenance on several existing chert tools.

Debitage size distributions are somewhat difficult to interpret given the known disparity in raw 183 - - - - - 0 0 0 0 %C ------sdt - - - - - mt 2.80 3.38 2.34 18.24 ------sdw Slate - - - - - 3.89 mw 11.32 24.54 20.87 ------sdl - - - - - ml 33.90 19.00 18.24 12.10 - - - - - 0 0 0 0 %C - - - - - 0.89 1.42 0.35 0.08 sdt - - - - - mt 1.96 2.36 1.24 1.53 - - - - - 3.41 3.91 0.25 0.18 sdw - - - - - 7.87 8.54 5.65 5.95 mw Crystal Quartz - - - - - 1.96 5.45 4.13 2.69 sdl - - - - - ml 7.60 7.60 7.81 10.51 0 0 0 2.0 7.7 2.4 3.6 4.3 %C 13.45 2.12 1.89 2.82 4.05 2.91 2.22 1.59 3.26 3.73 sdt mt 2.84 2.86 2.82 3.57 4.53 3.28 2.34 3.00 4.07 5.99 6.79 7.78 9.31 9.93 6.46 13.66 10.68 12.39 sdw Quartzite mw 11.10 11.72 13.66 12.28 18.01 14.04 10.42 13.81 15.59 6.10 6.50 9.85 7.42 7.98 7.37 7.50 11.72 12.21 sdl ml 11.46 11.36 11.72 12.51 15.54 12.74 10.54 12.23 14.77 0 0 0 1.2 9.6 1.6 6.6 2.9 11.5 %C 1.11 0.36 0.41 0.47 0.55 1.22 0.92 1.36 0.64 sdt mt 2.95 1.16 1.35 1.52 1.56 1.84 1.71 2.05 1.58 2.74 1.82 2.05 2.14 3.10 3.69 3.09 5.80 2.49 sdw Chert 7.99 5.48 6.63 6.71 6.58 7.93 7.22 9.24 7.27 mw 2.00 2.38 2.39 2.15 4.15 3.69 5.26 2.83 1.28 sdl ml 6.53 7.03 7.62 6.96 9.12 9.43 8.19 9.93 10.57 Assemblage Wellington B. Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ballantine Ferguson L. BA6 BA1 BA4 Table 5.5 - Summary of debitage metrics and cortex proportions by site assemblage material type. Table m = mean; sd standard deviation; l length (mm); w width t thickness %C proportion w/ cortex; - not applicable Note: Only complete flakes and proximal flake fragments are included in the analyzed sample. 184

Debitage Maximum Dimension by Site and Material Type

80 Chert Quartzite

20 Figure 5.62 - Flake debitage maximum Maximum Dimension (mm) dimension distributions by site assemblage for 10 chert and quartzite samples. 0 BA2 BA5 BA6 BA1 BA4 BA2 BA2 BA5 BA6 BA1 BA4 Menez Menez Ballantine Ballantine Ferguson Ballantine Ballantine Ferguson Wellington Wellington Wellington

Site

Debitage Area by Site and Material Type

10000 Chert Quartzite )

10 log 2 1000

100

10 Figure 5.63 - Flake debitage surface area Flake Surface Area (mm Area FlakeSurface distributions by site assemblage for chert and

1 quartzite samples. BA2 BA5 BA6 BA1 BA4 BA2 BA5 BA6 BA1 BA4 Menez Menez Ferguson Ferguson Ballantine Ballantine Ballantine Wellington Wellington Wellington

Site

Debitage Volume by Site and Material

1000 Chert Quartzite ) 10 100 log 3 10

0.1

Flake Volume (cm FlakeVolume Figure 5.64 - Flake debitage standardized 0.01 volume distributions by site assemblage for chert and quartzite samples. 0.001 BA2 BA5 BA6 BA1 BA4 BA2 BA5 BA6 BA1 BA4 Menez Menez Menez Ferguson Ferguson Ballantine Ballantine Wellington Wellington

Site 185 U U ED ED PD PD PD PD MD Period N 25 25 20 75 90 85 238 138 188 251 2367 5048 2636 2308 3417 4762 2234 11742 T T T T T T T T T D D D D D D D D D Other Slate Crystal Quartz Proportion Chert Quartzite 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Debitage and Formal Tool Material Proportions by Site Assemblage Site Material Proportions by Tool Debitage and Formal BA5 BA2 BA4 BA1 BA6 Menez

Ferguson Ballantine Wellington Site Assemblage Site - Comparison of debitage and artifact sample material frequencies by site assemblage. D = debitage sample T = tool sample T Figure 5.65 - Comparison of debitage and artifact sample material frequencies by site assemblage. D = 186 material sizes (i.e. quartzite vs. chert nodules). One-sigma ranges of quartzite flake maximum dimension, volume and surface area are significantly greater than those for chert flakes in their respective assemblages. Comparison between assemblages reveals Pre-Dorset quartzite distributions to be comparable with Early and Middle Dorset chert distributions and, perhaps more interesting, both quartzite and chert flake size distributions in the Dorset samples are noticeably higher than those from the Pre-Dorset samples. This phenomenon can partially be explained by two factors. First, the quartzite samples from the Dorset assemblages are comparatively small in relation to the Pre-Dorset samples of the same material, meaning that a few large flakes can easily skew the distribution upwards. Examination of the flake size scatter-plots shown in Figure 5.66 shows this to be the case. Second, if one proceeds with the aforementioned conclusion that quartzite working was more common during the Pre-Dorset period with the manufacture of bifacial knives, it is reasonable to expect a greater amount of small waste debris to be present in Pre-Dorset assemblages. Bifacial knives, as well as endblades, scrapers and other tool types, require extensive pressure flaking to shape tool edges. The greater number of small pressure flakes created during this process would necessarily bring down the mean size of quartzite flakes in early Palaeo-Eskimo assemblages.

The greater size of chert flakes in Dorset assemblages, however, is more difficult to explain. While it may be that Dorset peoples were able to obtain larger pieces of chert for tool production than Pre-Dorset peoples, thereby creating larger pieces of waste material, I am more inclined to think that differences in production activities are at work here; it may be that Dorset peoples were producing new chert tools from transported or locally obtained material whereas Pre-Dorset knappers at Iqaluktuuq were more concerned with tool maintenance activities. Cortex proportions on chert debitage appear to support this scenario, at least for the Middle Dorset case. Over 10% of the BA6 chert debitage assemblage exhibited at least some cortical material, significantly more than the highest frequency in the Pre-Dorset assemblage from BA2 (2.0%). Similarly, 1.2% of the Ballantine assemblage contained at least some cortex, which is greater than the 0.2% and 0.4% observed for the BA2 and Wellington Bay assemblages, respectively. Of course, cortex can 187

Quartzite Debitage Size by Material Type and Period 70

40 PD ED 30 MD Width (mm)

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Length (mm)

Chert Debitage Size by Material Type and Period 70

40 PD ED 30 MD Width (mm)

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 Length (mm)

Figure 5.66 - Complete and proximal flake size scatter-plot by type and period for Quartzite (top) and Chert (bottom). PD = Pre-Dorset ED = Early Dorset MD = Middle Dorset Q = Quartzite C = Chert 188 be misleading when used as an indicator of production activities because it assumes that the raw material in question was not decorticated prior to its arrival at the site. With this caveat in mind, though, the cortex proportions observed in the Iqaluktuuq debitage samples appear to suggest that primary-stage chert working was more common in the Early and Middle Dorset occupations than during the Pre-Dorset occupations. Taken together with the greater chert flake sizes also observed in the Dorset assemblages, it is clear that chert was being used in somewhat different production activities at Iqaluktuuq before and after the transition period. 189 6.0 - Mobility-Related Analyses

Having outlined the technological changes that took place in Palaeo-Eskimo stone tools, some attention will now be given to the influence of mobility on this process. Mobility is known to have decreased substantially in the Dorset period and therefore it is important to know what effects this decrease had on lithic technologies. The following summarizes the results of three mobility-related analyses outlined in Section 4.4, which are intended to predict the influence of changing mobility patterns on stone tool design. These include Utility-Portability, Raw Material Use, and Production Intensity. Based on the conformity to or deviation from the expected technological practices, I infer the degree and nature of influence mobility imposed on the planning and execution Palaeo- Eskimo technical activities.

6.1 - Utility-Portability Indices

As outlined in Section 4.4.1, this analysis is intended to help determine what effect changing mobility had on the relative utility of tools and their ability to be transported. These factors are evaluated using a Utility-Portability Index (UPI), which is calculated in a number of different ways depending on the kind of tool being examined. Four tool types were examined for this analysis: endscrapers, knives, endblades and burins, and a summary of the results is presented below.

6.1.1 - Endscrapers

Utility indices were calculated for twenty-seven endscrapers in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. Ten were taken from Pre-Dorset sites (BA2, BA5, Menez, Wellington Bay), nine were taken from Early Dorset sites (Ferguson Lake, Ballantine) and eight were taken from the Middle Dorset BA6 site. Separate indices were calculated using mass and volume as proxy variables for portability. Overall tool length was used as the proxy for utility. Figure 6.1 shows the distribution of endscraper utility index values for Pre-Dorset, Early Dorset and Middle Dorset assemblages. Figure 6.2 shows the distribution of endscraper utility index values by site assemblage. Table 6.1 summarizes the UPI value data obtained for the scraper samples separated by temporal period. 190

Endscraper UPI Value Distributions by Period

UPI Value 10

Figure 6.1 - Endscraper UPI value distributions organized by period. 0 Pre-Dorset Early Dorset Middle Dorset (n = 10) (n = 9) (n = 8) Period

Endscraper UPI Value Distributions by Site

15 UPI Value 10

5 Figure 6.2 - Endscraper UPI value distributions organized by site assemblage. 0 Wellington BA2 BA5 Menez Ballantine Ferguson BA6 (n = 1) (n = 5) (n = 1) (n = 3) (n = 7) (n = 2) (n = 8) Site

Period Count Mean Score Std Dev Pre-Dorset 10 11.64 7.86 Early Dorset 9 10.65 7.96 Middle Dorset 8 9.29 3.17 Table 6.1 - Summary of Scraper UPI Data by Period

6.1.2 - Knives

One hundred and fifty-five complete and fragmentary knives were included in the sample. Of these, 47 were made from chert and 108 were made from quartzite. The low number of complete knives necessitates the application of a modified utility index. Index values were calculated by dividing mass by specimen length to control for differential length in fragmentary specimens and subsequently dividing width by this value [I = W/(M/L)]. The resulting index values represent 191 the relative utility for a standardized segment length of a knife (1mm). Specimens were then separated by temporal period and the results are presented in Figure 6.3 and Table 6.2. Pre-Dorset chert knives scored values between 113.1 and 424.9 and quartzite knives scored between 50.2 and 388.6. Index values for Early Dorset chert knives range from 183.2 to 333.1 and the sole quartzite knife fragment from the same period scored a value of 52.6. Middle Dorset chert knives have values between 146.5 and 244.0 while their quartzite counterparts have values ranging from 108.4 to 186.8.

Period Material Count Mean UPI Score Std Dev Chert 34 244.42 77.68 Pre-Dorset Quartzite 101 167.63 110.26 Chert 6 233.28 55.98 Early Dorset Quartzite 1 52.69 - Chert 7 204.72 33.89 Middle Dorset Quartzite 3 141.75 40.54 Chert 0 - - Unknown (BA4) Quartzite 2 185.98 11.07 Table 6.2 - Summary of Knife UPI Data by Period and Material Type

6.1.3 - Endblades

Twenty-eight complete endblades are included in the sample, ten from Pre-Dorset contexts, nine from Early Dorset contexts, and seven from Middle Dorset contexts. Also included are single

Knife UPI Value Distributions by Period and Material Type 1200 1100 Chert Quartzite 1000 900 800 700 600

UPI Value Value UPI 500 400 300 200 100 0 PD Chert PD (n = 34) Chert ED (n = 6) MD MD Chert (n = 7) PD QuartzitePD (n = 101) QuartziteED (n = 1) MD MD Quartzite (n = 3) BA4 Quartzite BA4 (n = 2) Period Figure 6.3 - Knife UPI value distributions by period. 192 specimens from BA1 and BA4, both having uncertain temporal affiliations. Utility indices were calculated using the two methods outlined in Section 4.4.1. Figure 6.4 shows the distribution of endblade UPI values for each specimen by material type and period. Figure 6.5 and Figure 6.6 show the aggregate period assemblage distributions of UPI and UPI-A values. The UPI data are summarized below in Table 6.3.

Period or UPI UPI-A Material Type Count Std Dev Std Dev Assemblage Score Score Triangular 6 35.17 8.49 214.14 51.43 Chert Notched 0 - - - - Triangular 3 23.27 15.72 186.39 59.72 Pre-Dorset Quartzite Notched 0 - - - - Triangular 0 - - - - Slate Notched 1 6.90 - 88.02 - Triangular 5 39.34 6.32 176.86 19.90 Chert Notched 3 8.53 0.90 83.69 2.71 Triangular 0 - - - - Early Dorset Quartzite Notched 0 - - - - Triangular 1 8.95 - 71.36 - Slate Notched 0 - - - - Triangular 3 31.53 3.26 198.62 57.82 Chert Notched 4 10.46 4.27 91.07 14.67 Triangular 0 - - - - Middle Dorset Quartzite Notched 0 - - - - Triangular 0 - - - - Slate Notched 0 - - - - Triangular 0 - - - - Chert Notched 1 28.15 - 68.10 - Triangular 0 - - - - Unknown (BA1) Quartzite Notched 0 - - - - Triangular 0 - - - - Slate Notched 0 - - - - Triangular 1 6.31 - 71.36 - Chert Notched 0 - - - - Triangular 0 - - - - Unknown (BA4) Quartzite Notched 0 - - - - Triangular 0 - - - - Slate Notched 0 - - - - Table 6.3 - Summary of Endblade UPI Data by Period and Material Type

6.1.4 - Burins

Edge lengths were recorded for each burin model using the applicable methods (see Section 4.4.1) and were tabulated and standardized by conversion into proportions of the implement’s initial edge 193 late Triangular late

Chert Notched Chert Triangular Chert Triangular Quartzite Notched Slate S

BA4

BA1

Dorset

Middle

Dorset or Assemblage Period

Early Pre-Dorset Effective Endblade UPI Values by Material and Period and by Material Values UPI Effective Endblade

5 0

50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 UPI Value UPI Figure 6.4 - Endblade UPI value distributions by period or assemblage. 194

Complete Endblade UPI Value Distributions by Period 50

30 Figure 6.5 - Endblade UPI value distributions by period. UPI Value 20

0 Pre-Dorset Early Dorset Middle Dorset (n = 10) (n = 9) (n = 7) Period

Complete Endblade UPI-A Value Distributions by Period 300

200

Figure 6.6 - Endblade UPI-A value distributions by period.

UPI-A Value 100

0 Pre-Dorset Early Dorset Middle Dorset (n = 10) (n = 9) (n = 7) Period 195 length. Graphs summarizing the results are presented as Figure 6.7 - Figure 6.10.

In the archaeological specimen models, Method A produced between 60.65mm and 85.00mm of working edge length (mean 71.35mm). Method A therefore produced between 3.2 and 4.8 times the original length of the tool’s working edge (mean 4.1). The standardized method (Method S) yielded 43.7mm to 80.4mm of edge (mean 62.4mm), or between 2.6 and 4.2 times the initial edge length of the burin (mean 3.39). In contrast, Method G produced total edge lengths of between 139.6mm and 202.2mm (mean 170.6mm), which can be expressed as 9.2 to 10.0 times original burin edge length (mean 9.7). Shifting focus to the control model, grinding produced 243.75mm (Method G) and 225mm (Method GP) of working edge through eighteen rejuvenations. Method G and Method GP thus produced 19.5 times and 18 times the original edge length of the tool, respectively. The same mass yielded only 78.75mm of working edge through nine spalling events, or 6.3 times the original implement edge length. This value is one third of that produced by Method G and slightly less than one third of the edge length produced by Method GP.

The changing utility of implements can also be expressed by marginal edge length gain/loss, the relative change in working edge length observed for each rejuvenation episode. For the control model, marginal change was consistently -4mm for Method S, it averaged 1.3mm for Method G and no change occurred for Method GP. The same overall pattern was observed in the artifact models, which yielded an average marginal change of -0.15 (sd 0.08) for Method S and 0.02 (sd 0.01) for Method G. Method A had greater variability in edge length changes, providing an average marginal change of -0.10 (sd 0.14).

6.1.5 - Interpretations

To review, these indices are intended to provide a relative measure of the amount of usable edge a particular tool yields relative to its carrying cost (i.e. weight). It has been hypothesized that high mobility will result in toolkits having higher index values than toolkits produced for less mobile populations. This is justified by the assertion that mobility imposes selective pressures on toolkits to become more portable without sacrificing (much) utility, thus reducing carrying costs and maintaining one’s ability to perform required tasks. With this hypothesis in mind, I provide 196 Normalized Edge Length by Rejuvenation 1.4

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2 Edge Length / Original Edge Length Edge Original / Length Edge 0 7GR 5GR 3GR 1GR 8GR 4SP 6GR 3SP 2GR 1SP 4GR 2SP Initial Edge Rejuvenation Figure 6.7 - Burin normalized edge lengths calculated on burin models using three methods: Method A (Blue), Method G (Red) and Method S (Black). Dashed lines show regressions of all specimen data for that particular method. ‘GR’ = Grinding Episode ‘SP’ = Spalling Episode. Note grinding occurs twice as often as spalling.

Cumulative Edge Length by Rejuvenation

11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4

Normalized Edge Length 3 2 1 7GR 5GR 3GR 1GR 8GR 4SP 2GR 1SP 6GR 3SP 4GR 2SP Initial Edge Rejuvenation

Figure 6.8 - Burin cumulative total edge lengths derived from the same dataset as for Figure 6.7. Edge length is measured as proportion of original edge length. ‘GR’ = Grinding Episode ‘SP’ = Spalling Episode. Method A (Blue), Method G (Red) and Method S (Black). 197 Control Model: Edge Length by Rejuvenation 140

120

100

60 Edge Length (mm) 40

0 1GR 7GR 9GR 5GR 3GR 11GR 13GR 15GR 17GR 2GR 1SP 6GR 3SP 8GR 4SP 4GR 2SP 14GR 7SP 10GR 5SP 12GR 6SP 16GR 8SP Initial Edge Rejuvenation Figure 6.9 - Control model edge length trends by rejuvenation episode: Method G (Red), Method GP (Green), Method S (Black) and regression of Method A data from artifact models (Blue). ‘GR’ = Grinding Episode ‘SP’ = Spalling Episode. Note grinding occurs twice as often as spalling.

Control Model: Cumulative Edge Length by Rejuvenation

1900

1700

1500

1300

1100

900

700

500

Cumulative Edge Length (units) Length CumulativeEdge 300

100 7GR 9GR 1GR 5GR 3GR 17GR 13GR 15GR 11GR 2GR 1SP 4GR 2SP 8GR 4SP 6GR 3SP 14GR 7SP 16GR 8SP 10GR 5SP 12GR 6SP Initial Edge Rejuvenation Figure 6.10 - Control model cumulative total edge lengths derived from the same dataset as Figure 6.9. Method G (Red), Method GP (Green), Method S (Black) and regression of Method A data (Blue). ‘GR’ = Grinding Episode ‘SP’ = Spalling Episode. 198 below an assessment of the relative utility of select tool classes in the Pre-Dorset, Early Dorset and Middle Dorset assemblages.

Comparison of endscraper UPIs for the three aggregate temporal period assemblages shows the same trend when calculated using mass and volume measurements. UPI values for Pre-Dorset specimens are close to those yielded by the Early Dorset sample. One-sigma ranges show UPIs higher in the Pre-Dorset sample although the highest value was produced by an Early Dorset specimen. Middle Dorset endscrapers have a UPI range that is narrower and values that are lower on average than those for earlier assemblages. Endscraper UPI values thus indicate a reduction in relative utility in the Middle Dorset period, which should correlate with a pattern of reduced mobility. Indeed, this is the pattern inferred for the Middle Dorset period based on the architectural, faunal and settlement data outlined in Section 3.7; however the major changes to Palaeo-Eskimo mobility patterns are believed to have occurred in the Early Dorset period. Assuming tool design is being affected by the change in mobility, the delayed influence of mobility change can be explained by the lack of optimizing pressures imposed by greater sedentism. While greater mobility theoretically encourages greater utility for transport cost, reduced mobility imparts no such pressure. As a result, one can expect a temporal lag in the response of tool producers to decreased design pressures, which may be the case at Iqaluktuuq.

Knife UPIs show much the same trend of decreasing values throughout the Palaeo-Eskimo period in both chert and quartzite varieties. The Pre-Dorset sample exhibits both the highest and lowest values for both material types as well as the highest mean values. Comparatively speaking, sample sizes for the Early and Middle Dorset components are quite low, which may be obscuring the true variation in knife form. From the data available, Early Dorset chert knives score higher on average and have a greater range of values than Middle Dorset knives. The single quartzite knife from this sample scores quite low but within the Pre-Dorset range. The ambiguous BA4 assemblage contains two knives with UPI values that fall within Pre-Dorset and Middle Dorset ranges.

Two important observations can be made here. The first is that the UPI values for knives again support a reduction in mobility based on the relative utility and portability of these tools. In 199 comparing Pre-Dorset chert and quartzite UPI value distributions with Early and Middle Dorset value distributions, Pre-Dorset samples yield higher values on average for both material types. High UPI values are expected to correlate with higher mobility, and indeed this is the pattern that is shown. The trend is more pronounced in the Early Dorset period than was evident for the endscraper dataset, lacking the proposed lag in toolkit design changes. In fact, the difference in mean Early and Middle Dorset UPI values is not nearly as great as that between Pre-Dorset and Early Dorset values.

The second observation is that mean UPI values for aggregate knife samples (i.e. combining chert and quartzite specimens) actually increase in the Early Dorset period. The higher frequency of the lower-scoring quartzite specimens in Pre-Dorset assemblages brings the mean UPI value for Pre- Dorset specimens down below that for Dorset assemblages. Thus, the preference for chert knives in the Dorset periods, which one might otherwise conclude is a response to their greater relative utility, is at odds with the apparent lack of pressure towards high utility that accompanies a mobility decrease. Put another way, one would expect Dorset knives to experience either no change or a decrease in UPI value since the lowered mobility at that time would exert less pressure for increased portability. The fact that mean knife UPI values increase in the Dorset period is unexpected but certainly does not contradict the expected patterns of tool design changes in response to mobility change. Moreover, if one examines only chert knives, mean UPI values decrease from the Pre- Dorset (244) to the Early Dorset (207) and remain at a similar value for the Middle Dorset (204). This trend is more consistent with the expected pattern of tool design change.

Finally, endblade UPIs show interesting temporal patterns that also generally support the expected decrease in relative utility. The similarity in mean UPI values for un-notched triangular chert endblades for all periods using both calculation methods suggests utility was not a relevant concern for this tool type. Notwithstanding the low sample size from the BA6 assemblage, Middle Dorset endblades of this type have a much narrower range of UPI values, and indeed this correlates with an overall similarity in endblade size. In other words, Middle Dorset triangular endblades exhibit less variability in utility and morphology than Pre-Dorset and Early Dorset endblades 200 despite sharing similar average utility scores. Bilaterally notched endblades, in comparison, score significantly lower UPI values than un-notched specimens as a result of their greater thickness. These more robust armatures are more common in the Dorset periods, a trend that matches the expected result of reduced mobility.

Taken together, the UPI values yielded by endscrapers, knives and endblades are consistent with the expected trends in toolkit design that result from a decrease in mobility such as that experienced following the Pre-Dorset/Dorset transition. These tools become progressively heavier relative to their respective utility throughout the aforementioned Palaeo-Eskimo periods. Endscraper UPI values show no change until the Middle Dorset period, yet this lag is anticipated based on the lack of an inverse selective pressure imposed by increased sedentism. Consequently, these results appear to support Kuhn’s assertion that the UPI is a useful indicator of relative mobility.

Despite the success of the UPI analyses, I am skeptical as to whether the changes in technology identified by the Utility-Portability Index for this study are, in fact, related to mobility factors at all. Perhaps the greatest reason to question the validity of the UPI in the Palaeo-Eskimo context is the size of the implements under examination. While it has been shown that notched endblades have significantly lower UPI values on average than those for triangular endblades, a comparison of these means shows the mean difference in implement weights to be less than 2g. Such a small weight is insignificant for travel costs, even if the toolkit contained 100 such implements. By far the greatest contribution of weight to endblade-using technologies is the haft, as is effectively exemplified by the Palaeo-Eskimo harpoon. The endblade is an important functional element in the harpoon assembly, but it is dwarfed by the bulk of the organic components that can weigh many hundreds, if not thousands of times more than the small stone armature. Even a simple scraper end-hafted into a length of split antler contributes a very small proportion of the overall weight of the complete tool. As such, it is decidedly unlikely that microlithic composite tools of the kind made and used by the ancient Palaeo-Eskimo inhabitants of Iqaluktuuq would have been subject to design pressures imposed by portability constraints.

It is more probable that the decrease in mean UPI values is a reflection of other influences on 201 design, such as greater standardization in tool form. Middle Dorset endscrapers, knives, and endblades have narrower value ranges than Pre-Dorset and Early Dorset samples, as well as narrower ranges of length and width measurements. The smaller ranges have lower mean values but cluster very closely, indicating tighter tolerances in tool form. It should be noted that BA6 is the sole Middle Dorset component included in this study and therefore the lack of variability in endblade sizes could be a result of a narrower pool of knappers contributing to the sample. Even so, the trend appears robust enough to conclude that Middle Dorset knappers, and to a lesser extent Early Dorset knappers as well, were making lithic tools using a production process that included stricter morphological criteria than those used by earlier Palaeo-Eskimo populations. Average length values dropped during this process, resulting in lowered UPI values. While this is certainly not the only explanation, it is a plausible alternative that more realistically contextualizes the changes in tool weights and its impact on human mobility.

As a counter-point to the reduced utility trend evidenced by the aforementioned lithic implements, burin technology increases in potential utility through time. Collapsing spalled burins and ground burin-like tools into a single category representing the development of a functional tool type, the edge length data confirm that production efficiency increased as a result of the changes in manufacturing processes. Comparison of virtual spalling and grinding rejuvenation methods shows the latter producing three times the working edge length and twice the number of working tips on average than is provided by spalling. Thus, for the same mass of toolstone, ground burin-like tools have much greater edge production efficiency than spalled burins.

The increase in efficiency can be explained by two factors. First, grinding removes less material per rejuvenation than spalling. In combination, chert fracture mechanics and pressure-flaking techniques require a minimum amount of material to be removed during any spalling episode. The amount of wastage created from spalling exceeds the minimum amount required to rejuvenate the edge. Grinding, on the other hand, proceeds slowly and allows continuous assessment of the working edge state so that the process can be stopped once the edge has been sufficiently rejuvenated. The gradual nature of the process permits the user to rejuvenate an edge with greater 202 control over material wastage. Second, edge length decreases with every spalling episode while grinding maintains or extends working edge length. Spall lengths become progressively shorter with subsequent burin rejuvenations, and therefore edge length shortens throughout the tool’s uselife. Grinding produces no such effect, thereby maintaining edge length. Furthermore, if the edge is ground more obliquely, edge length can be increased slightly through time.

These factors only apply to the grinding-based rejuvenation method applied to burin-like tools. Spalled burins that have ground surfaces adjacent to the working edge also benefit from this technique but in a different way than those discussed above. Assuming irregular working edges are not desirable, grinding of the dorsal and ventral surfaces provides additional edge length. For example, unifacial burins such as those recovered from Wellington Bay have a single smooth working edge created by the unmodified ventral flake surface. The irregular dorsal surface can be ground to allow it to be used in the same manner, nearly doubling the potential working edge length for the implement.

Relating these results to the present issue of portability and utility, the integration of grinding into burin production processes increased the relative utility of a single mass of toolstone. This applies not only to burins and burin-like tools, but any fragments of broken implements as well. Miscellaneous pieces of chert, slate, chalcedony or nephrite that might previously have been discarded could be ground into functional tools if the user was so inclined. While it is impossible to understand fully the life history of any thoroughly ground stone object, one cannot help but imagine Palaeo-Eskimos recycling knife and core fragments into burin-like tools and endblades in the interest of conserving useful stone resources. The same might be true for materials scavenged from gravels that were too small for flaking but otherwise suitable for grinding.

UPIs and other measures of relative utility indicate that distinct changes occurred in Palaeo- Eskimo tool technologies throughout the Pre-, Early and Middle Dorset periods at Iqaluktuuq. Utility scores for endscrapers, knives and endblades decreased through time, particularly in the Middle Dorset, and this pattern matches the expected response to a decrease in human mobility. Conversely, burin technologies show an increase in utility with the integration of grinding as a 203 rejuvenation technique, opposite to the pattern expected. Consequently, the precise impact of mobility on implement utility is unclear. One explanation is that mobility differentially affects specific tool classes. I do not support this explanation as there is no reason to conclude that the portability of one kind of tool would be more or less susceptible to change than any of the others discussed here. Furthermore, Palaeo-Eskimo microlithic tools weigh so little that transport cost and other selective pressures would be unlikely to exert any influence on production techniques. Nevertheless, the results of these analyses are sufficiently robust to warrant further investigation into the changing morphology and production processes behind these and other tool classes.

6.2 - Raw Material Use

Mobility is expected to also influence the kinds of materials being used in the manufacture of tools and how those materials are preferentially used for different manufacturing activities. Greater mobility is expected to result in greater material richness (number of material types) and a greater proportion of non-local materials than in lower mobility scenarios. If these expectations are valid, Pre-Dorset and Dorset assemblages should exhibit corresponding differences in material richness and material use patterns.

Figure 6.11 - Figure 6.13 summarizes the material use data for each temporal period by artifact type. Figure 6.14 - Figure 6.16 summarizes proportions of each material that are represented by each tool type for each temporal period. Each material type and tool type is discussed seperately below.

6.2.1 - Quartzite

Locally ubiquitous orange-pink quartzite, along with the less common light pink and dark purple varieties, appears in different proportions in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. Generalizing across temporal periods, quartzite is used progressively less through time. It represents 38.8% of all Pre- Dorset artifacts by count. This value falls drastically to a mere 3% by count in aggregate Early and Middle Dorset assemblages. Excluding the Ballantine assemblage where the material is not represented, quartzite accounts for between 56.7%5 and 2.9%6 of materials by count in the various 204

Pre-Dorset Material Use by Tool Type

100% Q 90% C 80% 70% CQ

60% S

50% O

Proportion 40% 30% Figure 6.11 - Proportions of Pre- 20% Dorset artifacts produced on various 10% materials. Q - Quartzite, C - Chert, CQ

0% - Crystal Quartz, S - Slate, O - Other. END BIF BUR SPL MB MBC COR SCR BLT KNF Tool Type

Early Dorset Material Use by Tool Type

100% Q 90% C 80%

70% CQ

60% S

50% O

Proportion Proportion 40%

30% Figure 6.12 - Proportions of Early 20% Dorset artifacts produced on various 10% materials. Q - Quartzite, C - Chert, CQ 0% - Crystal Quartz, S - Slate, O - Other. END BIF BUR SPL MB MBC COR SCR BLT KNF Tool Type

Middle Dorset Material Use by Tool Type

100% Q 90% C 80%

70% CQ

60% S

50% O

Proportion Proportion 40%

30% 20% Figure 6.13 - Proportions of Middle 10% Dorset artifacts produced on various

0% materials. Q - Quartzite, C - Chert, CQ END BIF BUR SPL MB MBC COR SCR BLT KNF - Crystal Quartz, S - Slate, O - Other. Tool Type 205

Pre-Dorset: Proportion of Material Represented by Tool Type

100% Q 90% C 80% 70% CQ

60% S 50% O

Proportion 40% 30% 20% Figure 6.14 - Proportions of Pre- 10% Dorset artifacts produced on various 0% materials. Q - Quartzite, C - Chert, END BIF BUR SPL MB MBC COR SCR BLT KNF CQ - Crystal Quartz, S - Slate, Tool Type O - Other.

Early Dorset: Proportion of Material Represented by Tool Type

100% Q 90% C 80% 70% CQ 60% S 50% O

Proportion 40% 30% 20% Figure 6.15 - Proportions of Early 10% Dorset artifacts produced on various 0% materials. Q - Quartzite, C - Chert, END BIF BUR SPL MB MBC COR SCR BLT KNF CQ - Crystal Quartz, S - Slate, Tool Type O - Other.

Middle Dorset: Proportion of Material Represented by Tool Type

100% Q 90% 80% C 70% CQ 60% S 50% O

Proportion 40% 30% 20% Figure 6.16 - Proportions of Middle 10% Dorset artifacts produced on various 0% materials. Q - Quartzite, C - Chert, END BIF BUR SPL MB MBC COR SCR BLT KNF CQ - Crystal Quartz, S - Slate, Tool Type O - Other. 206 assemblages. Quartzite is represented in the assemblages as bifaces, endblades, knives, scrapers and cores.

6.2.2 - Chert

Several cherts of unknown origin are represented and comprise the majority of lithic tools in all assemblages. Chert increases in usage through time as quartzite decreases. Examining aggregate period assemblages, 57% of Pre-Dorset lithic tools are produced on chert. This value increases to 91.4% in Early Dorset sites and 94.4% in the Middle Dorset site. Chert varies in representative proportion between 52.2%4 and 36.7%5 by count and between 84.1%B and 2.9%4 by weight. All tool types include specimens produced from chert, however proportions vary by site.

‘Moth’ chert appears almost exclusively in Dorset site assemblages. Ferguson Lake yielded the most moth chert artifacts, including twenty microblades, four bifaces, four cores, a notched endblade and a scraper. The Ballantine assemblage contains three microblades of moth chert, and BA6 yielded one microblade and a microblade core. A single bifacial flake fragment from BA2 (#1-113) is the only specimen recovered from a Pre-Dorset context and its presence may be intrusive.

6.2.3 - Slate

Artifacts of common and silicified slate are present in sites from all three temporal periods, but increase in frequency and proportion in the Dorset Period sites. Slate comprises only 0.5% of the aggregate Pre-Dorset assemblage, ranging between 0% (BA5 & Wellington Bay) and 1.1% (Menez) by count. Early Dorset assemblages contain 5.3% (Ferguson Lake) and 5.8% (Ballantine) slate by count, and the Middle Dorset assemblage contains 2.5% (BA6) slate by count. Slate artifacts were recovered from BA1, BA2, BA6, Menez, Ferguson Lake, and Ballantine, and are represented by endblades, knives and BLTs.

6.2.4 - Crystal Quartz

Artifacts made from crystal quartz are rare in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages and appear exclusively in Pre-Dorset contexts. All Pre-Dorset assemblages contain small quantities of crystal quartz, which comprise between 1.2% (BA2) and 6.7% (BA5) of each assemblage by count. Microblades, cores 207 and bifaces are represented in the crystal quartz sample.

6.2.5 - Nephrite

Nephrite is represented in the aggregate Iqaluktuuq assemblage by a single distal fragment of a burin-like tool from Ferguson Lake. This material comprises 1.3% of the Ferguson Lake assemblage by count and less than 0.1% of the assemblage by weight.

6.2.6 - Chalcedony

A single burin spall from BA2 is the only representative of chalcedony in the aggregate Iqaluktuuq assemblage. The spall represents 0.4% of the BA2 tool assemblage and 0.2% of all Pre-Dorset tools by count.

6.2.7 - Burins and Burin Spalls

With the exception of a single chalcedony burin spall from BA2, all burins and burin spalls are made from chert. Burins and spalls account for 25.5% and 26.7%, respectively, of chert usage in the aggregate Pre-Dorset assemblage. Burin production, and by extension burin spall production, is confined to the Pre-Dorset period and therefore diachronic trends in material use cannot be noted across temporal periods. Within the Pre-Dorset assemblages there is some variation in the colours of chert exploited for burin product. Systematic characterization of chert colours was not performed and therefore little can be said about potential preferences for certain variants. ‘Moth’ chert was not identified in the burin and spall samples. My impressions of the samples, however, suggest no preference for any particular hue, and I would assert that material flaking quality was likely the primary criterion for material selection apart from general considerations of availability.

6.2.8 - Burin-Like Tools

BLTs do not appear in the Pre-Dorset assemblages from Iqaluktuuq but are present in Early and Middle Dorset assemblages. Chert, silicified slate and nephrite are represented in Early Dorset BLT samples and respectively account for 81.8%, 9.1% and 9.1% of raw material use. Middle Dorset BLTs are made from chert and silicified slate in equal proportions. BLTs are the only use of nephrite in the study assemblages and account for 4.7% of chert use and 9.1% of slate use in 208 Early Dorset assemblages. Middle Dorset assemblages yielded slightly different figures, 0.9% for chert use and 33.3% for slate use. Although there are differences in material variety richness and relative proportions of material use for Early and Middle Dorset assemblages, the small sample size for this tool class is an important factor that likely accounts for this variation. Accordingly, no significant trends in material use are recognized.

6.2.9 - Endblades

Endblades were produced on three kinds of raw material: quartzite, chert and slate. Thirty percent of Pre-Dorset endblades are made from quartzite, sixty percent are made from chert, and ten percent are made from slate. Quartzite is not used for endblade production in the Early and Middle Dorset periods; chert accounts for 58.3% and 88.9% of Early Dorset and Middle Dorset endblade samples, respectively, and slate accounts for the remaining 41.7% and 11.1%. Endblades account for 33.3% of slate tools, 1.8% of chert tools and 1.3% of quartzite tools in the aggregate Pre- Dorset assemblage. Similarly, 45% of slate tools and 3.6% of chert tools in the aggregate Early Dorset assemblage are endblades. Lastly, 16.7% and 3.6% of slate and chert tools, respectively, are endblades in Middle Dorset assemblages. While slate and chert are used throughout the Palaeo- Eskimo occupations at Iqaluktuuq for endblade production, quartzite use is restricted to the Pre- Dorset period. Proportionate use of slate for endblade production (i.e the proportion of slate in the assemblage represented by endblades) drops noticeably in the Middle Dorset period; however, this trend is likely a product of low overall slate artifact counts in the Pre-Dorset and Early Dorset assemblages, which would show comparatively high proportionate use of slate in these periods for even a single slate endblade specimen.

6.2.10 - Knives

Similar to endblades, quartzite, chert and slate were the materials used to produce bifacial knives at Iqaluktuuq. Quartzite comprises the majority of raw material used in the early Palaeo-Eskimo period but declines in proportionate use in the Early and Middle Dorset periods. Seventy-three percent of knives in the Pre-Dorset aggregate assemblage are made from quartzite, 24.8% are made from chert and 1.5% are made from slate. In contrast, only 8.3% of Early Dorset and 20% of Middle 209 Dorset knives are made from quartzite while 50.0% and 60.0% respectively are made from chert. Slate knives become more common in the Early Dorset period at 41.7% of all knife specimens, then decline again in the Middle Dorset (20.0%). Knives account for 66.7% of Pre-Dorset, 45.5% of Early Dorset, and 50.0% of Middle Dorset slate use. Quartzite knives account for 43.9%, 16.7%, and 42.9% of Pre-Dorset, Early Dorset and Middle Dorset quartzite use, respectively. Ten percent of chert is used for knife production in the Pre-Dorset assemblage, compared to 3.1% in the Early Dorset and 4.1% in the Middle Dorset assemblages. Proportions of knife production for chert and slate decline through the study period. The increase in proportionate quartzite use for knives is a result of decreased overall quartzite use in the Early and Middle Dorset periods.

6.2.11 - Microblades and Microblade Cores

Microblades and their cores are made from only two materials at Iqaluktuuq: chert and crystal quartz. From this one can deduce that crystal quartz microblade cores did exist but none have thus far been identified in the present assemblages. As stated previously, crystal quartz only appears in Pre-Dorset assemblages and comprises 25.5% of microblades from that period, whereas chert specimens account for 74.5%. All Early Dorset and Middle Dorset microblades are made from chert. Microblades account for 10.3% of all chert usage in Pre-Dorset sites, and 66.7% of all crystal quartz usage for the same period. Proportionate chert usage increases drastically in the Early Dorset (64.4%) and Middle Dorset (72.4%) periods. Aside from the non-use of crystal quartz after the Pre-Dorset/Dorset transition, there is little change in material usage for microblade production. The proportionate increase in chert usage in the Middle Dorset period reflects the greater number of microblades present in the BA6 assemblage.

6.2.12 - Scrapers

Scrapers are present in all site assemblages except BA4 and are produced on quartzite and chert. All scrapers from the Early and Middle Dorset assemblages are produced on chert. The Pre-Dorset scraper sample contains 67.5% chert and 32.5% quartzite specimens. Scrapers account for 5.7% of Pre-Dorset quartzite use, 7.9% of Pre-Dorset chert use, 5.7% of Early Dorset chert use, and 4.5% of Middle Dorset chert use, by count. The abandonment of quartzite as a raw material after the 210 Pre-Dorset period is the only significant trend in material use for scraper production.

6.2.13 - Bifaces

Quartzite, chert and crystal quartz were used to produce bifaces at Iqaluktuuq throughout the Palaeo-Eskimo period. In the aggregate Pre-Dorset assemblage, 69.9% of bifaces are made from quartzite, 28.8% are made from chert, and 1.3% are made from crystal quartz. Quartzite and chert were used to produce 19.2% and 80.8% of bifaces, respectively, in the Early Dorset assemblage and 26.7% and 73.3% of bifaces in the Middle Dorset assemblage. Bifaces account for 11.1% of all crystal quartz artifacts. For quartzite, bifaces account for 46.5% of Pre-Dorset, 83.3% of Early

Dorset and 57.1% of Late Dorset use. Bifaces comprise 12.9%, 10.9% and 5.0% of chert use in Pre-, Early and Middle Dorset assemblages, respectively. Diachronic trends in biface material use follow most other tool types in exhibiting a distinct increase in chert usage relative to quartzite. While quartzite does not disappear entirely from biface production, chert clearly becomes the preferred raw material. Crystal quartz, on the other hand, is not used beyond the Pre-Dorset period.

6.2.14 - Cores

The aggregate Iqaluktuuq assemblage contains cores made from chert, quartzite and crystal quartz. Pre-Dorset site assemblages contain 30% quartzite, 50% chert and 20% crystal quartz specimens by count. Early Dorset and Middle Dorset assemblages contain only chert cores. Cores comprise 2.6% and 2.9% of quartzite and chert use, respectively, and 22.2% of crystal quartz use in Pre-Dorset assemblages. Early and Middle Dorset assemblages exhibit similar proportional uses of chert in core production at 4.7% and 5.0%. The only trend of note for material use in core manufacture is the sole use of chert in the Dorset period and the exclusion of quartzite and crystal quartz.

6.2.15 - Interpretations

The differential use of toolstone for production activities at Iqaluktuuq signals a distinct change in the perceived usefulness of several material types between the Pre-Dorset and Early/Middle Dorset periods. Perhaps the most puzzling change in material use patterns is the near-abandonment of the local quartzite resources. Despite the ready availability of quartzite along the Ekalluk River, it is 211 only used as a major raw material for tool production in the Pre-Dorset period. Dorset knappers appear to have avoided using this material, a fact which is difficult to understand considering its availability and passable flaking qualities, as evidenced by the finely-worked Pre-Dorset bifacial knives.

Based on the artifactual evidence recovered from Iqaluktuuq, several potential explanations for this pattern present themselves. First, it may well be the case that chert, which dominates tool production following the Pre-Dorset/Dorset transition, was in good supply and the course-grained quartzite was simply not needed. Chert is not readily available locally but, if incoming populations brought sufficient stocks with them during their stay, quartzite use could be avoided. Alternatively, the recent developments in production techniques could have excluded quartzite for some tool classes. The fracturing properties of quartzite are unsuitable for burination and microblade removal. Microblade production increased in the Dorset period and quartzite was unsuitable for this use. A third explanation is that, with the increasing use of grinding as a production technique, ground slate knives replaced the functionally analogous flaked quartzite knife, which we see decrease in frequency in Dorset assemblages. As quartzite knives disappear, slate knife fragments begin to appear but in comparatively low frequencies. This could be the result of high curation and repair rates resulting in fewer discarded slate knives. Finally, it could be that Dorset production activities primarily took place elsewhere during the year and thus quartzite was not needed for the most part since the Palaeo-Eskimo inhabitants were already ‘geared-up’ when they arrived. I believe that all of these scenarios likely played a part in generating the patterns of quartzite use seen at Iqaluktuuq; however, it is presently not possible to establish where and at what times each was applicable.

Crystal quartz is likewise absent from Early and Middle Dorset period assemblages. Considering the low frequencies of this material in Pre-Dorset assemblages, it is concluded that crystal quartz was not an important resource to the region’s inhabitants and was thus used as encountered. It is unlikely that this material was being actively sought, either through trade or by specific procurement excursions, based on the paucity of well-formed tools made from it. As such, crystal quartz procurement was likely not an important factor in the organization of mobility strategies. 212 The relative usage of local quartzite resources is an important aspect of toolstone procurement strategies that should be affected by change in human mobility patterns. It was stated previously that a decrease in mobility, as noted for the Dorset period, should correlate with a decrease in material richness as the reduced range and/or frequency of movement will bring people into contact with fewer toolstone sources. Comparison of Pre-Dorset and Dorset assemblages reveals a weak trend towards decreasing material richness. Pre-Dorset assemblages contain five types of stone: chert, quartzite, crystal quartz, slate and chalcedony. Early Dorset assemblages contain chert, quartzite, slate and nephrite, and Middle Dorset assemblages contain only chert, slate and quartzite. By these basic observations, material richness does appear to decline as expected; however, closer examination of actual material frequencies reveals that chalcedony and nephrite are represented by only one specimen each. Removing these anomalous materials from consideration, Dorset and Pre-Dorset material richness differs by only one type. It is also worth noting that slate and crystal quartz comprise very small proportions of the assemblages in which they are found, with the exception of the Ballantine assemblage containing nearly 16% slate. In effect, there are minimal differences in the number of varieties of toolstone being used by Palaeo-Eskimo peoples through time, and certainly not the degree of difference expected if there were substantial changes to material procurement patterns.

This result can partly be explained by my inability to distinguish sub-types of cherts. Beyond characterizing colours and shades of artifact surfaces, no other attempt was made, chemical or physical, to differentiate cherts from one another. It was determined early on in my analysis that any systematic quantification of surface colour was impractical because of the non-uniform character of the materials. Furthermore, nearly all of the colours co-occurred on one or more specimens, indicating that colour was a poor characteristic on which to base material sub-types. Pink, grey, tan and white cherts, for instance, appear together in banded and mottled patterns on artifacts but also appear alone. These distinctive colours could originate from common or unique sources, an ambiguity that is impossible to resolve without chemical analyses. Therefore, it is possible that Pre-Dorset and Dorset assemblages differ significantly in the sources of the chert they contain but 213 I am presently unable to quantify the differences, if they indeed exist.

A decrease in the range and frequency of mobility should encourage populations to exploit local raw materials more intensively as they occupy the same region(s) for extended periods of time. At first glance, the raw material use patterns evidenced by the Iqaluktuuq lithic assemblages do not support this expectation. One would expect local quartzite resources to be utilized to an increasing degree when mobility decreased in the Dorset period, yet the opposite pattern is observed in the study sample. Dorset assemblages contain far less quartzite tools and debitage than Pre-Dorset assemblages, indicating that the material was not more attractive to the less mobile Dorset populations. A potential explanation for this discrepancy presents itself in the local availability of chert. Although there are no discrete sources of chert in Victoria Island known to archaeologists, there is ample evidence to suggest that chert is available in low densities at Iqaluktuuq. Small chunks of unmodified cortical chert are present in the assemblages in low numbers (Figure 6.17). The size and poor quality of these specimens lead me to believe that they were not transported here from outside the region but were more likely collected locally. Furthermore, my own limited survey of the shores of Wellington Bay and Ferguson Lake yielded several fragments of chert- bearing limestone, although the quality and quantity of workable material was highly variable. Nevertheless, this evidence indicates that chert fragments were locally available to Palaeo-Eskimos in low densities. Consequently, I believe that local chert resources were, in fact, being exploited more intensively in the Dorset period from till and shoreline gravel deposits, even if quartzite was no longer being used for tool production.

The observed increase in chert usage combined with the lack of known chert sources begs the question: to what extent do the chert artifact sub-assemblages represent an increase in exotic material use? One could argue that raw materials are equally likely, if not more so, to have originated outside rather than within the region and therefore what is being observed in the study assemblages is a greater reliance on material acquired from outside Iqaluktuuq. Only a small portion of the year was spent at Iqaluktuuq, leaving plenty of time for material to be acquired during a groups’ travels throughout the remainder of the year. Even if a reliable method for distinguishing cherts by their 214 chemical and physical qualities was available, it would not be possible to differentiate between a toolstone acquired from a distant primary source and the same toolstone acquired locally from secondary deposits. One must rely on the size and character of the material fragments in order to determine where it may have been acquired, but such inferences are highly subjective. Furthermore, if Dorset peoples were indeed ‘scavenging’ chert from secondary local sources at Iqaluktuuq with greater intensity than Pre-Dorset populations had, they would have come across a greater variety of toolstones in those deposits, including more rare, ‘exotic-looking’ cherts. Consequently, it is difficult to determine precisely how much of the Iqaluktuuq assemblages are comprised of local and non-local materials and whether proportions of each changed significantly through time.

Moth chert is the only distinctive chert sub-type that was readily identified in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. Its near-exclusive appearance in Dorset assemblages indicates at least a minor difference in procurement strategies from the Pre-Dorset. The source of this material is as yet unknown, but a chance examination of a Dorset period assemblage from Baffin Island at the Canadian Museum of Civilization revealed an exceptionally high proportion of moth chert.

5cm

Figure 6.17 - Examples of small fragments of cortical chert likely procured from local gravel deposits. 215 Without additional information regarding its source location, I speculate that the moth chert found at Iqaluktuuq originated from the Eastern Arctic and was transported to Victoria Island by Dorset populations. This could have occurred as a result of trade or by direct procurement and transport; in either case, its presence in these assemblages indicates that the Dorset inhabitants of Iqaluktuuq had ties with more eastern populations and potentially maintained long-distance exchange networks. This pattern would match that postulated by Odess (1996) for the social context of Dorset material procurement. Such a pattern does not, however, match the expected decrease in material richness or a contraction of material procurement areas.

There is no significant difference in the usage of raw materials for different tool types aside from the overall decrease in the use of quartzite and crystal quartz after the Pre-Dorset period. Chert replaces these materials in all cases but that of knives, where slate is used extensively as well. Quartzite was primarily used for knife production and most of the biface sample is interpreted as stemming from knife manufacture as well. I believe that the reason for this pattern of material use was raw material size; large knives can easily be made from the sizable quartzite slabs obtainable along Wellington Bay and Ekalluk River. Assuming the large size of the knives was functionally advantageous, a supposition supported by this tool class being the longest of all Pre-Dorset lithic implements, using quartzite would conserve other raw materials that were not obtainable in the same size while increasing tool utility. Chert knives having the same general dimensions as quartzite knives are rare but do appear in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. Considering the Palaeo- Eskimo preference for chert in almost all production activities, the paucity of large chert knives is best explained by a lack of suitably large raw material blanks. The selection of slate for knife use, on the other hand, is probably a function of expanding production techniques (i.e. grinding) as opposed to any essential change to material procurement strategies. The same can be said for nephrite, although one can suppose that these two materials were procured from different locales.

Very little of interest or significance can be stated regarding the impact of mobility change on tool- specific material selection. The expected pattern of increased local material use is not apparent in the dataset, nor is there a pronounced increase or decrease in exotic materials. Thus, the slight 216 changes in raw material usage evidenced in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages were not profoundly influenced by changes in human mobility at that time.

The material use data presented here demonstrate that there is no clear correlation between material use patterns at Iqaluktuuq and changing patterns of mobility. Changes do occur in material use between the Pre-Dorset and Dorset periods and it remains to be explained why local quartzite was not utilized during the latter period and why material richness remains largely the same. In attempting to interpret these ambiguous results, it must be remembered that ancient raw material procurement is a complex and historically-situated phenomenon that cannot necessarily be explained fully by generalized models of human behaviour. The reduction in human mobility following the Pre-Dorset/Dorset transition need not have significantly impacted material procurement activities. Differences in material use may reflect changing perceptions of toolstone usefulness quite apart from concerns of procurement costs. Also, as previously stated, changes in technical process may have influenced material selection criteria in a manner that includes or excludes particular types of toolstone. Thus, the specific patterns of material use at Iqaluktuuq have several potential explanations that, at present, make it difficult to elucidate the impact of changes in Palaeo-Eskimo mobility strategies on Victoria Island.

6.3 - Production Intensity

Whole Assemblage Behavioural Indicator (WABI) values were calculated in the manner outlined in section 4.4.4 for all study assemblages. Figure 6.18 illustrates the distribution of site artifact density values against proportions of retouched tools. Distributions of artifact density against retouch frequency show a slight separation of Pre-Dorset and Dorset assemblages, although there is significant overlap along the vertical axis (percent of retouched pieces). The Pre-Dorset Wellington Bay and BA5 assemblages score high in density and low in retouch frequency, while the BA2 and Menez assemblages score much higher in retouch frequency and slightly less in density. The Early Dorset Ballantine assemblage clusters close to BA2, and Ferguson Lake appears isolated on the left, having a low artifact density and much lower retouch frequency than the other Dorset assemblages. The BA6 assemblage falls between the Early Dorset WABI values somewhat 217 near Menez. BA1 and BA4 appear at opposite ends of the scatter-plot; the former has a very high proportion of retouched tools and low artifact density and the latter scores high for density and low for retouch frequency.

On account of the material use differences between Pre-Dorset and Dorset period assemblages, and in particular the uneven use of local quartzite resources for tool production, WABI scatter-plots were also calculated for the assemblages excluding quartzite artifacts from consideration (Figure 6.18). If Pre-Dorset populations were using the local material to a much greater extent than later Dorset populations, the differences in production activities can be assumed to result in assemblage incomparability. Removal of local material restricts the analysis to a comparison of materials with largely non-local availability and therefore gives a more balanced picture of material use patterns. When one compares distributions with and without quartzite there is a distinct upwards-left shift in Pre-Dorset assemblage WABI scores.

As one might expect, the removal of quartzite causes denisity values to decrease for all site assemblages. Assemblages having high proportions of quartzite debitage experience the greatest value shifts. However, the removal of quartzite debitage also has the effect of increasing retouch tool frequencies and, as a result, Pre-Dorset WABI values show a pronounced upward-left shift, as does the BA4 assemblage. This modified distribution shows a clear separation of the Pre-Dorset and Dorset period assemblages on the vertical axis; all Pre-Dorset assemblages have retouch frequency score exceeding 88% whereas the Early and Middle Dorset assemblages score between 70% and 40%. BA4 remains ambiguous in its affiliation, although BA1 clusters within the range

for Pre-Dorset assemblages. Ferguson Lake and Ballantine score the lowest (2.9 a/m2) and highest (50 a/m2) artifact densities, respectively.

Pre-Dorset and Dorset assemblages produce distinctive WABI value distributions that suggest different toolstone production intensities. When all material types are considered (Figure 6.18), Pre- Dorset assemblages tend to have high artifact densities and low retouch frequencies in comparison to Dorset assemblages. Consequently, one can cautiously conclude that Early and Middle Dorset populations at Iqaluktuuq were working stone more intensively than their predecessors. 218

WABI Distribution for All Lithic Artifacts 1

0.9

0.8 Wellington 0.7 BA2 BA5 0.6 Menez 0.5 Ballantine Ferguson 0.4 BA6 BA1 0.3 BA4 Proportion Retouched Proportion Retouched 0.2

0.1

0 1 10 100 1000 Density (log artifacts/excavated unit)

Figure 6.18 - Scatter-plot of WABI values by site assemblage for all lithic artifacts and all debitage measuring at least 2 cm in one dimension.

WABI Distribution for All Lithic Artifacts Excluding Quartzite

0.9

0.8 Wellington 0.7 BA2 BA5 0.6 Menez 0.5 Ballantine Ferguson 0.4 BA6 0.3 BA1 Proportion Retouched Proportion Retouched BA4 0.2

0.1

0 1 10 100 1000 Density (log artifacts/excavated unit)

Figure 6.19 - Scatter-plot of WABI values by site assemblage for all lithic artifacts and all debitage measuring at least 2 cm in one dimension excluding quartzite specimens. 219 Interestingly, this is not the expected pattern; the decrease in Palaeo-Eskimo mobility during the Dorset period was expected to result in a decrease in MUI as the need to make thorough use of on-hand resources became less intense. Yet, Pre-Dorset assemblages show less intensive use of raw material than Dorset assemblages. Although these results appear interpretively problematic, an explanation presents itself when one considers chert in isolation (Figure 6.19). Chert sub- assemblages have higher proportions of retouched artifacts in comparison to quartzite sub- assemblages. Consequently, complete assemblages that contain high proportions of quartzite tend to have lower retouch frequencies.

The primary differences, then, in Pre-Dorset and Dorset MUI are related to differential treatment of materials. It has already been stated that quartzite and chert were utilized in different ways by Palaeo- Eskimo populations at Iqaluktuuq. Dorset populations did not use the local quartzite resources to produce bifacial tools in the manner evidenced for Pre-Dorset populations. Importantly, this highlights a difference in Pre-Dorset and Dorset stone-working activities at Iqaluktuuq. Primary tool production activities are more common in Pre-Dorset sites on account of the proximity to the quartzite source. The production of quartzite knives and other large bifaces is likely responsible for the high proportions of unmodified debitage on Pre-Dorset sites. The same pattern is not observed for chert, which is not locally available in the same quantities. As a result, quartzite-rich Pre-Dorset assemblages yield lower proportions of retouched artifacts than Dorset assemblages, resulting in different WABI value distributions. When quartzite is removed from the calculation, however, retouched tool proportions increase dramatically for the two early Pre-Dorset sites, Wellington Bay and BA2, with less change evident for the other assemblages.

When chert and quartzite are considered separately, the expected patterns of material use intensity are observed. Pre-Dorset assemblages yield consistently higher retouch frequency values than Dorset assemblages, as would be expected if mobility impacted material use intensity. This pattern suggests that raw materials, and chert in particular, were used more intensively by the mobile Pre- Dorset inhabitants of Iqaluktuuq relative to the less mobile Dorset peoples. Chert flakes at least 2 cm in size (i.e. those suitable for tool manufacture) are relatively rare in Pre-Dorset assemblages., 220 although they do appear in low frequencies. From this one can conclude that most of the suitably large raw material present on Pre-Dorset sites was being utilized for tool production - and partially turned into smaller flakes - or else were curated for later use and transported away from the site. In other words, Pre-Dorset peoples utilized chert in a highly intensive manner, making use of most material that was available. Alternatively, one could speculate that very little chert was ever present on the site and therefore the paucity of flake blanks is not, in fact, a result of high material use intensity, but rather reflects the scarcity of the material during site occupation. I am inclined favor the first scenario on the grounds of parsimony; considering flakes of suitable size are indeed present in some assemblages, and considering the high proportion of chert tools in the assemblages, I believe it is unreasonable to assume that raw chert supplies were absent in Pre-Dorset sites.

Raw material availability is certainly an important factor in this context. The ubiquity of quartzite in the surrounding landscape meant that conservation of material was not an especially pressing concern for Pre-Dorset populations. Setting aside material quality for the time being, limitless quantities of quartzite were available to be exploited and therefore Palaeo-Eskimo stone tool makers could afford to leave behind flakes that would otherwise be suitable for tool production. Chert and other materials, on the other hand, were not so readily acquired from local sources. Moreover, there are classes of tools for which only chert and crystal quartz are suitable for manufacture. Consequently, intensive use of some toolstone varieties was a prudent and necessary precaution that led to only a few flake blanks being abandoned on Pre-Dorset sites. As a result, Pre-Dorset assemblages have high retouched tool frequencies. When Dorset populations occupied the banks of the Ekalluk River, they did not make extensive use of quartzite, preferring chert, crystal quartz, nephrite and other materials for tool manufacture. As stated previously, these materials are not locally available in large quantities and therefore those resources on hand were intensively used. Yet, retouched tool frequencies are significantly lower in Dorset assemblages when compared to Pre-Dorset assemblages, which begs the question: why? Assuming local material availabilities remained constant, a logical explanation is that Dorset people carried greater quantities of materials with them or collected materials more successfully. This explanation matches the expected effects 221 of lower mobility insofar as decreased range and frequency of relocation should allow for the accumulation, transportation and storage of greater quantities of raw materials. Consequently, it appears that even though Dorset populations at Iqaluktuuq did not use the readily available and effectively inexhaustible quartzite deposits, they were not forced to use their resources as intensively as Pre-Dorset populations because the lowered mobility constraints made it possible to keep sufficient quantities of suitable toolstone on hand. No doubt this did not removal all need for material conservation, but it is clear that the degree of material use intensity was lower after Palaeo-Eskimo mobility decreased circa 900-650 calBC.

Variation in artifact densities deserves a brief comment as well. The number of artifacts per square meter is used as a relative measure of stone working intensity assuming that the duration of occupation is relatively equal or the time depth represented by the deposits is comparable. One must question, however, if either assumption is reasonable for the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. Without some means to reliably determine the duration and frequency of site (re-)occupations, a job made impossible by cryo- and bioturbation processes in this region, one cannot reasonably interpret differences in artifact densities. High artifact concentrations could result from a short, intensive period of tool production or several short periods of low intensity tool production. Without considerable time depth, one cannot appeal to time averaging as a solution to this dilemma. Consequently, the significance of artifact densities in WABI calculations for the Iqaluktuuq assemblages is suspect. Retouched artifact frequencies alone thus provide the better measure of relative MUI in the present case.

6.4 - Risk Management

6.4.1 - Equipment Failure

Composite tools have the potential to ‘fail’ in many ways depending on the arrangements of their elements, method and conditions of tool use, material quality, etc. By examining the ways in which tools broke and relating those observations to methods of manufacture and rejuvenation, one can infer rudimentary strategies that ancient peoples employed to mediate risk of equipment failure through tool design. Tool breakage is the most visible evidence of equipment failure present in the 222 Iqaluktuuq lithic assemblages, but one can be certain that Palaeo-Eskimos were concerned about a variety of potential scenarios wherein their tools could become unusable. As expected, breakage patterns on knives and endblades are consistent with inferred methods of use. Endblades often exhibit medial snap fractures distally positioned relative to notches and other hafting elements. This is consistent with a thrusting mode of use for harpoons, lances and spear-like armatures where bending forces cause material failure near the point where the lithic tool protrudes from the haft. Knives break in similar locations distal to the haft but differ in the kind of break. Break surfaces on knives tend to curve slightly along one edge, indicating that the application of force when the tool broke was directed inwards from the lateral edge as one would anticipate for a cutting/slicing motion. Breaks required anywhere from a light reworking of the blade edge to complete tool replacement. Loss of a tip, for instance, could be repaired by pressure flaking with a necessary reduction in tool length during the reshaping process. Basal snaps, however, would significantly shorten armature length, reducing the feasibility and utility of repair. Minor edge damage, on the other hand, was expected during regular use and could easily be managed by pressure flaking.

While knives show no appreciable change in design attributable to risk management, comparison of triangular and notched endblades reveals slight differences in breakage patterns and maintenance potential. Triangular harpoon endblades are small, thin flake tools that lack robusticity. The impact forces exerted on an endblade during use are more than sufficient to cause breakage if a hard substrate (i.e. bone) is hit. Considering the low production cost of small endblades in terms of material and effort and the fragility of the tool relative to the forces applied, it is safe to conclude that harpoon endblades were not designed to withstand more than a few uses before being replaced. Once broken or rejuvenated to a point where the armature is too small to serve its purpose, the endblade was extracted from the slot and replaced by a fresh specimen. Pre-Dorset and Dorset harpoon endblades show no differences in this respect, as reflected in the frequency of medial, tip and proximal ear breaks in assemblages from both periods. The change in basal morphology from curved to flat resulted in fewer proximal corner ‘ear’ breaks, presumably by limiting lateral movement in the haft during impact. Otherwise, Dorset triangular endblades exhibit the same 223 kinds of breaks and the same short lifespan as those used in the Pre-Dorset period.

In contrast, notched endblades appear to have been designed for longer uselives. They are thicker than the triangular un-notched specimens and are thus less susceptible to impact damage. That being said, snap fractures and impact fluting were observed on several specimens, the former concentrated at the tip and just above the notches. From this I conclude that notched endblades were intended for multiple uses, even though their production cost was not significantly greater than the thinner triangular specimens. Seeing as endblades of this kind are, with the exception of one silicified slate specimen, limited to the Dorset period at Iqaluktuuq, a change in endblade design towards more reliable equipment is indicated; a more robust armature sacrifices edge sharpness (wider edge angle) for greater resiliency.

Notched endblades and triangular endblades are almost certainly used in different composite arrangements. The fact that Dorset assemblages contain both types of endblade while Pre-Dorset assemblages contain only the unnotched variant indicates a preference for a more specialized, and thus reliable, toolkit in the later Palaeo-Eskimo period. Yet reliable technologies are supposed to operate below capacity to minimize tool failure. In the present case, it could be that Palaeo-Eskimo harpoonists used an expendable lithic blade in order to minimize damage and/or loss of labour- and time-expensive harpoon heads, several of which could be kept prepared for use and quickly attached to the harpoon line when needed. Thus, endblades comprised a dispensable element of a reliable harpoon assembly. Conversely, notched endblades may have been attached directly to a shaft, thereby requiring greater strength/robusticity in the absence of a modular arrangement that would permit efficient replacement in the event of damage or loss. This is, of course, assuming that Palaeo-Eskimos did not employ a fore-shaft assembly for hafting and delivering notched endblade weaponry, allowing for multiple armatures to be prepared and replaced quickly. At present there is no evidence to support or refute such a contention but future usewear studies combined with experimental reproduction may provide helpful data.

The few lance blade fragments identified in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages, as well as lance fore-shaft fragments recovered elsewhere (Maxwell 1985:138), suggest that this armature did not change 224 significantly in form throughout the periods under study here. Lance blades appear to be robust and roughly triangular in shape, though variability in base form is not altogether clear at present. Breakage occurs at the distal and medial portions of the tool, consistent with end-hafting and a thrusting mode of use. The size and robusticity of lance blade fragments evidence their suitability for sustaining repeated impacts. Furthermore, the serial arrangement of blade and haft indicates that these armatures were not intended to be replaced often. Despite the change in production processes that accompanied the introduction of slate as a primary raw material in the Dorset period, the design of lance endblades did not change in a manner that can clearly be related to the limiting of tool failure.

6.4.2 - Production/Maintenance Scheduling

As Torrence (1989:63) notes, maintainability refers to aspects of tool design that mediate the timing of risk. Tools must be produced before they can be used and damaged tools must likewise be repaired prior to use. These activities are scheduled according to the anticipated frequency and timing of use, variations of which are depicted in Figure 6.20. Based on the lithic assemblages from Iqaluktuuq, Palaeo-Eskimo tool production and maintenance schedules remained consistently preemptive. Despite the short production and rejuvenation times of most lithic tools, groundstone implements exempted, the process of hafting required sufficient time and care to necessitate a dedicated period of retooling between hunting activities. Seal and caribou hunting provide infrequent, narrow windows of opportunity that must be promptly exploited. As such, toolkits would be prepared beforehand so as to limit the amount of maintenance needed during periods of expected use. If events necessitated armature replacement ‘in the field’, it is unlikely that replacement tools were made on the spot. Rather, additional endblades could be kept in reserve and used when needed.

Hunters would have had plenty of time to prepare their gear while encamped on the south bank of the Ekalluk River or the narrow bay that preceded the drop in water level, while waiting for migrating caribou herds. The debitage assemblages from the study sites lend support to this scenario. Small chert pressure flakes dominate the site assemblages, far outnumbering larger primary knapping 225 and biface thinning flakes. This indicates that extant chert tools were being modified and prepared for use rather than being produced from primary materials. The evidence for quartzite tool production may indicate that Pre-Dorset hunters were producing new lance blades in anticipation of the upcoming slaughter or replacing broken blades afterwards. Alternatively, knives were being produced following the hunt to help in processing animal carcasses. As discussed in the following section, differences in chert and quartzite production activities at Iqaluktuuq can be explained by differential material availability and exploitation strategies.

Although the precise timing of production/maintenance activities relative to hunting activities cannot be reliably determined for particular site occupations, the nature of the production activities that took place indicates that Pre-Dorset and Dorset peoples organized their tool making and maintenance activities in a similar manner. Lithic tools were prepared in advance of anticipated hunting events, including the rejuvenation of existing tools and the production of auxiliary tools that could be quickly substituted for broken implements with minor modification. The use of modular

System Needed

System Not Needed

System Needed

System Not Needed

System Needed

System Not Needed

Time Figure 6.20 - Hypothetical schedules of equipment use, after Bleed (1986:741 Figure 1). Top scenario is optimal for maintainable systems. Second and third scenarios are optimal for reliable technologies. 226 harpoon assemblies and fixed-bladed lances provided reliable hunting equipment throughout the Palaeo-Eskimo period. This pattern is consistent with that expected for the exploitation of caribou, a food resource with punctuated but brief periods of availability where potential yield, acquisition risk and the cost of implement failure are high.

Palaeo-Eskimo technological risk reduction strategies change little across the Pre-Dorset/Dorset transition at Iqaluktuuq. This can partly be explained by the common focus in subsistence activities towards caribou hunting. The location and temporal availability of caribou could reliably be anticipated on a yearly basis and therefore equipment production and maintenance activities, including endblade manufacture and replacement, were scheduled in advance of the seasonal hunt. Once the Ekalluk River formed around the end of the Pre-Dorset period, the availability of spawning char presented a second animal resource with brief availability and high potential yield that presented less acquisition risk than caribou. Char do not, however, provide the same variety of raw materials – furred skins, sinew, bone and antler - that caribou supply and therefore were primarily a food resource. Harpoons were likely used to catch char based on the size and shape of harpoon heads recovered from BA6 (Friesen, pers. comm.), as well as stone- and antler- tipped spears. The similar timing of caribou and char availability at Ekalluk River allowed Dorset populations to ‘gear up’ a common set of equipment to exploit both resources at a seasonal autumn camp. 227 7.0 - Discussion

7.1 - Evidence of Technological Change

This study has endeavored to characterize and explain the changes apparent in Palaeo-Eskimo lithic technology from the Pre-Dorset period through the Early and Middle Dorset periods at Iqaluktuuq, southeastern Victoria Island, Nunavut. Eleven classes of artifact were examined in the previous sections: bifaces, burins, burin spalls, burin-like tools, cores, endblades, knives, microblades, microblade cores, scrapers and groundstone. Each class was characterized according to morphological variability, production and rejuvenation processes, methods of use, and raw material choice. Assemblages dating to different temporal periods were compared in order to determine what similarities and differences were present in Palaeo-Eskimo lithic technologies. The results of this analysis indicate that there are some significant differences in how tools were made, used and repaired in the Pre-Dorset and Dorset periods at Iqaluktuuq. A summary of the major trends observed in the technological analyses is provided in Table 7.1.

Technological Analyses: Major Trends Materials Quartzite use decreases through time Crystal quartz ceases to be used beyond Pre-Dorset period Techniques Grinding becomes more common & more extensive through time Grinding becomes primary means of rejuvenation for burins/burin-like tools Notching becomes more common in Dorset period Tip fluting appears in the Dorset period Morphology Scraper form becomes more standardized (trianguloid) in Dorset Period Acute edge angles on scrapers more common with bifacial flaking in Dorset period Mean biface size decreases through time Frequencies Microblade frequencies increase significantly through time Spalled burins and burin spalls are absent from Dorset assemblages Burin-like tool frequencies increase significantly in the Dorset period Table 7.1 - Major technological trends in the Iqaluktuuq lithic assemblages.

What is immediately striking about the technological analysis results is that the most significant differences in Palaeo-Eskimo lithic technology appear in production and rejuvenation processes. In fact, one can reasonably state that the kinds of tools being made (in terms of function) remain relatively constant, but the ways in which they are made change noticeably. Linnamae (1975) makes a similar observation regarding the lithic assemblages of Newfoundland Dorset populations, noting 228 that the differences observed in tool form between various Arctic regions “do not suggest changed functions for the artifacts but rather in styles of making them”(1975:94). Taking for example spalled burins and burin-like tools, the functional aspects of the implements are very similar as evidenced by wear and damage patterns. Similarly-shaped edges are produced and serve the same kinds of functions for both tool types. The primary difference lies in how the edge and adjacent surfaces is produced. A similar observation can be made regarding bifacially-flaked knives and ground slate knives; both tools sport low edge angles that are produced via different processes and were presumably used for the same basic purpose: cutting. This demonstrates that, despite the clear changes in economic strategies employed by Palaeo-Eskimo peoples during the temporal periods under study, the basic physical tasks that had to be accomplished remained the same.

It is worth noting that many of the changes in production process observed for the lithic toolkit can be attributed to the increasing use of grinding techniques. Burin, burin spall, knife and endblade specimens showing evidence of grinding become increasingly common in the Dorset Period assemblages. Furthermore, grinding is the primary means of manufacture for the burin-like tool, altogether replacing spalling after the Pre-Dorset period. The increase in grinding is accompanied by new materials, most notably slate and nephrite, being incorporated into tool-making activities. Grinding techniques not only facilitate the use of new materials but also new approaches to tool production and maintenance. It is no surprise, then, that Pre-Dorset and Dorset assemblages look quite different at a glance, despite their similar task-related functionality.

Putting the technological observations in the context of Iqaluktuuq specifically, it is clear that the seasonally-abundant animal resources and local toolstone supplies in the region strongly influenced tool production activities at the sites discussed. Most of the stone-working that took place was directed towards repairing existing tools as indicated by the high proportion of small flake debitage exhibiting minimal cortex. Nagy (1997:172) observes that high proportions of burins and burin spalls are an indication that organic equipment components, such as hafts and harpoon heads, are being fashioned, and one does see this in the Pre-Dorset assemblages from Iqaluktuuq. Bifacial 229 knives and lance blades were also being produced from local quartzite, presumably for use in caribou hunting and butchering along the Ekalluk River and elsewhere during the seasonal round. It would seem, then, that Iqaluktuuq served not only as a seasonal hunting and fishing locale, but also as a ‘gearing-up’ station. Palaeo-Eskimo occupations at Iqaluktuuq, and particularly those post-dating the formation of the river proper, would have been scheduled in such a fashion as to allow for a period of preparatory work (on equipment, fish weirs, caribou drives) prior to and following the arrival of their prey. One can expect that equipment maintenance occurred throughout the year and that preparatory activities commonly preceded most scheduled subsistence activities undertaken by Palaeo-Eskimos; the relatively predictable nature of the caribou and char that frequented the region in the autumn months meant that such activities could be concentrated around an abundant food resource. Similar to a polynia, the Ekalluk River represented a seasonal focus for human habitation and, by extension, tool production and maintenance activities.

It remains unclear, however, what influence the presence or absence of the river had on technical activities at Iqaluktuuq. Before the river channel formed, arctic char were not seasonally accessible in great numbers as they are today; neither was the area as suitable for predictably funneling caribou to specific crossing points. While seal and caribou were certainly hunted successfully in early Pre-Dorset occupations, one must question how ‘important’ this location would have been as an autumn destination in comparison to other locales at the time the Wellington Bay site was sporadically inhabited. Fewer and shorter occupations, combined with different economic foci, should be manifested as differences in technical activities between the early and later Palaeo- Eskimo periods. The lithic assemblage from the Wellington Bay site is too fragmentary at present to provide profound insights into this problem, although the composition of the assemblage does not suggest any significant difference in technical practices from later Pre-Dorset sites in the region. Similarly, there is no evidence in the lithic assemblages from Iqaluktuuq for specialized fishing equipment that contains lithic components. It may well be that the small, self-bladed harpoon heads mentioned in Chapter 2 were used to hunt char as well as caribou, seal and other mammals, functioning as a flexible yet reliable hunting technology that lacked lithic elements. Harpoon heads 230 tipped with endblades may have also been used in fish acquisition without need for significant alteration to endblade or harpoon head form. If this were the case, one could not expect to see any clear evidence of change in tool production activities. In sum, while there is reason to expect that the formation of the Ekalluk River and the change in available resources associated with river formation would have changed how Palaeo-Eskimo peoples perceived Iqaluktuuq as a place for food acquisition and seasonal habitation, the lithic assemblages produced by the sites’ inhabitants do not appear to have been unambiguously influenced by these changes.

Despite the diachronic trends observed in tool manufacture processes and techniques in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages, none of the observed changes appear to have originated locally. Major changes, such as the appearance of burin-like tools and the disappearance of spalled burins, occur after the region’s apparent abandonment and subsequent re-occupation circa 2500 BP/650 calBC. Conversely, the manufacture of bifacial quartzite knives is an example of an activity that was present prior to abandonment and was not reintroduced. This implies that major changes in tool production came about elsewhere in the Palaeo-Eskimo world and were imported when new populations moved into the region. Iqaluktuuq thus does not have its own distinctive lithic industry but rather represents a particular instance of an exotic suite of technologies being introduced and applied within the local context.

At another level, one must consider the complexity of technological knowledge, skill and practice in the context of a dispersed hunter-gatherer society. Individuals and small groups can have drastically different approaches to tool-making and hunting within the same society, meaning that some of the differences observed in such behaviours are simply a reflection of the variability inherent in any population of technical actors. Consequently, when one considers the irregular and intermittent occupation of sites such as Buchanan, and the likelihood that its occupations represent several different populations separated in some cases by more than a generation, the significance of small-scale differences in tool-making activities must be considered. What does it mean that grinding was applied to more than twice as many burins at Menez than at Buchanan Area 2? Does this indicate an important difference in how burin production was perceived and organized by Pre- 231 Dorset people or simply that the individual(s) responsible for producing the Menez assemblage happened to prefer grinding more than those at Buchanan? These kinds of questions can only be resolved with larger samples sizes and excellent chronological control unavailable at present. Buchanan Area 6 may provide the best means of examining such questions given its long record of (re)occupation during the Middle Dorset period. If one can reasonably assume that the same population seasonally inhabited this site on and off for decades, the material culture that remains should provide a useful gauge of variability in technical activities within a particular social learning context.

7.2 - The Influence of Mobility

Faunal, architectural and settlement data from throughout the North American Arctic indicate that Palaeo-Eskimo mobility patterns changed significantly at the start of the Dorset period, accompanied in some cases by a shift towards a more marine-oriented subsistence economy. Accordingly, this study has further attempted to determine what aspects of lithic technological change were direct or indirect results of changing mobility strategies. To accomplish this goal, four technological analyses were employed: Utility-Portability Indices, Risk Management Assessment, Raw Material Use, and Material Use Intensity (WABI). The results of these analyses indicate that mobility is related to a subset of the changes observed in the technological analysis, but in many cases the results are ambiguous or contradict expectations. A summary of the major findings of the mobility-related analyses is provided in Table 7.2.

Risk management strategies can explain some changes in lithic implement design at Iqaluktuuq. Triangular endblades in Pre-Dorset and Early/Middle Dorset assemblages are thin and fragile armatures that Palaeo-Eskimo hunters could expect to break fairly easily. Notched endblades, common in the Dorset assemblages, are more robust and have greater rejuvenation potential than triangular endblades. The appearance of notched endblades signals an increase in endblade reliability by reducing the risk of equipment failure. Triangular endblades continue to be used after the appearance of notched endblades and one can presume that these armatures were used in different composite tool assemblies. Nevertheless, the proliferation of notched endblades is 232 consistent with the expected increase in reliable tool design strategies for a reduction in human mobility; as mobility decreased, Palaeo-Eskimo populations relied on a more constrained set of food sources necessitating reliable hunting toolkits to maximize yield and prevent loss. The consequences of failure are more pronounced in this scenario in comparison to a more generalized subsistence strategy, and therefore acquisition tools were designed to mediate this risk by making tools less prone to damage during use. A similar argument could be made for harpoon foreshafts, which are adapted into a ‘detaching’ arrangement that would reduce the chances of foreshaft breakage when thrust or thrown (Bennett & Rowley 2004:268-269).

Mobility-Related Analyses: Summary of Results Utility/Portability Endscraper utility indices decreases through time Knife utility indices decreases through time Endblade utility indices decreases through time Burin(-like tool) utility increases through time Equipment Failure Robust notched endblades are more common in the Dorset period More fragile triangular endblades continue in use during all periods Scheduling Similar production and maintenance activity scheduling through all periods Raw Material Use More intensive chert exploitation from gravel/beach deposits Abundant local quartzite largely ignored in Dorset period Presumably exotic crystal quartz not exploited in Dorset period Material Use Quartzite biface production resulted in comparatively low retouch Intensity frequencies in Pre-Dorset assemblages Excluding quartzite, Pre-Dorset assemblages have higher retouch frequencies than Dorset assemblages, indicating that earlier populations used raw materials more intensively Table 7.2 - Results summary for the mobility-related analyses.

The scheduling of production and maintenance activities is a facet of risk management that does not appear to change significantly at Iqaluktuuq. While it is not presently possible to evaluate how Iqaluktuuq’s inhabitants scheduled such activities at locales away from Ekalluk River, there is ample evidence that Pre-Dorset, Early Dorset and Middle Dorset populations utilized their time here to repair damaged tools and replace broken equipment. Only the Pre-Dorset occupants appear to have consistently manufactured new equipment, large bifacial knives from local quartzite. The remaining stonework was rejuvenatory and this includes the production of burin spalls. High 233 frequencies of spalls in the Pre-Dorset assemblages indicate that hard organics were being worked on site, consistent with the preparation of equipment postulated above. However, organic technology was not analyzed for the present research and therefore I am unable to comment on organic tool production and maintenance activities at Iqaluktuuq. Harpoon heads, harpoon foreshafts, and more generalized tool hafts are all likely categories of equipment manufactured on site.

It remains unclear to what extent mobility impacted raw material procurement strategies. It was expected that local resources would be more intensively exploited by the less mobile Dorset populations, yet local quartzite resources are minimally exploited after Pre-Dorset populations abandoned the region. Small pieces of cortical chert suggest beach gravels and similar deposits were more intensively exploited by Dorset peoples but this evidence is largely circumstantial. Further, the ambiguous origin of most cherts in the study assemblages does not permit any evaluation of changing of procurement ranges. The ‘moth’ chert artifacts found in Dorset assemblages may have been imported from the Foxe Basin region and, if so, would seem to contradict any argument for a preference for local material procurement with a reduction in mobility. That being said, the presence of unworked moth chert nodules in the Ferguson Lake and Ballantine assemblages may indicate that the material was acquired locally from gravel deposits, which would be consistent with the overall small size of the fragments observed. Of course, it may well be the case that this material was acquired both from local and non-local sources, as well as from both primary and secondary sources. At present, I am unable to state with any certainty which scenario best represents the material acquisition behaviours that contributed to these assemblages.

Utility-Portability Indices neither support nor conflict with the expected changes in tool portability and utility in response to changing mobility patterns. Utility was expected to drop along with mobility as the pressures towards optimizing portability were reduced. In general, UPI values for endscrapers, knives and endblades conformed to expectations, with all three experiencing slight decreases in the Dorset specimens relative to Pre-Dorset specimens. However, comparison of burin and burin-like tool rejuvenation methods indicate that the replacement of the former tool type with the latter resulted in a significant increase in utility relative to transport cost. These conflicting 234 results are best explained by considering the effective weight that each tool type adds to the Palaeo-Eskimo microlithic toolkit, which is minimal compared to the organic portion of the tool. Consequently, I would argue that portability was less of a concern for these small lithic tools than other classes of material culture, notably skins and structural poles for dwellings. The observed changes in lithic tool mass are thus most likely unrelated to portability concerns. Alternatively, rather than expect an increase in tool size during the Dorset period, one could postulate an increase in the overall number of tools being retained in the toolkit. This would increase toolkit weight but would not be evident in the design of lithic or organic elements. It is unclear at this time how one might go about testing such a hypothesis, but relative artifact counts would certainly be ill-suited to the task without some control for occupation length and tool use-lives.

Intensity of material use as measured by the WABI does appear to have been significantly affected by mobility. Distinct differences in frequencies of retouched pieces between Pre-Dorset and Early/ Middle Dorset assemblages after compensating for local quartzite availability revealed high material use intensity in the Pre-Dorset period that drops significantly in the Dorset period. Indeed it appears that tool production activities using the local toolstone have skewed Pre-Dorset WABI values making such assemblages appear more ‘expedient’; one would expect the opposite pattern in the Palaeo-Eskimo case, as Dorset populations could be expected to use their toolstone with similar or less intensity than more mobile Pre-Dorset peoples. However, with the exclusion of quartzite it becomes clear that chert was used less intensively by Dorset people. Consequently, differences in relative frequencies of retouched pieces between assemblages can be convincingly tied to the perceived change in Palaeo-Eskimo mobility.

7.3 - Evaluation of Analysis Methods

This study also provides a means for evaluating the mobility-related analysis methods employed in the examination of the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. Beginning with Utility-Portability indices, this study has revealed several issues of concern related both to methodology and to interpretation. First, taking knives, endscrapers and burins as comparative examples, it was shown that different measurements and calculations are necessary for different implements depending on the means 235 by which each is reduced during rejuvenation. Implement length is not universally suitable for all lithic tools as a measure of potential utility; burins and knives are reduced from the lateral margin as well as from the distal end. Triangular endblades, on the other hand, are reduced obliquely from their angled margins and therefore lose width at the same time as length. In the present study, I employed unique approaches for each implement type examined and, although this allowed for more logical calculations of utility, it rendered the results incompatible between tool types.

Second, I do not believe that linear measurements adequately represent the potential utility of many tool types. Kuhn (1996) and Morrow (1996) debated this issue, and it was concluded by Kuhn that volume calculations were not representative of how mass was treated in lithic reduction and thus should not be used to evaluate potential utility. Kuhn likewise rejected surface area for this purpose and, while I agree to some degree with his explanation, I would argue that a variation on surface area calculations would more suitably represent potential utility than linear measurements

Distal Rejuvenations

Proximal

Figure 7.1 - Progressive endscraper reduction resulting in the shrinking of the working edge. 236 of length, width and so on. As proof I offer the simplified example of endscraper edge rejuvenation (Figure 7.1). Note that as the tool is rejuvenated it loses not only length and width, but also edge length. Total working edge length is the best measure of utility because the working edge is the portion of the implement that is available for use in a particular task. Implement length provides a means of measuring the shortening of the tool but it does not account for the changing size of the working edge; two scrapers with lengths of 10cm and widths of 10cm and 2cm, respectively, would score the same despite the much greater edge length in the larger scraper. Surface area provides a superior means of estimating potential utility but is more difficult to calculate than length. Thankfully, readily-available imaging software can easily and quickly perform such calculations.

It is also worth noting that volume calculations may be useful for estimating relative utility in burin-like tools. Unlike spalled burins, ground BLTs can be rejuvenated on multiple axes, making the thickness of the implement an important consideration. Worn edges can be rejuvenated via distal, facial and lateral surface grinding depending on the nature of the use-damage. It may be that BLTs are unique in this regard and, at present, I cannot suggest a suitable means of calculating potential utility in this kind of tool.

Last, despite the above observations, the fact remains that Utility-Portability Indices are not suited to evaluating the effects of mobility on microlithic composite technologies. Haft weight is significantly greater than the stone tools themselves and it seems absurd to argue that a few ounces of stone-weight would be of sufficient concern to Palaeo-Eskimos to encourage redesign of the toolkit. The fact that UPIs did decrease in the Dorset period as expected for the reduction in mobility seems to me to speak to material constraints and/or functional needs rather than any ‘freedom’ imparted by moving less far, less often. I would, however, be interested in changes to the design of the more cumbersome organic material culture associated with the microlithic tools, something I believe to be more susceptible to portability concerns.

Examination of toolkit maintenance activities and tool breakage provided useful insights into how Palaeo-Eskimos organized their technologies around anticipated periods of use and associated risks in resource procurement. It became clear, however, that both have limitations that impose 237 undue subjectivity in assemblage interpretations. Scheduling studies require sufficient temporal control to determine when and for how long sites were occupied. Such information is limited for the Iqaluktuuq sites and my interpretations are largely based on the known seasonal availability of caribou and char. House architecture at Ferguson Lake indicates a cold season occupation of unknown length, presumably during or following the autumn hunt. Lacking high-resolution intra- site temporal control at Iqaluktuuq, one can at best postulate that equipment maintenance activities were performed as part of seasonal site occupations, but precisely when and for how long this occurred is unclear.

In a similar way, the frequency of Palaeo-Eskimo tool breakage is difficult to determine from assemblage specimens alone. Asserting that tool design changed to limit the breakage frequency or extend overall tool use-life implies that tool failure rates were higher prior to the design change. This is impossible to establish from artifact counts as there is no way to control for the total number of tools in use, the number of uses, duration of site occupation, etc. A high number of fractured endblades could result from a long occupation, a short period of intensive hunting activity, or by expendable design. Consequently, the advantages conveyed by changes to tool form must be hypothesized based on physical characteristics or else supported by ethno-archaeological or experimental data.

I have already lamented the paucity of Arctic toolstone source data and as such I will not trouble the reader with any further discussion of the limitations this has imposed on the present and other lithic studies. Rather, I would like to point out the interpretive difficulty imposed by the known quartzite source at Iqaluktuuq and its implications for deriving models of resource exploitation. Despite the intuitive logic suggesting that greater mobility will yield greater toolstone richness (more varieties in the assemblage) by bringing populations into contact with more toolstone sources, the present study highlights the faults inherent in this assumption. Palaeo-Eskimos, and indeed all ancient populations who made stone tools, selected their toolstone according to specific criteria, not all of which are immediately obvious or even ‘logical’ to archaeologists today. In the generalized model proposed in Section 3.8.4, the mere presence of an abundant, if mediocre quality, toolstone 238 at Iqaluktuuq was sufficient to predict its exploitation in all periods of occupation. After all, if it is there, why not use it? Yet it was shown that only Pre-Dorset populations made significant use of this resource, and even then only for a limited range of production activities. This can partially be explained by physical limitations of the materials (e.g. for microblade production), but not for all tool classes. Instead, Dorset populations seem to have largely ignored quartzite because it was deemed unsuitable for tool production or, at very least, far inferior to chert and thus not worth using unless absolutely necessary.

Regardless of the precise reason for its exclusion, Pre-Dorset assemblages demonstrate that quartzite can be fashioned into many tool types found in Dorset assemblages. The fact it was so plentiful yet used so infrequently is but one example of how human decision-making complicates the construction of generalized procurement models. Without knowledge of how choices are made, models based on rates of encounter, quality and quantity are flawed. As a consequence, predictions of material use in light of changes to mobility are equally tenuous. Further complicating the matter is the recognition that there need not be uniformity in how all individuals go about making these choices. Although we can expect some basic pattern to emerge in aggregate, the specific conditions under which choices are made (material on hand, tools to be repaired, tasks anticipated) and personal idiosyncrasies (experiences, skill, material preference) ensure that each ‘contribution’ to the archaeological record is unique and therefore not necessarily reflective of the same decision process.

A complication with the Whole Assemblage Behavioral Index was revealed when quartzite and chert sub-assemblages were separated and compared. Quartzite production activities involved primary reduction of local toolstone resources whereas chert implements were either being repaired or produced from prepared cores. Primary production generates more waste, with the result of inflating frequencies of non-retouched artifacts in the Pre-Dorset assemblages. This generated signatures implying greater mobility in the Dorset period, as those assemblages contained greater proportions of retouched artifacts. This observation is important because it highlights the strong influence of different production activities and material availability on assemblage composition. 239 Both the ubiquity of the quartzite and the tool production it was used for contributed to the low- intensity WABI signature it generated.

Overall, the analyses used in this study provided significant insights into the potential influences of mobility on Palaeo-Eskimo lithic technology. None of the methods are deemed to be especially well suited for the study of microlithic composite technologies, but they nevertheless revealed important information regarding the nature of Palaeo-Eskimo technological change as evidenced by the Iqaluktuuq lithic assemblages.

7.4 - A Regional Perspective

Generalizing about Palaeo-Eskimo technology, mobility or any other aspect of Arctic lifeways is inherently problematic because unique regional contexts lead to much variability on human activities. The maritime subsistence and settlement orientation of Dorset Palaeo-Eskimos is a generalization signifying the importance of maritime locales and resources for Dorset economic activities, but ignoring the myriad of inland, riverine and lacustrine environments that also played important roles in the annual round. Iqaluktuuq, for instance, is situated adjacent to Wellington Bay but the resources of greatest interest to its inhabitants are associated with the Ekalluk River and its crossing points. Caribou, though not a maritime resource, was an important resource for Pre-Dorset and Dorset populations alike. As stated previously, Pre-Dorset populations did not have the benefit of char runs until at least the very end of the Late Pre-Dorset period but would have been admirably situated to hunt migrating caribou herds and coastal seal populations, and catch the occasional fish. Dorset populations hunted caribou and caught fish along the river shores. Iqaluktuuq thus represents an interesting case study in the Central Arctic where predictable and seasonally plentiful resources attracted the attention of people with noticeably different subsistence strategies (Friesen 2002).

Taking into account the unique qualities of Iqaluktuuq in this regard, what can be inferred about the scheduling of occupations in the region during the Pre-Dorset, Early Dorset and Middle Dorset periods? More so than most hunting and fishing locales, the summer and autumn occupations at 240 Iqaluktuuq would certainly have been an important and exciting time for Palaeo-Eskimo peoples. There is little direct evidence present to suggest Iqaluktuuq was a significant aggregation site before the Late Dorset period but it is highly unlikely that a region sporting such plentiful food resources would have been used exclusively by a single family or a small group on any given year. Given sufficient manpower and equipment, the potential yield of both species in one season is enormous and would have provided many months of food and substantial quantities of skins, bone, antler, sinew and other materials. Regardless of one’s overarching subsistence strategy, it would be difficult and, arguably, unwise for local populations to ignore Iqaluktuuq. Its continued inclusion into the Dorset mobility and settlement system is therefore not surprising. The region would undoubtedly have been imbued with social memory, spiritual significance and myth, making Iqaluktuuq an important place in the Palaeo-Eskimo landscape for both economic and socio-ideological reasons (Friesen pers. comm).

Once Iqaluktuuq was established as an autumn hunting and fishing locale, it would have figured prominently in the scheduling of camp movements. Not only would the timing of subsistence and social events have dictated when people arrived at Ekalluk River, but it would also influence the location of subsequent winter camps. The presence of semi-subterranean houses at Ferguson Lake indicates that some Early Dorset populations chose to pass the winter, and possibly portions of the autumn and spring as well, away from the coast and subsisting on stored char and caribou meat. The long dark months provided ample time to sew, mend and flintknap in anticipation of the coming spring when Iqaluktuuq would likely have been abandoned for more productive spring seal hunting grounds. Ultimate decisions regarding the location of seasonal camps were made according to expected material needs and the anticipated location of people on the landscape, yet Iqaluktuuq presented an especially attractive autumn destination around which other encampment destinations would be planned.

7.5 - Technological Change at Iqaluktuuq and The Pre-Dorset/Dorset Transition

This study provides one of many possible regional perspectives on Palaeo-Eskimo lithic 241 technology change in the North American Arctic. The dynamics of technological change are such that no regional scenario necessarily reflects the kinds of changes occurring elsewhere, and this is especially true of Iqaluktuuq. Victoria Island is near the western periphery of the Palaeo-Eskimo world where population densities were almost certainly lower than many regions further east. While the large distances separating people would not have prevented communication and interaction completely, the frequency of interaction between members of the dispersed population would presumably have been lower and thus one can expect that trends in economic and technological behaviours developing in the east would take some time to filter through to more western populations and vice versa. Combined with the differences in local resources, climate, geography and, importantly, social networks of learning, what and how things were done at Iqaluktuuq were unique in the Palaeo-Eskimo world. Even so, the patterns of technological change observed in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages provide valuable insights into the overall patterns of change in Palaeo- Eskimo lithic technology, subsistence and mobility strategies. In addition, this study provides a means of comparing Pre-Dorset and Early/Middle Dorset technologies in a common ecological context, which is useful for evaluating the validity of the Pre-Dorset/Dorset transition concept. By comparing lithic assemblages from Palaeo-Eskimo sites dating to before and after the transition, it is possible to state what changes occurred in technical practice and what effects these changes had on Palaeo-Eskimo livelihood.

Nagy (1994) notes that a ‘transition’ implies continuity with a preceding state and the emergence of new qualities/properties. Both continuity and emergent properties are evident in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. Even a cursory examination of the study assemblages confirms there is continuity in Palaeo-Eskimo technical activities; Pre-Dorset assemblages exhibit the same kinds of tools and many are manufactured using much the same processes as used by later Dorset toolmakers. Furthermore, the evidence presented in the previous sections confirms that important changes took place in Palaeo-Eskimo technology throughout the Pre-Dorset and Early/Middle Dorset periods. Production processes were altered to incorporate grinding to a greater degree and material choice reflects these changes through the greater frequency of materials having poor flaking properties. 242 Abundant local toolstone was ignored in favor of high quality exotic and/or low density local chert resources. The combination of differing manufacturing processes and material choice gives the appearance of drastically different technologies; however, the kinds of tools being produced remain largely the same and the faunal evidence (Friesen 2007: pers. comm.) shows that subsistence activities are similar. Therefore, one can state that the technological changes that took place around the Pre-Dorset/Dorset transition were mainly restricted to manufacturing and maintenance activities, while functional aspects of lithic tools remained largely unchanged.

Proportions of tool types in assemblages also change, and it is difficult to ascertain to what extent this signals significant differences in on-site activities. For example, burins and burin spalls account for high proportions of most Pre-Dorset assemblages but are not present in Dorset assemblages. Burin-like tools replace spalled burins but account for much smaller proportions of the Dorset assemblages than was the case for burins and burin spalls in the Pre-Dorset assemblages. Could it be that hard organics processing occurred less often during Dorset occupations than during Pre-Dorset occupations? More likely, the differences in tool use-life, and in particular the lack of diagnostic waste from BLT rejuvenation, are responsible for the disparity in tool frequencies. I suspect that hard organics processing was a common and important activity performed by people residing at Iqaluktuuq in both periods, as evidenced by the presence of large quantities of antler debitage in assemblages from all periods (Friesen pers. comm.).

In comparison, differences in microblade frequencies do appear to signal some difference(s) in economic activities, yet it is unclear precisely what differences are reflected. I had initially thought that the rise in microblades was a response to the abandonment of large bifacial knives, but examination of the Early Dorset Ballantine and Ferguson Lake site assemblages revealed that bifacial knives remained in use after the florescence of microblades. I now believe that the increase in microblades more reflects changing attitudes towards material consumption, efficiency and tool expediency. Put simply, microblade production served as a means by which small quantities of toolstone could be exploited to produce very sharp cutting implements suitable for the processing of skin, meat and other tissues. These tools required minimal investment and were highly 243 expendable. Thus, whereas Pre-Dorset knappers used finely-made bifacial knives for a variety of tasks, Dorset toolmakers had several types of cutting implements (microblades, chert knives, ground slate knives) that were used for different tasks and required variable investment of time, energy and resources. The expedient yet efficient nature of microblade technology both contrasts with and complements the more curated flaked and ground knife technologies also present in the Dorset assemblages.

The results of the preceding analyses demonstrate, much as Nagy’s (1997) Ivujivik research does, that there are significant differences in Pre-Dorset and Dorset lithic technologies. The present study is valuable because it identifies production and maintenance processes as the primary locus of this change in southeastern Victoria Island. Archaeologists have established that Palaeo- Eskimo subsistence economy and land-use patterns underwent dramatic changes around 900 - 650 calBC, and from this define a transition period between the highly mobile Pre-Dorset lifeway and the more maritime, less mobile Dorset lifeway. None of the assemblages from Iqaluktuuq were produced during the transition period, therefore I am unable to speak directly to the nature of in situ technological change; however, the most significant differences in lithic technology are apparent between the Late Pre-Dorset and Early Dorset assemblages, rather than the Early and Middle Dorset assemblages. If there is a technological transition, it occurred before the Early Dorset occupation of Iqaluktuuq around 650 calBC. This observation conflicts with Ramsden and Tuck’s (2001) assertion that the most significant changes to Palaeo-Eskimo lifeways took place between the Early and Middle Dorset periods.

Mobility change had a part to play in the transformation of Palaeo-Eskimo lithic technology, but no single effect on tool design can be identified. I would venture to say that the technical processes that differentiate Pre-Dorset and Early/Middle Dorset tool-making activities, especially changes in raw material selection and modification techniques, resulted from a prolonged and gradual adjustment to new environments and scheduling pressures associated with shifts in Palaeo-Eskimo subsistence economy. As the location and duration of seasonal occupations were altered, Late Pre-Dorset and Early Dorset stone tool makers adjusted their processes and routines to suit their 244 particular situation. The seasonal availability and geographic distribution of resources strongly influenced when and where people moved, and the resulting aggregate pattern of land use that we associate today with Dorset lifeways inevitably influenced tool production and maintenance activities.

7.6 - Evaluating the Technology Framework

The technological framework proposed in Chapter 3 has proven useful as a means for describing the various aspects of material-transformative technology. As explanatory concepts, ‘process’ and ‘technique’ are well-suited for differentiating between the organization of technical acts and the acts themselves. Likewise, agent-situated knowledge and skill provide sources of variability in technical activity, thus recognizing the importance of the individual in the creation of material culture. Evidence of techniques and process is relatively simple to identify in the study assemblages because they, by definition, involve changes to physical matter. As expected, however, there are few instances where specific examples of knowledge and skill can be objectively identified or defined in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. One cannot ascertain the sum of an ancient craftsperson’s knowledge and experience based on a single artifact and there is no way to identify and thus compare multiple products of one’s work. Even so, inferred processes provide some clue as to the technical knowledge possessed by Iqaluktuuq’s inhabitants. Similarly, success rates of microblade and burin spall production are a gauge of individual skill, which indirectly points to life experience. While not all such information can be gleaned for individual artifacts, the concepts defined in the proposed technology framework create a useful heuristic device for interpretation.

It is easy to dismiss gesture as an ephemeral and seemingly invisible aspect of technological activities, but it is indeed observable in some aspects of Palaeo-Eskimo lithic technology. In regards to tool manufacture, the alignment of striations on groundstone tools provide evidence of the motions involved in production and rejuvenation techniques. This evidence was not examined in the present study, but angular data such as those collected by Gordon (1975) can be easily adapted to comparing gestural tendencies in tool manufacture and maintenance through time and space. Not only is this interesting from a bio-mechanical perspective, it also reveals much about the 245 prehension and haft-mounting of these tools in the absence of good organic preservation. Gesture can also be inferred through macro-usewear and breakage patterns on knives, burins and scrapers. I am unaware of any systematic studies of breakage surface morphology on lithic tools, but the shape and location of stress-related fractures on these tool types clearly indicate directionality of force at the time of breakage. Combined with the inferred method of prehension, this evidence reveals much about gesture and motion involved in ancient tool use.

Utilizing these kinds of data, it should be possible to compile descriptions of modes of use, including associated gestures, for all manner of technical activities related to Palaeo-Eskimo lithic technology. Taking the works of Mauss (1935) and Leroi-Gourhan (1943; 1945; 1964; 1965) as examples, descriptions of these kinds can do much to help archaeologists think about the ways in which how one goes about an activity influence the material results of that activity. Despite the necessarily speculative nature of such an enterprise, I can see much benefit to having this kind of information on hand to help contextualize technical interpretations. For instance, one can more reasonably explain variation in burin morphology when one understands what techniques are used to make the tool, how the tool is used, what forces are applied to which edges, and how damage to the tool impacts its shape throughout its uselife. Furthermore, perceived differences in technical behaviours may reveal important variation that can best be explained by differences in systems of learning and interaction rather than by function or material choice. Understanding the dynamics of human interaction at the regional scale is integral to the interpretation of diachronic technological trends, and thus every effort should be made to identify and study the distribution of technical behaviours. In the absence of ideally stratified sites, the geographical distribution of such technical signatures can be used to reconstruct the ‘shape’ of technological change, that being shifts in individual knowledge and practice, through ancient Arctic populations.

7.7 - Seeing Human Mobility Through Lithics

This study has shown that the relationship between mobility and lithic technology is often ambiguous, multifaceted and complex. Archaeologists are aware that mobility impacts how, when and where stone is procured and modified but are also aware that the resulting tools impact how, 246 when and where subsistence activities take place. Mobility strategies emerge from the scheduling of economic activities, and subsistence economy provides the motivation and function behind tool technologies. Consequently, simple causal relationships are insufficient to describe the interplay of subsistence economy, technology and mobility. Lithic analyses can reveal important correlations and trends in technological practice, such as maintenance scheduling and material use, from which one can infer aspects of mobility. Furthermore, the spatial distribution of toolstone and the resources stone tools were used to procure and process can similarly inform archaeologists about the choices open to Palaeo-Eskimos and the decisions they made regarding where to travel, hunt and reside.

The greatest challenges presented to archaeologists by technology are variability and equifinality. Individuals in the past made decisions about camp movements and resource procurement under unique circumstances and from unique perspectives; therefore, archaeologists must be prepared to account for variability in human action in their descriptions of the past. Generalizations are useful to a point, but over-generalization conceals the true range of behaviours evidenced by the archaeological record. Conversely, the archaeological record usually lacks sufficient resolution to permit identification and study of specific individuals. As a productive compromise, a hybrid approach should be taken with the goal of first identifying the range of technical activities/ behaviours being made and then describing their distribution and frequency through space and time. By avoiding the definition of ‘norms’, local variation in geography and ecology can be used to explain observations within their proper context. The lithic assemblages at Iqaluktuuq and their relationship to human mobility can scarcely be explained without an understanding of changes in local ecology and geography during the Palaeo-Eskimo period.

Equifinality is a spectre that can never be banished entirely. In this study, it figures prominently in the explanation of technological change and, in particular, the influence of lowered mobility on tool design. I suspect that the reverse scenario, one in which mobility increased in the Dorset period, would be less problematic because it would imply increased selective pressures on Palaeo- Eskimo stone tool production and transport. In the present situation, pressures are alleviated by 247 a reduction in mobility and thus there is nothing encouraging change. Rather, there is increased freedom in how tools are designed and therein lies the problem; there are multiple explanations for a decrease in relative tool utility or material use intensity that are unrelated to mobility. How, then, am I to know which pertain to mobility directly, indirectly, or not at all? There is no easy answer, but I am confident that multiple lines of evidence can help to tease apart equifinal factors. For the present case, it will suffice to identify those aspects of lithic technology that are consistent with the known change in mobility and, where observations do not concur with expectations, propose explanations for why that is the case.

7.8 - Lithic Tools in Composite Technologies

When I speak of the Palaeo-Eskimo lithic toolkit I am, in fact, referring to all composite tools incorporating stone elements. Despite the relatively good organic preservation at Iqaluktuuq, very few organic components of such tools have survived and, consequently, my focus here has been on changes within the non-organic components. In situations such as these, what can we hope to learn about the technology puzzle having only half the pieces?

The interpretive limitations imposed by this situation vary in severity according to the specific technology under examination. The greater the implement’s complexity, that is the more parts it has and the number of actions involved in its use, the greater the limitations. This can profitably be exemplified by comparing a harpoon assembly to a microblade haft. The former is comprised of numerous components, the only stone element being the harpoon head endblade. It operates in conjunction with the harpoon head, foreshaft, and shaft to pierce an animal’s skin, after which the line attached to the harpoon head is used to restrain and retrieve the struck creature. In contrast, the microblade is fixed to its handle and is manipulated to cut various materials. Both lithic tools serve important functions in their respective assemblies, but the increased complexity of the harpoon means that many potential changes in tool design would not necessarily be reflected in the endblade. Likewise, changes to the endblade do not necessarily reflect additional changes to other assembly components. The same is true for the hafted microblade but, since it has fewer components, any changes to the design or manufacture of the microblade itself is more likely to 248 impact the overall functionality of the composite tool.

What this means is that lithic artifacts only tell part of the technological story. Interpretations of technological change that ignore the organic components of composite tools are more likely to be erroneous or incomplete, and this is especially true of microlithic industries where the stone tools themselves are too small for use on their own. I have endeavored to deal with these issues whenever possible in this study and explicitly address their implications for my research. Further technological studies from elsewhere in the North American Arctic can help to resolve this issue. 249 8.0 – Conclusions and Future Directions

8.1 - Summary

Palaeo-Eskimo populations arrived in the central Arctic from Alaska around 4500 years BP. Some of these early immigrants occupied the southeastern regions of Victoria Island, near the present day settlement of Cambridge Bay. The Iqaluktuuq region, some 60km northwest of Cambridge Bay, attracted Palaeo-Eskimo groups for over three thousand years. Abundant seasonal food resources, primarily migrating caribou herds and spawning Arctic char, drew people to this locale throughout the Pre-Dorset and Dorset periods. Numerous archaeological sites dating to this early period of human habitation have been identified at Iqaluktuuq, providing evidence of economic activities, social interaction, seasonal aggregation, and material culture. Stone tools are present in significant quantities and are particularly relevant for exploring the ways in which Palaeo- Eskimo peoples acquired, processed and transformed resources according to their material wants and needs. Aspects of this technology, such as how tools are made and maintained, change through time, and this change is observable in the artifacts recovered from archaeological sites in the region. By comparing the production, maintenance and use of stone tools through time, one can better understand how technological change was manifested and infer what influences may be responsible.

One of the potential influences on stone tool technology is human mobility, or the ways in which people move about the land. The frequency, duration, and scale of mobility encourages different approaches to toolkit design so as to balance functional needs with constraints imposed by the availability of raw materials, weight limitations, and time for production/maintenance. If patterns of mobility change, one can expect that stone tool technologies will also change in response to new conditions and requirements. Such a change is known to occur in the Palaeo-Eskimo period; populations in the Pre-Dorset period were highly mobile compared to those of the Dorset period, a fact evidenced by dwelling architecture, the location of settlements, and the richness of midden deposits. It is therefore expected that Dorset lithic technologies differ from Pre-Dorset lithic technologies in a manner consistent with decreased mobility pressures. 250 In this study, stone tool assemblages from nine components of five sites – four Pre-Dorset, two Early Dorset, one Middle Dorset and two of indeterminate age – are compared in order to establish in what ways stone tool production, use and maintenance differed between site assemblages and through time. Furthermore, this study attempts to determine to what extent change in human mobility patterns may be responsible for the changes in Palaeo-Eskimo technological organization. Mobility is related to technology in four ways, according to analysis methods outlined by previous research. The first, relative implement utility, is evaluated using Kuhn’s (1994, 1996) methods for calculating tool Utility-Portability Indices (UPIs) and similar methods derived from those of Kuhn. The method is applied to four classes of tools: endblades, endscrapers, knives and burins to determine the relative potential utility of specimens in site-based and temporal period-based artifact samples. Second, after Bleed (1986) and Bousman (1993), risk management strategies are compared in order to establish how tool design was geared towards mediating tool failure and scheduling maintenance activities. Third, along the same lines as Odess’ (1996) study, raw material use is compared within and between assemblages to evaluate differences in how local and non-local materials were integrated into tool production activities. Last, the Whole Assemblage Behavioural Index (WABI) used by Riel-Salvatore and Barton (2004) is applied to the Iqaluktuuq assemblages to determine relative degrees of material use intensity for each site assemblage. Taken together, these four analyses provide multiple lines of evidence to explore the effects of mobility on Palaeo-Eskimo lithic technology, while simultaneously providing a means for evaluating the theoretical bases of the analyses themselves.

Several significant observations resulted from the aforementioned analyses and can be used to answer the research questions posed in Section 1.2:

1. What kinds of stone implements are present in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages?

The Iqaluktuuq assemblages contain the same stone tool types described elsewhere in the North American Arctic. Tool types include generalized bifaces, sideblades (lateral insets), endblades, bifacial knives, unifacial endscrapers and side scrapers, bifacial endscrapers, burins, burin spalls, burin-like tools, microblades and microblade cores, and generalized flake cores. There are no tool 251 types found at Iqaluktuuq that are unique to the region, nor are there tools missing that would otherwise be expected in Palaeo-Eskimo assemblages. That being said, the morphology of specific artifacts can differ enormously from those found in the same or distant regions of the North American Arctic. The categories used are largely limited to the existing typology presently used by Arctic archaeologists and unquestionably mask much variation present in any particular category. For instance, the category ‘endblade’ encompasses a diverse range of forms, some of which are used within different composite tool assemblies (spear, harpoon, lance, etc.). No focused attempt was made to refine the existing typology, an exercise that would not only reduce comparability with other research but also put unnecessary attention on morphological minutiae without ascribing any particular significance to such distinctions.

2. How were they made, used and rejuvenated, and from what materials?

The stone tool assemblages from Iqaluktuuq evidence a diverse range of production, application and maintenance techniques described in detail in Sections 5.0 and 6.0. Flaked stone and groundstone techniques formed the basis for all stone working activity that took place at Iqaluktuuq; however, the particular techniques used varied by implement type. Flaking techniques included direct percussion and pressure-flaking, and potentially indirect percussion as well. The burination technique was used to create and rejuvenate working edges on burins. Fine retouch was used to shape tool margins, most notably the proximal edges of microblades so that they could be hafted, and tip fluting was applied to some triangular endblades.

Grinding techniques resulted in surficial modification different than that provided by flaking, thereby expanding the range of potential tool production and maintenance activities. Edge grinding was commonly applied to nearly all tool classes, particularly on basal elements and other hafted segments of an implement. Surficial grinding was applied to fewer tool classes, in part dependent on the material type. Grinding was the primary means of working slate and nephrite, since these materials did not flake predictably. Consequently, tools made from these materials were extensively ground. Chert was also ground, but was only used extensively in the making of burins and burin- like tools. 252 Six categories of raw material are recognized in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. They are, in order of decreasing frequency, quartzite, chert, slate, crystal quartz, nephrite and chalcedony. Quartzite is abundantly present locally along relic beaches, river banks and lake edges, and is likewise well represented in the study sample. Cherts of varying colours are common in the artifact assemblages; small chert fragments are sparsely distributed at Iqaluktuuq in gravels and till deposits, but it is assumed that some of the chert in the study sample originated from outside the region. The remaining materials appear in far lower frequencies than quartzite and chert and have unknown proveniences.

3. What changes and continuities are evident in how tools are made, used and rejuvenated through time?

Diachronic trends in tool production are described in detail for each artifact type in Section 5.0. A list of the most significant changes are provided below. a. Quartzite decreases in use through time while chert and slate increase in use, indicating either an increased preference for non-local materials or an intensification of local material acquisition practices. b. Crystal quartz ceases to be used for tool production after the Pre-Dorset period. c. Surficial grinding is more common and is used more extensively in tool manufacture through time, indicating greater time and energy investment. d. Hard organics processing tools (burins and BLTs) shift from burination to grinding as the primary means of edge production and rejuvenation. e. The earliest burins are small and thoroughly expended, contrasting with the larger, less- intensively reduced specimens of later Pre-Dorset assemblages. f. Burin use damage is consistent throughout the Pre-Dorset period. g. Chert scrapers become more standardized in shape in the Dorset period. 253 h. Bifacial endscrapers with low edge angles are more common in the Dorset period. i. Bifaces and cores become smaller through time, likely because of differences in material preference. j. Thick, notched endblades become more common in the Dorset period. k. Microblade frequencies increase significantly in the Early and Middle Dorset periods. l. Burins and burin spalls are completely absent from the Dorset components. m. Burin-like tools do not appear in assemblages until after the transition period. n. Tip fluting appears only on endblades from Early and Middle Dorset assemblages. o. Hafting methods change for endblades and knives, incorporating notching as a common morphological feature more often in Dorset period assemblages.

Equally as interesting are the continuities in Palaeo-Eskimo lithic technology: a. In general, artifact sizes remain consistent within tool classes across all periods. b. The frequency, location and nature of microblade retouch remains constant. c. Hafting methods remain the same for microblades, scrapers, burins and BLTs. d. With the exception of the earliest specimens, variability in burin shape remains similar throughout the Pre-Dorset period. e. Variability in burin-like tool form, production and rejuvenation processes remain relatively unchanged through the Early and Middle Dorset periods. f. Microblade core platform angles exhibit the same variability across the Pre-Dorset period. g. Use-related damage patterns vary little within tool classes through time, suggesting general mode of use changed little. 254 4. How is mobility expected to impact the production, use and maintenance of stone tools?

This question was addressed in detail in Section 3.8. In brief, this study examines five ways in which mobility interfaces with technological practice. First, mobility is expected to influence the relative utility of a toolkit by imposing or lessening pressures associated with tool transport. High mobility should encourage tool designs that increase utility and/or decrease transport costs. Reduced mobility removes pressure, allowing but not necessarily encouraging a decrease in relative utility. Second, mobility is expected to impact the scheduling of toolkit maintenance activities, which depends on the timing and location of economic activities. Changes to the frequency and scale of mobility necessitate rescheduling of equipment maintenance activities. Third, mobility also impacts risk management strategies related to equipment failure. Implement design may change in response to shifting mobility schedules and the associated material and time constraints limiting production and maintenance activities. Fourth, change to mobility patterns are expected to impact material use practices. As the when, where and how of human movement changes, so does access to particular resources, thereby changing how, when and for what materials are used. Fifth, materials are expected to be used more or less intensively depending on the availability imposed by mobility schedules. Longer occupations allow extended access to local materials while frequent moves give access to a greater number of distributed resources.

5. How does mobility appear to have impacted the production, use and maintenance of stone tools as evidenced by the Iqaluktuuq assemblages?

The results of the mobility-related analyses are discussed in Section 8. The Utility-Portability analyses in part revealed patterns supporting the expected drop in relative implement utility as mobility decreased in the Dorset period. Endscraper, endblade and knife UPI values decrease in the later Palaeo-Eskimo periods, consistent with a lessening of transportation-related pressures. The burin analyses, on the other hand, showed an approximately three-fold increase in tool utility with the transition to surficial grinding from spalling for edge rejuvenation. While these results are not in line with those of the other tool classes analyzed, they are also not incompatible with the expected influence of mobility change. Therefore, the results obtained from this study confirm that 255 the postulated decrease in mobility during the Dorset period lessened constraints on the design of some tool types while also allowing for an increase in the relative utility of burins and BLTs.

Maintenance scheduling does not appear to have changed appreciably at Iqaluktuuq throughout the Palaeo-Eskimo occupation of the region. Equipment maintenance activities were performed on site during all periods, as evidenced by debitage and the presence of burins, burin spalls and BLTs. Despite what differences might exist during other periods of the year, occupations at Iqaluktuuq remained a time for preparation, likely in anticipation of the arrival of caribou and char. Therefore, mobility does not appear to have influenced maintenance scheduling.

Endblade design reveals that some change did take place in approaches to risk management. The increased frequency of thick, notched endblades in Dorset assemblages suggests a preference for more reliable armatures in contrast to the thin and less robust triangular endblades common in the Pre-Dorset period. As well as being used in different composite assemblies, and likely for different prey, the prevalence of the thick, notched design suggests a different approach to tool uselives; loss of material economy and edge sharpness is exchanged for greater robusticity and, presumably, decreased rates of tool breakage. When considered in context with mobility and subsistence pattern trends, the latter seems a more likely explanation for the appearance of notched endblades. The more robust endblade likely served an additional function rather than being a response to time or material constraints imposed by mobility scheduling. In this case, then, mobility is not believed to have directly impacted the design of endblades.

Raw material use changed noticeably in the Palaeo-Eskimo period, and the impact of mobility change is not altogether clear. Quartzite use decreases in the Dorset period, resulting in a related increase in the frequency of chert and slate artifacts. Given a decrease in mobility, including an increase in occupation duration, one would expect local quartzite to be used more often and for more purposes. It may be that diffuse local chert resources are being exploited more intensively, yielding smaller fragments of higher quality material, in lieu of the local quartzite that is unsuitable for microblades and burin-like tools production. If this is the case, decreased mobility and longer site occupations are likely a factor in the adoption of such material acquisition and use practices. The 256 same may also be true of crystal quartz; a decrease in inter-regional mobility combined with a lack of local availability explains the absence of this material in Early and Middle Dorset assemblages. Even so, such a scenario does not explain the general, though not absolute, avoidance of quartzite as a raw material in the Dorset period.

Material use intensity analyses employing the WABI demonstrate distinct differences between Pre-Dorset and Early/Middle material use behaviours consistent with a reduction in mobility in the latter periods. Complete assemblage analyses showed no distinct clustering of WABI values, but removal of the quartzite sample revealed high proportions of retouched artifacts in the Pre- Dorset assemblage relative to the Early Dorset and Middle Dorset assemblages. These results are consistent with the expected low retouch frequencies associated with lowered mobility, and this indicates that mobility change likely influenced the intensity of material use at Iqaluktuuq to some degree. However, the ease with which quartzite could be obtained near the Ekalluk River and Wellington Bay negated any such effect on quartzite production activities.

6. What does this (#5) reveal about how Palaeo-Eskimos adapted their lithic technologies to new land-use patterns?

The results of this study suggest that the Palaeo-Eskimo populations that inhabited Iqaluktuuq changed little about their lithic technology in response to changes in mobility practices. The kinds of stone they used to make tools was one of the few clear changes in technical practice; contrary to expectations, less mobile Dorset populations did not choose to make use of abundant, low- quality local materials but instead sought out small pieces of superior quality material they found scattered about the cobble beaches and shoreline to augment their toolstone reserves. The material they collected at and/or brought to Iqaluktuuq was more intensively exploited, providing evidence that availability restrictions influenced material use practices. Gradual decreases in implement utility and changes to tool design appear to be unrelated to mobility, or are only peripherally related in a manner not addressed by the present study. Taken together, the above paints a picture of Palaeo-Eskimo technical life being ‘business as usual’ in most respects, despite significant changes to subsistence economy and settlement patterns. The selection and use of raw materials 257 was decided according to existing needs and future plans. Rather than posing a sort of obvious conundrum in need of solving, changes to the timing, frequency, scale and direction of population movements presented new situations and conditions under which Palaeo-Eskimos made technical decisions. Choices made in those situations, such as what material is collected and from where, then influenced future choices in the technological realm and beyond.

7. What does this (#6) reveal about the validity of the expectations made in #4?

The expectations generated for the models discussed in Section 3.8 are based on generalizations regarding the ‘logical’ response and solutions to problems created by human mobility. No model can account for all factors and situations, let alone the idiosyncrasies and inconsistencies in human decision-making. Therefore, the expectations made at the beginning of this work and their respective interpretive models are intended to serve as a hermeneutic device for exploring the complexities of technological systems and past human action. The fact that some raw materials were used more intensively as mobility decreased matches the expectations of the model and is therefore interpretively useful. The near exclusion of quartzite from production activities in the same period does not match expectations yet is also interpretively useful because it suggests alternative lines of inquiry. Mobility cannot be expected to account for all technological change, and so the validity of the aforementioned expectations means little in and of itself.

8. Based on the results of these analyses, what can be concluded regarding the nature of technological change in the Palaeo-Eskimo period?

This issue is addressed in Section 9.5, where I conclude that the most significant changes to the Palaeo-Eskimo lithic toolkit took place in the processes of manufacture and maintenance. This is primarily observed in the integration of grinding as a means of surficial modification, which resulted in significant changes to the production and rejuvenation processes associated with numerous tool types. Burins and burin-like tools are the clearest example of this, but the same can also be said for knives and endblades made from slate. New techniques, such as tip fluting, were likewise integrated into existing processes while maintaining the functional aspects of the 258 tool the same. Material selection changed as well but, as discussed above, this was at least in part the result of regional availability. In contrast, some technologies, microblades among them, remained unchanged in most respects for several thousand years. Change certainly occurred in technological practice during the Palaeo-Eskimo period, but it was neither consistent nor uniform for all implements types.

9. Further to #8, do the data support the case for a definable transition period?

Based on the technological observations yielded by this study, there is scant evidence to support a transition period defined solely by changes in lithic technology. While changes unquestionably occur in technical practice and tool form at this time, the period from 2800 to 2500 BP (900 - 650 calBC) does not appear to resemble a punctuated phase of innovation or transformation. Several changes that do occur at this time, such as the appearance of fully-ground burin-like tools and the prevalence of bilaterally notched endblades, have roots in the preceding Pre-Dorset period. Tip fluting is an exception here but is not deemed to be an especially significant development in technical practice. Shifts in material use, particularly the increasing use of non-flakable stones like slate and nephrite, are unquestionably linked to developments in processing techniques (grinding) that originated long before the transition period. The fact that assemblages look so different before and after the transition period at Iqaluktuuq is in part the result of population dynamics; Palaeo- Eskimo populations appear to have nearly or completely abandoned Iqaluktuuq during this time. The arrival of new populations after the occupational hiatus gives the impression of punctuated change both because intermediate periods are not represented and because extra-regional ideas/ practices are introduced to the regional setting. I do not wish to suggest that changes did not occur in lithic technologies during the transition period, only that there is little evidence to suggest the rate or significance of those changes was particularly noteworthy in relation to those that took place throughout the rest of the Palaeo-Eskimo period. Changes to subsistence economy, settlement patterns, mobility, social interaction and ideology are another matter entirely, of course, and it may simply be that stone tools are not especially reflective of the broader scale changes in Palaeo-Eskimo lifeways. 259 8.2 – Research Significance

The value of this research, as I see it, is three-fold. First, this study provides the first comprehensive description and analysis of the Iqaluktuuq lithic artifact assemblages. The results presented here can be used for comparison with other Palaeo-Eskimo assemblages in the North American Arctic, with one of many goals being the exploration of variability inherent in Palaeo-Eskimo technical practice. As more studies like this one are conducted we will come ever closer to understanding the role stone played in the lives of ancient Arctic populations. Second, this research contributes to the broader scholarly debates on human mobility and technology change by providing, on one hand, a regional case study for consideration and, on the other, an examination of the influence(s) of mobility on lithic technology. The interconnectedness of mobility and technology is a problem that unites all archaeologists, and especially those researching hunting and gathering societies. A better understanding of Palaeo-Eskimo lithic technology can do much to explain similar cultural phenomena in other regions of the world. Third, the interpretive framework outlined in Section 3 contributes to general theories of technology in a manner that is well suited for use by archaeologists. While the core concepts have been drawn from the works of various scholars, their organization within the framework allows for consistent reference to technical phenomena and provides archaeologists with explanatory power by outlining the relationships between process, knowledge, skill, techniques and gesture. The framework is intended to facilitate dialogue between researchers by providing a common and explicit terminological and conceptual base that, although not necessarily applicable to all contexts, has great potential for furthering archaeological research in this vein.

Even if my research achieves none of these things, I hope that it will at least make people look at technology a little differently and realize the complexity inherent in technical behaviour. Stone tools represent more than just a mental template and a reduction sequence; they are part of unique, multi-faceted and dynamic systems of human decision-making and technical action rooted in the individual but shaped by the social realm. Our explanations of ancient human technologies should reflect the complexity of human behaviour rather than distill it into referenceless generalizations 260 suitable to no situation in particular. Such an approach instills variety and, dare I say, a measure of reality into our depictions of the past that are often lacking.

8.3 – Future Directions

Limitations in the scope of the present study have at times prevented me from expanding and/or further verifying my interpretations, highlighting a number of potential avenues for future research. Macroscopic and microscopic analyses are foremost on this list and encompass a wide range of phenomena in need of clarification, the first being usewear. I am unaware of any systematic analyses of tool edge wear patterns in the North American Arctic. Gordon’s (1975) observations of burin surface striations comes closest to this but lacks the rigor of more modern usewear studies (e.g. Rots and Williamson 2004). Despite our present state of knowledge surrounding tool function and application, important questions linger regarding how tools were manipulated during use and precisely what materials were involved. Once again, burins and burin-like tools come to mind as categories of artifact for which we assert we know the function but lack data to substantiate our claims or describe variability in use. Usewear studies can do much to resolve this issue.

Along the same vein, patterns of tool breakage need to be better understood. In this study, I have relied on my own experience in stone working to interpret the breakage patterns observed in the lithic assemblages from Iqaluktuuq. Identifying tool fragments is a relatively simple procedure, but interpreting how fracture occurred and what forces were responsible involves some degree of subjectivity. An experimental study of modes of Palaeo-Eskimo tool use and resulting catastrophic material failure can remove much of this subjectivity and provide a reference for interpreting patterns of breakage in lithic assemblages.

Lithic sourcing in the Arctic is another area of research that requires much attention in the coming years. From the simplest visual characterization, to thin-sectioning, to advanced chemical analyses, any attempt to better refine the distribution of chert, chalcedony, nephrite and other raw materials across the vast expanse of the North is of value. Initiatives such as that undertaken by Milne et al. (2009) are encouraging and I expect that similar research programmes will soon provide a wealth 261 of information about where some of these materials came from, even if only in a general sense. In the meantime, an open online catalogue should be made available to researchers through which information and images can be posted regarding the appearance, chemical make-up and distribution of specific materials in various regions. Access to this kind of resource can be invaluable for interpretive purposes and for encouraging collaboration with distant colleagues.

Lastly, I foresee much to be gained from a follow-up analysis of the organic artifact assemblages from Iqaluktuuq. This includes not only the complementary elements of composite tools, like lance and harpoon heads, but also antler detritus and other material that show evidence of stone tool derived modification. Combined with the technological results obtained here, such a study would provide a much more complete picture of Palaeo-Eskimo material culture than is presently available.

262 References Cited

Ackerman, R. E. 2007 The Microblade Complexes of Alaska and the Yukon: Early Interior and Coastal Adaptations. In Origin and Spread of Microblade Technology in Northern Asia and North America, edited by Y. V. Kuzmin, S. G. Keates and C. Shen, pp. 147-170. Archaeology Press, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

Ames, K. M. 2002 Going by boat: the forager-collector continuum at sea. In Beyond foraging and collecting: evolutionary change in hunter-gatherer settlement systems, pp. 19-52. Kluwer/Plenum, New York.

Anderson, P. and M. L. Tushman 1990 Technological discontinuities and dominant designs: a cyclical model of technological change. Administrative Science Quarterly 35.

Andrefsky, W., Jr. 1994 Raw-Material Availability and the Organization of Technology. American Antiquity 59(1):21-34.

1998 Lithics: Macroscopic approaches to analysis. Cambridge Manuals in Archaeology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Arnold, C. D. 1980 A Palaeoeskimo occupation on Southern Banks Island. Arctic 33:400-426.

1981 The Lagoon site (OjRl-3): implications for Palaeoeskimo interactions. National Museums of Canada. Copies available from 107.

Arundale, W. H. 1981 Radiocarbon Dating in Eastern Arctic Archaeology: A Flexible Approach. American Antiquity 46(2):244-271.

Audouze, F. 2002 Leroi-Gourhan, a Philosopher of Technique and Evolution. Journal of Archaeological Research 10(4):277-306.

Autor, D. H., F. Levy and R. J. Murnane 2003 The Skill Content of Recent Technological Change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(4):1279-1333.

Balikci, A. 1970 The Netsilik Eskimo. Natural History Press, New York.

263 Bamforth, D. B. 2000 Core/biface ratios, mobility, refitting, and artifact use-lives: a paleoindian example. Plains Anthropologist 45(173):273-290.

Bandi, H.-G. 1963 The burins in the eskimo area. Anthrpological Papers of the University of Alaska 10(2):19-28.

Bar-Yosef, O. and P. Van Peer 2009 The Chaine Opératoire Approach in Middle Paleolithic Archaeology. Current Anthropology 50(1):103-131.

Barry, R. G., W. H. Arundale, J. T. Andrews, R. S. Bradley and H. Nichols 1977 Environmental change and cultural change in the eastern Canadian Arctic during the last 5000 years. Arctic and Alpine Research 9:193-210.

Barton, C. M. 1998 Looking Back from The World's End: palaeolithic Settlement and Mobility at Gibraltar. In Las Curatas del Pleistoceno Superior en Andalucia, edited by J. L. S. Torti and M. D. S. Vallejo, pp. 13-22. Patronato de la Cueva de Nerja, Cordoba.

Beck, M. E. and H. Neff 2006 Hohokam and Patayan interaction in southwestern Arizona: evidence from ceramic compositional analyses. Journal of Archaeological Science 34(2):289-300.

Bennett, J. and S. Rowley 2004 Uqalurait: An Oral History of Nunavut. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montreal.

Bielawski, E. 1988 Paleoeskimo Variability: The Early Arctic Small-Tool Tradition in the Central Canadian Arctic. American Antiquity 53(1):52-74.

Binford, L. 1979 Organization and formation processes: looking at curated technologies. Journal of Anthropological Research 35:255-273.

1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4-20.

2006 Bands as Characteristic of "Mobile Hunter-Gatherers" May Exist Only in the History of Anthropology. In Archaeology and Ethoarchaeology of Mobility, edited by F. Sellet, R. Greaves and P.-L. Yu, pp. 3-22. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

Blackman, M. J. and C. L. Nagle 1983 Characterization of Dorset paleo-Eskimo Nephrite Jade Artifacts from Central Labrador. In Proceedings of the 22nd Symposium on Archaeometry, edited by A. Aspinall and S. E. Warren, pp. 411-419. University of Bradford, Bradford.

264

Blades, B. S. 2003 End Scraper Reduction and Hunter-Gatherer Mobility. American Antiquity 68(1):141-156.

Bleed, P. 1986 The Optimal Design of Hunting Weapons: Maintainability or Reliability. American Antiquity 51(4):737-747.

Bonnichsen, R. 1977 Models for deriving cultural information from stone tools. Archaeological Survey of Canada Mercury Series 60. National Museum of Man, Ottawa.

Bostock, H. S. 1970 Physiographic subdivisions of Canada. In Geology and Economic Minerals of Canada Report No. 1, edited by R. J. W. Douglas, pp. 10-30, Ottawa.

Boulding, K. E. 1969 Technology and the changing social order. In The Urban Industrial Frontier, edited by D. Popenoe. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick.

Bousman, C. B. 1993 Hunter-Gatherer Adaptations, Economic Risk and Tool Design. Lithic Technology 18(1):59-86.

Bradley, B. A. 1975 Lithic reduction sequences: a glossary and discussion. In Lithic technology making and using stone tools, edited by E. Swanson, pp. 5-13. Mounton, The Hague.

Brantingham, P. J., J. W. Olsen, J. A. Rech and A. I. Krivoshapkin 2000 Raw Material Quality and Prepared Core Technologies in Northeast Asia. Journal of archaeological science 27:255-271.

Bridges, E. M. 1990 World Geomorphology Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Briggs, J. 1970 Never in Anger: Portrait of an Eskimo Family. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Brink, J. 1992 Anvil Boulders and Lithic Reduction on Southern Victoria Island, Northwest Territories. Arctic 45(2):138-144.

Brown, Q. 1967 The Netsilik Eskimo Series, edited by Q. Brown, Q. Brown, general editor. National Film Board of Canada, Canada.

265 Cackler, P. R., M. D. Glascock, H. Neff, H. Iceland, K. A. Pyburn, D. Hudler, T. R. Hester and B. M. Chiarulli 1999 Chipped Stone Artefacts, Source Areas, and Provenance Studies of the Northern Belize Chert-bearing Zone. Journal of archaeological science 26:389-397.

CARD 2005 Canadian Archaeological Radiocarbon Database. Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Cashdan, E. A. 1985 Coping with risk: reciprocity among the Basara of northern Botswana. Man 20:222-242.

Chazan, M. 2004 Locating Gesture: Leroi-Gourhan among the Cyborgs. In Gestures, Rituals and Memory: A Multidisciplinary Approach to Patterned Human Movement across Time, University of Toronto (Victoria College).

2005 Towards an Archaeology of Gesture. In 11th Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists, Cork.

2008 Pathways Through Time: An Introduction to Prehistory and Archaeology. Pearson Canada, Toronto.

Collins, H. B. 1953 Recent Developments in the Dorset Culture Area. Memoirs, Society for American Archaeology 9:32-39.

1957 Archaeological investigations on Southampton and Walrus Islands, N.W.T. Annual Report of the National Museum of Canada for 1956, pp. 22-61.

Conkey, M. W. 1980 The Identification of Prehistoric Hunter-Gatherer Aggregation Sites: The Case of Altamira. Current Anthropology 21(5):609-630.

Cowan, F. L. 1999 Making Sense of Flake Scatters: Lithic Technological Strategies and Mobility. American Antiquity 64(4):593-607.

Cox, S. L. 2003 Palaeoeskimo structures in the Okak region of Labrador. Etudes inuit 27(1/2):417-33.

Craig, N. and N. A. Chagnon 2006 Locational Analysis of Yanomamo Gardens and Villages Observed in Satellite Imagery. In Archaeology and Ethoarchaeology of Mobility, edited by F. Sellet, R. Greaves and P.-L. Yu, pp. 44-74. University Press of Florida, Gainesville.

266 Cross, J. R. 1983 Twigs, Branches, Trees, and Forests: Problems of Scale in Lithic Analysis. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories, edited by J. A. Moore and A. S. Keene, pp. 87- 106. Academic Press, New York.

Damkjar, E. 2005 Late Dorset Longhouses. In Contributions to the Study of the Dorset Palaeo- Eskimos, edited by P. Sutherland, pp. 147-165. Mercury Series. vol. Archaeology Paper 167. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull.

Dawson, P. C. 2001 Interpreting variability in Thule Inuit architecture: a case study from the Canadian high Arctic. American Antiquity 66(3):453-70.

Dionne, M.-M. 2006 Use Wear Analysis, the Missing Link of Nunavik's Chaîne Opératoire: Potential and Forthcoming Studies. In Dynamics of Northern Societies: proceedings of the SILA/NABO Conference on Arctic and North Atlantic Archaeology, Copenhagen, May 10th-14th, 2004, edited by J. Arneborg and B. Gronnow, pp. 45-52. SILA, Copenhagen.

Dobres, M.-A. 2009 Archaeologies of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics Advance Access: In Press.

Dobres, M.-A. and C. R. Hoffman 1995 Social Agency and the Dynamics of Prehistoric Technology. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 1(3):211-258.

Dockall, J. E. 1997 Wear Traces and Projectile Impacts: A Review of the Experimental and Archaeological Evidence. Journal of Field Archaeology 24(3):321-331.

Edmonds, M. 1990 Discussion de l'itilization du concept de <> dans l'études de la production lithiques: Le cas de la production des haches neolithiques en Grande- Bretagne. Archaeological review from Cambridge 9(1):55-70.

Eerkens, J. W. 2003 Residential Mobility and pottery use in the western Great Basin. Current Anthropology 44(5):728-738.

Eerkens, J. W., H. Neff and M. D. Glascock 2002 Ceramic production among small-scale and mobile hunter-gatherers: a case study from the southwestern Great Basin. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 21(2):200- 229.

267 Eigeland, L. 2006 What were the choices? - How the Concept of the Chaîne Opératoire and Experimental Archaeology can be used to Evaluate the Quality of Raw Material. In Dynamics of Northern Societies: proceedings of the SILA/NABO Conference on Arctic and North Atlantic Archaeology, Copenhagen, May 10th-14th, 2004, edited by J. Arneborg and B. Gronnow, pp. 53-58. SILA, Copenhagen.

Ellis, C. and J. Lothrop 1989 Eastern Paleoindian Lithic Resource Use. Westview Press, Boulder.

Esdale, J. A. 2009 Lithic production sequences and toolkit variability: Examples from the Middle Holocene, northwest Alaska. PhD Dissertation, Brown University.

Fitzhugh, W. W. 1972 Environmental archaeology and cultural systems in Hamilton Inlet, Labrador: a survey of the central Labrador Coast from 3000 B.C. to the present. Smithsonian Institution. Copies available from 16.

1976 Palaeoeskimo occupations of the Labrador Coast. In Eastern Arctic Prehistory: Palaeoeskimo Problems, edited by M. S. Maxwell, pp. 103-118. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology. vol. 31.

1980 Preliminary report on the Torngat Archaeological Project Arctic 33:585-606.

Flenniken, J. J. 1987 The Paleolithic Dyuktai Pressure Technique of Siberia. Arctic Anthropology 24(2):117-132.

Franklin, U. 1992 The Real World of Technology. CBC Massey Lecture Series. House of Anansi Press, Concord.

Freeman, M. M. R. 1984 Arctic Ecosystems. In Handbook of North American Indians, edited by D. Damas, pp. 36-48. vol. 5. The Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

Friesen, T. M. 2001 The Iqaluktuuq Project - Archaeology on the Ekalluk River near Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. University of Toronto.

2002 Analogues at Iqaluktuuq: the social context of archaeological inference in Nunavut, Arctic Canada. World Archaeology 34(2):330-45.

2004 The Iqaluktuuq Project: 2003 Field Season - Archaeology on the Ekalluk River near Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. University of Toronto.

268 2007 Hearth Rows, Hierarchies, and Arctic Hunter-Gatherers: The Construction of Equality in the Late Dorset Period. World Archaeology 39(2):194-214.

Fyles, J. G. 1963 Surficial geology of Victoria and Stefansson Islands, District of Franklin.

Gendron, D. and C. Pinard 2000 Early Palaeoeskimo Occupations in Nunavik: A Re-Appraisal. In Identities and Cultural Sontacts in the Arctic, edited by M. Appelt, J. Berglund and H. C. Gullov. Danish Polar Centre, Copenhagen.

Giddings, J. L. 1956 The Burin Spall Artifact. Arctic 9(4):229-237.

Giddings, J. L., Jr. 1967 Ancient men of the Arctic. Alfred Knopf, New York.

Goodyear, A. C. 1979 A Hypothesis for the Use of Cryptocrystalline Raw Materials among the Paleo- Indian Groups in North America. University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Research.

Gordon, B. H. C. 1975 Of men and herds in Barrenland Prehistory. In National Museum of Canada Mercury Series. National Museum of Man Mercury Series. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

1976 Migod - 8000 years of Barrenland prehistory. In National Museum of Man Mercury Series, pp. 310. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

Grace, R. 1997 The 'chaîne opératoire' approach to lithic analysis.

Gramly, R. M. 1978 Lithic Source Areas in Northern Labrador. Arctic Anthropology 15(2):36-47.

Grǿnnow, B. 1994 Qeqertasussuk - the Archaeology of a Frozen Saqqaq Site in Disko Bugt, West Greenland. In Threads of Arctic Prehistory: Papers in Honour of William E. Taylor, Jr., edited by D. A. Morrison and J.-L. Pilon, pp. 197-238. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series. vol. 149. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull.

Gustafson, D. F. 1986 Intention and Agency. Philosophical Studies Series in Philosophy 33. D. Reidel Publishing Company, Dordrecht.

269 Harp, E., Jr. 1976 Dorset settlement patterns in Newfoundland and southeastern Hudson Bay. In Eastern Arctic Prehistory: Palaeoeskimo Problems, edited by M. S. Maxwell, pp. 119- 138. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology. vol. 31.

Hodgetts, L. M., M. A. P. Renouf, M. S. Murray, D. McCuaig-Balkwill and L. Howse 2003 Changing subsistence practices at the Dorset paleoeskimo site of Phillip's Garden, Newfoundland. Arctic anthropology 40(1):106-20.

Horvath, I. 2002 Natufian settlement and mobility: a lithic perspective from Saaide II, Lebanon. Nexus 15:8-32.

Ingold, T. 1987 The Appropriation of Nature - Essays on human ecology and social relations. University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

2000 The Perception of the Environment: Essays in livelihood, dwelling and skill. Routledge, New York.

Inizan, M.-L., M. Lechevallier and P. Plumet 1992 A Technological Marker of the Penetration into North America: Pressure Microblade Debitage, Its Origin in the Paleolithic of North Asia and Its Diffus. In Materials Research Society Symposium Proceedings, edited by P. B. Vandiver, J. R. Druzik, G. S. Wheeler and F. I. C., pp. 661-681. Materials Research Society, Pittsburgh.

Irving, W. N. 1968 The Arctic Small Tool Tradition. In Proceedings VIIIth International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, pp. 340-342. vol. 3. Science Council of Japan, Tokyo and Kyoto.

Irwin, G. 2008 Pacific seascapes, canoe performance, and a review of Lapita voyaging with regard to theories of migration. Asian Perspectives 47(1):12-27.

Jackson, H. E. 1991 The Trade Fair in Hunter-Gatherer Interaction: The Role of Intersocietal Trade in the Evolution of Poverty Point Culture. In Between Bands and States, edited by S. A. Gregg, pp. 265-286. Occasional Paper No. 9. Board of Trustees, Southern Illinois University.

Jarvis, P. 1987 Adult Learning in the Social Context. Routledge, London.

Jensen, J. F. 2006 The Stone Age of Qeqertarsuup Tunua (Disko Bugt): A regional analysis of the Saqqaq and Dorset cultures of Central West Greenland. Monographs on Greenland 336. Museum Tusculanum Press, Copenhagen.

270

Jensen, J. F. and E. B. Petersen 1998 Raw material distribution - social space, social interaction. Acta Borealia 15(2):139-152.

Jensen, M. B., B. Johnson, E. Lorenz and B. A. Lundvall 2007 Forms of knowledge and modes of innovation Research Policy 35(5):680-693.

Jeske, R. 1989 Economies in raw material use by prehistoric hunter-gatherers. In Time, energy and stone tools, edited by R. Torrence, pp. 34-45. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Jones, G. T., C. Beck, E. E. Jones and R. E. Hughes 2003 Lithic Source Use and Paleoarchaic Foraging Territories in the Great Basin. American Antiquity 68(1):5-38.

Keele, S. W. 1968 Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin 70(6):387-403.

Kelly, R. L. 1983 Hunter-Gatherer Mobility Strategies. Journal of Anthropological Research 39:277-306.

1992 Mobility/Sedentism: Concepts, Archaeological Measures, and Effects. Annual Review of Anthropology 21:43-66.

1995 The Foraging Spectrum: Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington.

Kelly, R. L., L. Poyer and B. Tucker 2005 An Ethnoarchaeological Study of Mobility, Architectural Investment, and Food Sharing among Madagascar's Mikea. American Anthropologist 107(3):403-416.

Kendon, A. 1982 The Study of Gesture: Some Observations on Its History. Recherches Semiotiques/Semiotic Inquiry 2(1).

1997 Gesture. Annual Review of Anthropology 26(109-128).

2004 Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Kent, S. 1991 The Relationship Between Mobility Strategies and Site Structure. In The Interpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by E. M. Kroll and T. D. Price, pp. 33-59. Plenum Press, New York.

271 1993 Models of Abandonment: An Exploratory View. In The Abandonment of Settlements and Regions:Ethnoarchaeological and Archaeological Approaches, edited by C. Cameron and S. Tomka. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Knight, F. H. 1921 Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. Houghton Mifflin, Boston.

Knuth, E. 1954 The Palaeo-Eskimo culture of northeast Greenland elucidated by three new sites. American Antiquity 19:367-381.

1967a Archaeology of the Musk Ox Way. Copies available from 5.

1967b The ruins of the Musk Ox Way. Folk 8-9:191-219.

Kristofferson, A. H. 2002 Identification of arctic char stocks in th Cambridge Bay Area, Nunavut Territory, and evidence of stock mixing during overwintering, University of Manitoba.

Kuhn, S. L. 1994 A formal approach to the design and assembly of mobile toolkits. American Antiquity 59(3):426-442.

1996 The Trouble with Ham Steaks: A Reply to Morrow. American Antiquity 61(3):591-595.

Kusimba, S. B. 1999 Hunter-Gatherer Land Use Patterns in Later Stone Age East Africa. Journal of anthropological archaeology 18:165-200.

Larsen, H. and J. Meldgaard 1958 Paleo-Eskimo cultures in Disko Bugt, West Greenland. Medelelser om Gronland 161:1-75.

Lazenby, M. E. C. 1980 Prehistoric Sources of Chert in Northern Labrador: Fieldwork and Preliminary Analyses. Arctic 33(3):628-645.

Le Blanc, R. 1991 Prehistoric Clinker Use on the Cape Bathurst Peninsula, Northwest Territories, Canada: the Dynamics of Formation and Procurement. American Antiquity 56(2):268- 277.

Leacock, E. 1982 Relations of Production in Band Society. In Politics and History in Band Societies, edited by E. Leacock and R. B. Lee, pp. 159-170. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

272 LeBlanc, S. 2000 Middle Dorset (1900-100 BP) Regional Variability on the Island of Newfoundland and in Saint-Pierre et Miquelon. In Identities and Cultural Contacts in the Arctic, edited by M. Appelt, J. Berglund and H. C. Gollov, pp. 97-105. Danish Polar Center Publication. vol. 8. Danish Polar Center, Copenhagen.

Lechtman, H. 1977 Style in technology: Some early thoughts. In Material culture: Styles, organization, and dynamics of technology, edited by H. Lechtman and R. S. Merrill, pp. 3-20. West Publishing, St. Paul.

Lee, R. and I. Devore 1968 Man the Hunter. Aldine, Chicago.

Lemonnier, P. 1980 Les Salines de L'Ouest, logiques technique, logique sociale. Edition de la Maison des Sciences de L'Homme, Paris.

Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1943 Évolution et Techniques Volume 1: L'Homme et la Matière. Albin Michel, Paris.

1945 Évolution et Techniques Volume 2: Milieu et Techniques. Albin Michel, Paris.

1964 Le geste et la parole I - Technique et langage. Albin Michel, Paris.

1965 Le geste et la parole II - La memoire et les rythmes. Albin Michel, Paris.

1993 Gesture and Speech. Translated by A. B. Berger. The MIT Press, Cambridge.

Linnamae, U. 1975 The Dorset Culture: A Comparative Study in Newfoundland and the Arctic. Technical papers of the Newfoundland Museum 1.

Loring, S. 1996 "And They Took Away the Stones from Ramah": Lithic Raw Material Sourcing in Eastern Arctic Archaeology. In Proceedings of the Elders Conference in Eastern Arctic Archaeology, edited by W. Fitzhugh and S. Loring. University Press of New England.

Lurie, R. 1989 Lithic technology and mobility strategies: the Koster site Middle Archaic. In Time, energy and stone tools, edited by R. Torrence, pp. 46-56. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Lyons, W. H., M. D. Glascock and P. J. Mehringer, Jr. 2003 Silica from Sources to Site: Ultraviolet Fluorescence and Trace Elements Identify Cherts from Lost Dune, Southeastern Oregon, USA. Journal of archaeological science 30:1139-1159.

273

Madsen, D. B., R. G. Elston, R. L. Bettinger, X. Cheng and Z. Kan 1996 Settlement Patterns reflected in Assemblages from the Pleistocene/Holocene Transition of North Central China. Journal of archaeological science 23:217-231.

Mary-Rousseliere, G. 1976 The Palaeoeskimo in northern Baffinland. In Eastern Arctic Prehistory: Palaeoeskimo Problems, edited by M. S. Maxwell, pp. 40-57. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology. vol. 31.

Mauss, M. 1950 Sociologie et Anthropologie. Presses Universitaires de France, Paris.

1967 Manuel D'Ethnographie. Petite bibliotheque Payot, Paris.

1979 The notion of body techniques. In Sociology and Psychology, edited by M. Mauss, pp. 97-123. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London.

Maxwell, M. S. 1973 Archaeology of the Lake Harbour District, Baffin Island. In National Museum of Man Mercury Series. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

1976 Pre-Dorset and Dorset Artifacts: The View from Lake Harbour. In Eastern Arctic Prehistory: Palaeoeskimo problems, edited by M. S. Maxwell, pp. 58-78. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology. vol. 31.

1984 Pre-Dorset and Dorset Prehistory of Canada. In Arctic, edited by D. Damas, pp. 359-368. Handbook of North American Indians. vol. 5, W. C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington.

1985 Prehistory of the Eastern Arctic. Academic Press, Toronto.

McGhee, R. 1969 An archaeological survey of Western Victoria Island, N.W.T., Canada.

1970a Excavations at Bloody Falls, N. W. T., Canada. Arctic anthropology 6(2):53-72.

1970b A quantitative comparison of Dorset culture microblade samples. Arctic anthropology 7(2):89-96.

1971 An archaeological survey of Western Victoria Island, N.W.T., Canada. National Museum of Canada, Hull.

1976 Palaeoeskimo occupations of Central and High Arctic Canada. In Eastern Arctic Prehistory: Palaeoeskimo Problems, edited by M. S. Maxwell, pp. 15-39. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology. vol. 31.

274 1979 The Palaeoeskimo occupations at Port Refuge, High Arctic Canada. In National Museum of Man Mercury Series. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

1980 Individual stylistic variability in Independence I stone tool assemblages from Port Refuge, N.W.T. Arctic 33:443-453.

1981 The Dorset occupations in the vicinity of Port Refuge, High Arctic Canada. In National Museum of Man Mercury Series. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

1988 Beluga hunters: An archaeological reconstruction of the history and culture of the Mackenzie Delta Kittegaryumiut. Newfoundland Social and Economic Series 13. Institute of Social and Economic Research, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's.

1990 Canadian Arctic Prehistory. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull.

1996 Ancient People of the Arctic. UBC Press, Vancouver.

Meldgaard, J. 1960 Prehistoric sequences in the Eastern Arctic as elucidated by stratified sites at Igloolik. Selected papers of the 5th International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnological Sciences, 1956. University of Pennsylvania Press Philidelphia.

1962 On the formative period of the Dorset culture. In Prehistoric Relations between the Arctic and Temporate Zones of North America, edited by J. M. Campbell. Arctic Institute of North America Technical Paper. vol. 11.

Meyer, D. 1977 Pre-Dorset Settlements at the Sea Horse Gully Site. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 57. National Museum of Man Mercury Series, Ottawa.

Miller, A. and C. M. Barton 2007 Exploring the land: a comparison of land-use patterns in the Middle and Upper Paleolithic of the western Mediterranean. Journal of Archaeological Science 35(5):1427- 1437.

Miller, H. M.-L. 2006 Archaeological Approaches to Technology. Academic Press/Elsevier.

Milne, S. B. 2000 Pre-Dorset Lithic Technology: A Study of Lithic Assemblage Variability in an Inland Pre-Dorset Site. In Identities and Culture Contacts in the Arctic, edited by M. Appelt and H. C. Gullov, pp. 149-158. Danish Polar Center Publication. vol. 8.

2003a Identifying pre-Dorset structural features on southern Baffin Island: challenges and considerations for alternative sampling methods. Etudes inuit 27(1/2):67-90.

275 2003b Peopling of the Pre-Dorset Past: A Multi-Scalar Study of Early Arctic Lithic Technology and Seasonal Land Use Patterns on Southern Baffin Island. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, McMaster University.

Milne, S. B., A. Hamilton and M. Fayek 2009 Combining visual and geochemical analyses to source chert on Southern Baffin Island, Arctic Canada. Geoarchaeology 24(4):429-449.

Morgan, C. 2008 Reconstructing prehistoric hunter-gatherer foraging radii: a case study from california's southern Sierra Nevada. Journal of Archaeological Science 35:247-258.

Morrow, C. A. and R. W. Jefferies 1989 Trade or embedded procurement?: a test case from southern Illinois. In Time, energy and stone tools, edited by R. Torrence, pp. 27-33. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Morrow, T. A. 1996 Bigger is Better: Comments on Kuhn's Formal Approach to Mobile Toolkits. American Antiquity 61(3):581-590.

Muller-Beck, H. 1977 Excavations on Banks Island, N.W.T., 1970 and 1973. Urgeschichtliche Materialhefte 1, Tübingen.

Myers, A. 1989 Reliable and maintainable technological strategies in the Mesolithic of mainland Britain. In Time, energy and stone tools, edited by R. Torrence, pp. 78-91. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Nagle, C. L. 1984 Lithic Raw Materials Procurement and Exchange in Dorset Culture Along the Labrador Coast, Brandeis University.

1986 Flake stone procurement and distribution in Dorset Culture sites along the Labrador coast. In Palaeo-Eskimo Cultures in Newfoundland, Labrador and Ungava, edited by J. Tuck, pp. 95-110. Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John.

Nagy, M. 1994 A Critical Review of the Pre-Dorset/Dorset Transition. In Threads of Arctic Prehistory: Papers in Honour of William E. Taylor, Jr., edited by D. Morrison and J.-L. Pilon, pp. 1-14. Archaeological Survey of Canada, Mercury Series. vol. 149. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Hull.

1997 Palaeoeskimo Cultural Transition: A Case Study from Ivujuvik, Eastern Arctic. Unpublished Ph.D. Disertation, University of Alberta.

276 2000 From Pre-Dorset Foragers to Dorset Collectors: Palaeo-eskimo cultural change in Inujivik, eastern Canadian Arctic. In Identities and Cultural Contacts in the Arctic: Proceedings from a Conference at the Danish National Museum Copenhagen, November 30 to December 2 1999, edited by M. Appelt, J. Berglund and H. C. Gullov, pp. 143-148. Damnsk Polar Center, Copenhagen.

Odell, G. 2004 Lithic Analysis. Manuals in Archaeological Method, Theory and Technique. Kluwer Academic, New York.

Odell, G. H. 1994 Prehistoric Hafting and Mobility in the North American Midcontinent: Examples from Illinois. Journal of anthropological archaeology 13:51-73.

Odess, D. 1996 Interaction, Adaptation, and Culture Change: Lithic Exchange in Frobisher Bay Dorset Society, Baffin Island, Arctic Canada. PhD Dissertation, Brown University.

1998 The Archaeology of Interaction: Views from Artifact Style and Material Exchange in Dorset Society. American Antiquity 63(3):417-435.

Owen, L. 1988 Blade and Microblade Technology. Selected Assemblages from the North American Arctic and Upper Paleolithic of Southwest Germany. BAR International Series. BAR International, Great Britain.

Panja, S. 2003 Mobility strategies and site structure: a case study of Inamgaon. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22(2):105-125.

Parry, W. J. and R. L. Kelly 1987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. In The Organization of Core Technology, edited by J. K. Johnson and C. A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. Westview Press, Boulder

Peterson, J., D. R. Mitchell and M. S. Shackley 1997 The Social and Economic Contexts of Lithic Procurement: Obsidian from Classic- Period Hohokam Sites. American Antiquity 62(2):231-259.

Phillips, S. C. and R. J. Speakman 2009 Initial source evaluation of archaeological obsidian from the Kuril Islands of the Russian Far East using portable XRF. Journal of Archaeological Science 36(6):1256- 1263.

Plumet, P. and S. Lebel 1997 Dorset tip fluting: a second 'American' invention. Arctic anthropology 34(2):132- 62.

277 Pye, D. 1988 The Nature and Aethstetics of Design. The Herbert Press, London.

Ramsden, P. and M. Murray 1995 Identifying seasonality in pre-Dorset structures in Back Bay, Prince of Wales island, NWT. Arctic anthropology 32(2):106-17.

Ramsden, P. and J. A. Tuck 2001 A comment on the pre-Dorset/Dorset transition in the eastern Arctic. Anthropological papers (Alaska) (New Series) 1(1):7-11.

Renouf, M. A. P. 2003 A review of Palaeoeskimo dwelling structures in Newfoundland and Labrador. Etudes inuit 27(1/2):375-416.

2006 Re-investigating a Middle phase Dorset dwelling at Phillip's Garden, Port au Choix, Newfoundland. In Dynamics of Northern Societies: Proceedings of the SILA/NABO Conference on Arctic and North Atlantic Archaeology, Copenhagen, edited by J. Arneborg and B. Gronnow, pp. 119-128. Studies in Archaeology and History. Copenhagen National Museum, Copenhagen.

Riede, F. 2006 Chaine Operatoire, Chaine Evolutionaire? Putting technological sequences into an evolutionary perspective. Archaeological Review from Cambridge 21(1):50-75.

Riel-Salvatore, J. and C. M. Barton 2004 Late Pleistocene Technology, Economic Behaviour, and Land-Use Dynamics in Southern Italy. American Antiquity 69(2):257-274.

Riel-Salvatore, J., G. Popescu and C. M. Barton 2008 Standing at the gates of Europe: Human behaviour and biogeography in the Southern Carpathians during the Late Pleistocene. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 27:399-417.

Rogers, E. M. 2002 The Nature of Technology Transfer. Science Communication 23(3):323-341.

Rots, V. and B. S. Williamson 2004 Microwear and residue analysis in perspective: the contribution of ethnoarchaeological evidence. Journal of archaeological science 31:1287-1299.

Roux, V. 2003 A Dynamics Systems Framework for Studying Technological Change. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 10(1):1-30.

Ryan, K. 2003 An overview of Palaeoeskimo architectural remains in the central Canadian low Arctic. Etudes inuit 27(1/2):29-65.

278

Sanger, D., R. McGhee and D. Wyatt 1970 Appendix I: blade description. Arctic anthropology 7(2):115-17.

Savelle, J. M. and A. S. Dyke 2002 Variability in Palaeoeskimo Occupation on South-Western Victoria Island, Arctic Canada: causes and consequences. World Archaeology 33(3):508-522.

Schiffer, M. B. (editor) 2001 Anthropological Perspectives on Technology. 5. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.

Schlanger, N. 1994 Mindful Technology: unreleasing the chaine operatoire for an archaeology of the mind. In The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeology, edited by C. Renfrew and E. B. Zubrow, pp. 143-151. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Schledermann, P. 1978 Preliminary results of archaeological investigations in the Bache Peninsula region, Ellesmere Island, N.W.T. Arctic 31:459-474.

1990 Crossroads to Greenland: 3000 years of prehistory in the Eastern High Arctic. Komatik Series 2. Arctic Institute of North America.

1996 Voices in Stone: A Personal Journey into the Arctic Past. Komatik Series Number 5. Arctic Institute of North America, Calgary.

Schmidt, J. 1984 Introduction and general bibliography. Historical Anthropology 1:1-28.

Seeman, M. F. 1994 Intercluster Lithic Patterning at Nobles Pond: A Case for "Disembedded" Procurement Among Early Palaeoindian Societies. American Antiquity 59(2):273-288.

Sharp, H. 1977 The Chipewyan Hunting Unit. American Ethnologist 4:377-393.

Shott, M. 1986 Technological Organization and Settlement Mobility: An Ethnographic Examination. Journal of Anthropological Research 42:15-51.

Shott, M. J. 2003 The Chaîne Opératoire and Reduction Sequence. Lithic Technology 28(2):95-105.

2004 Hunter-Gatherer Aggregation in Theory and Evidence: The Eastern North American Paleoindian Case. In Hunters and gatherers in Theory and Archaeology, edited by G. M. Crothers, pp. 68-102. Occasional Paper No. 31. Board of Trustees, University of Illinois.

279

Simms, S. R., J. R. Bright and A. Ugan 1996 Plain-ware Ceramics and Residential Mobility: A Case Study from the Great Basin. Journal of Archaeological Science 24(9):779-792.

Smith, C. S. 2003 Hunter-gatherer mobility, storage, and houses in a marginal environment: an example from the mid-holocene of Wyoming. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 22(2):162-189.

Sorensen, M. 2006 The chaîne opératoire applied to archaeology. In Dynamics of Northern Societies: proceedings of the SILA/NABO Conference on Arctic and North Atlantic Archaeology, Copenhagen, May 10th-14th, 2004, edited by J. Arneborg and B. Gronnow, pp. 31-44. SILA, Copenhagen.

Spielmann, K. A. 1986 Interdependence among Egalitarian Societies. Journal of anthropological archaeology 5:279-312.

Stefansson, V. 1913 My Life with the Eskimo. McMillan Company, New York.

Stone, T. 1994 The Impact of Raw-Material Scarcity on Ground-Stone Manufacture and Use: An Example for the Phoenix Basin Hohokam. American Antiquity 59(4):680-694.

Stout, D. 2002 Skill and Cognition in Stone Tool Production: An ethnographic case study from Irian Jaya. Current Anthropology 43(5):693-722.

Tacon, P. S. C. 1983 An analysis of Dorset Art in relation to prehistoric culture stress. Etudes/Inuit/Studies 7(1):41-65.

Tambunan, T. 2007 Transfer of Technology to and Technology Diffusion among Non-farm Small and Medium Enterprises in Indonesia Knowledge, Technology and Policy 20(4).

Tankersley, K. and B. Isaac (editors) 1990 Research in Economic Anthropology. JAI Press, Greenwich.

Taylor, W. E., Jr. 1962 A Distinction between Blades and Microblades in the American Arctic. American Antiquity 27(3):425-426.

1964 Interim account of an archaeological survey in the central Arctic, 1963. Anthropological papers University Alaska 12(1):46-55.

280

1967 Summary of archaeological field work on Banks and Victoria islands, Arctic Canada, 1965. Arctic anthropology 4(1):221-43.

1968 The Arnapik and Tyara Sites. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 22.

1972 An archaeological survey between Cape Parry and Cambridge Bay, N.W.T., Canada in 1963. In National Museum of Man Mercury Series. vol. 1. National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

Taylor, W. E., Jr., J. Brink and J. Helmer 1988 Fieldnotes, 1988. Canadian Museum of Civilization.

Torrence, R. 1983 Time budgeting and hunter-gatherer technology. In Hunter-Gatherer Economy in Prehistory: A European Perspective, edited by G. Bailey, pp. 11-22. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1989a Re-tooling: towards a behavioral theory of stone tools. In Time, energy and stone tools, edited by R. Torrence, pp. 57-66. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

1989b Tools as optimal solutions. In Time, energy and stone tools, edited by R. Torrence, pp. 1-6. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Vaughan, P. 1985 Usewear Analysis of Flaked Stone Tools. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

Villaverde, V., J. E. Aura and C. M. Barton 1998 The Upper Paleolithic in Mediterranean Spain: A Review of Current Evidence. Journal of World Prehistory 12:121-198.

Weissner, P. 1982a Beyond Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: A Comment on Binford's Analysis of Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems. American Antiquity 47(1):171-178.

1982b Risk, reciprocity and social influences on !Kung San economics. In Politics and history in band societies, edited by E. Leacock and R. B. Lee, pp. 61-84. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Whallon, R. 2005 Social Networks and Information: Non-"utilitarian" Mobility among Hunter- Gatherers. Journal of anthropological archaeology In Press.

Wilke, P. J. and M. McDonald 1989 Prehistoric Use of Rock-Lined Cache Pits: California Deserts and Southwest. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 11(1):50-73.

281 Winterhalder, B. 1986 Diet choice, risk and food sharing in a stochastic environment. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:369-392.

Wyatt, D. 1970 Microblade Attribute Patterning: A Statistical Examination. Arctic Anthropology 7(2):97-105.

282 Appendix A – Terminology

The following is a summary of the terminology used to describe various morphological characteristics of the artifacts and related measurements discussed in this paper. Terms are organized alphabetically by the typological category to which they belong. Diagrams outlining the primary features and measures for each artifact type are also provided.

Maximum dimensions (length, width, thickness) denote measurements of an artifact taken in a particular orientation. In the case of non-oriented specimens (e.g. fragmentary specimens or undiagnostic bifaces), maximum dimensions denote ‘true’ maximums whereby the artifact is oriented so that the two points along the tools periphery having the greatest distance between them are aligned proximal-dorsally. True maximum length is measured along this axis; true maximum width is measured perpendicular to this axis; and true maximum thickness is measured along this axis between dorsal and ventral surfaces.

The terms dorsal and ventral are used to denote the primary surfaces of most artifact classes. Artifacts having ambiguous primary surfaces (e.g. bifaces) are treated as if the most convex surface is dorsal and the least convex is ventral. Artifacts are always oriented with the dorsal surface upwards. Being highly subjective in both definition and in practice, this convention is not amenable to inter-specimen comparison of feature locations/orientations and therefore is only used as a standardized means of orienting and describing particular specimens.

Bifaces

Since bifaces are a pseudo-residual category for non-diagnostic artifacts exhibiting bifacial retouch, no standardized orientation is possible. Likewise, fragmentary specimens may retain no diagnostic landmarks for orientation.

Edge Angle – the angle created by the intersection of the dorsal and ventral surfaces along one or more points of the biface’s margin.

Maximum Length – In complete specimens, the distance measured between peripheral points the 283 greatest distance apart (true maximum).

Maximum Thickness – In complete specimens, the distance measured between dorsal and ventral surfaces along the long-axis (true maximum).

Maximum Width – In complete specimens, the distance measured between peripheral points the greatest distance apart perpendicular to the long-axis (true maximum).

Burins

Back-Edge – The edge (lateral margin) opposite that on which the initial spall facet was produced. The back edge is laterally opposite to the fore-edge. Alternate Opposed burins have two back- edges, as the back-edge of one removal surface is the fore-edge of the other.

Back-Edge Treatment – Modification to adjacent back edge surfaces, such as flaking and grinding.

Basal Element – The portion of the burin body between the burin base and the most proximal spall scar.

Base – The proximal end of the burin.

Base Length – The maximum distance between the left and right lateral margins of the burin’s basal element.

Base Thickness – The distance between dorsal and ventral surfaces of the basal element.

Facet Alignment – The approximate angle of the spall facet relative to the long axis of the burin (Acute/Perpendicular/Obtuse).

Facet Length – The distance measured from the base of the most recent spall facet to the bit.

Facet Width – The distance measured between the lateral margins of the most recent spall scar.

Fore-Edge – The lateral edge on which the initial spall facet was removed. The fore-edge is laterally opposite to the back-edge. Alternate Opposed burins have two fore-edges, as the back-edge of one 284 removal surface is the fore-edge of the other. Distal Bit Width Bit Fore-Edge Treatment – Spall Facet Working Distal Margin Edge Modification to adjacent fore- Working Edge Edge Working Length edge surfaces, including flaking Spall Scars and grinding.

Maximum Length – The distance Maximum Length Maximum Length measured along the long axis Back-Edge Basal Width between the distal and proximal Basal Element

Fore-Edge ends. Base Proximal Maximum Thickness – The Maximum Width Maximum Thickness distance measured along the Ventral View Left Lateral View long axis between the dorsal and (Rotated left from ventral view) ventral surfaces.

Maximum Width – The distance measured perpendicular to the long axis between the left and right lateral margins.

Modified Scar Surface – Retouch or other modification applied to the surface that exhibits facet scars.

Remnant Platform – An unmodified platform preserved from the detachment of the flake blank on which a burin was made.

Spall Facet – The negative flake scar surface produced from the (last) removal of a burin spall.

Spall Scars – The hinged or feathered terminations of spall facets preceding the last facet.

Bit Form – Morphology of the distal burin edge in section (see Figure 5.1):

Edge – Dorsal and ventral surfaces meet at a point 285 Convex – distal edge is outwardly rounded

Concave – distal edge is inwardly rounded from a longitudinal flake removal

Plano-Convex – one flat distal surface meets a rounded/curved surface

Bit Treatment – Modification to surfaces adjacent to the distal burin edge, such as flakingor grinding.

Type – Single: A burin having a single spall removal facet.

Type – Opposed: A burin having two facets on opposite ends but on the same lateral margin.

Type – Alternate Opposed: A burin having two facets on opposite ends and on opposite lateral margins.

Burin Spalls

Burin spalls are oriented with the platform positioned towards the analyst and the spall termination positioned away from the analyst (contrary to the accompanying diagram).

Lateral Surface – The laterally-situated surface joinging a spall’s ventral and dorsal surfaces, being previously either the dorsal or ventral surface of the parent burin.

Lateral Treatment – Modification to the lateral surfaces, such as flaking and grinding.

Maximum Length – The distance measured along the long axis between the distal and proximal ends.

Maximum Thickness – The distance measured perpendicular to the long axis between the dorsal and ventral surfaces.

Maximum Width – The distance measured perpendicular to the long axis between the left and right lateral margins.

Primary Spall – The first spall removed from a burin. The dorsal surface is typically bifacially 286 flaked and some specimens Proximal Bit Angle Maximum Thickness exhibit lateral grinding/polish. Removal Platform (former burin bit) Platform - The proximal end of

Edge the burin spall where force was Damage applied during spall removal. The Former Working Edge distal edge of the parent burin immediately adjacent the burin Dorsal Ventral

Maximum Length

bit was used for this purpose. SurfaceLateral

Former Spall Facet Former

Secondary Spall – Spalls removed subsequent to the primary spall. Termination

Termination – The distal end of the burin spall. Maximum Width Distal

Dorsal View Profile View Burin-Like Tools (BLTs) (Rotated Left from dorsal view)

Burin-like tool denotes a variety of ground stone implements of varying shapes. The terminology presented here is specific to the ‘Dorset’ type identified by Maxwell (1976), which is the most common form observed in the Iqaluktuuq assemblages. Accordingly, some of the terminology here will not be suitable for other forms.

For the purposes of this study, burin-like tools are oriented with the basal edge positioned downwards and ‘flat’, as indicated in the accompanying diagram.

Basal Element – The portion of the BLT body between the base and the most proximal limit of the fore-face.

Base – The proximal end of the burin-like tool.

Bit – The ground ‘tip’ created by the intersection of the fore-face and the distal end of a burin-like 287 tool.

Distal Bit Angle Bit Angle – The angle created by Bit Bevel Angle Bit Distal Edge Length (Ground) the intersection of the fore-face Distal Edge Fore-Edge and the distal edge. (Working Edge)

Bit Bevel Angle – The angle Dorsal Surface Fore-face (Ground) (Ground) created by the intersection of the Fore-Edge Length

Back-Edge Length dorsal and ventral surfaces at the Notch Depth Maximum Length Maximum Length bit. Inter-Notch Width

Distal Edge – The ground NotchWidth Basal Element Basal Element intersection of the dorsal and Proximal Base ventral surfaces, bounded by the Basal Width Maximum Thickness Maximum Width the fore-edge/face and the back- Front View Dorsal View edge. (Rotated left from front view)

Fore-Edge – The intersection of the fore-face and the adjacent dorsal and ventral surfaces; also referred to as a working edge.

Fore-Face – The ground surface located between and aligned perpendicular to the dorsal and ventral surfaces of the BLT.

Inter-Notch Width – The shortest distance from the center of one notch concavity to the center of the opposing notch concavity.

Maximum Length – The distance measured along the long-axis from the base to the most distal point on the BLT (usually the bit or distal edge).

Maximum Thickness – The distance measured perpendicular to the long-axis between the dorsal and ventral surfaces. 288 Maximum Width – The distance measured perpendicular to the long-axis between the points of greatest extent on both lateral margins.

Notch Width – The distance measured between the proximal and distal limits of the notch concavity.

Notch Depth – The distance measured from the center of the notch concavity, outward from the tool’s margin, to a virtual plane defined by the promial and distal limits of the notch concavity.

Surface Treatment – Modification made to a ventral or dorsal surface, such as flaking and grinding.

Cores

Facial Treatment – Modification made to the removal face, such as grinding or faceting.

Platform Depth – The distance measured perpendicularly from the intersection of the removal face towards the opposite edge of the platform.

Platform Treatment – Modification made to the removal platform, such as grinding or faceting.

Platform Width – The distance measured from the lateral limits of the platform parallel with the removal face.

Removal Platform – The surface to which force is applied (percussion or pressure) to removal a microblade from the adjacent surface.

Standardized Volume – calculated by multiplying the maximum length, width and thickness of the core. When possible, the largest complete removal platform should be oriented upwards. Because of the non-standardized morphology of flake cores and the presence of multiple removal platforms on particular specimens, no additional guidelines regarding orientation during measurement can be suggested.

Endblades

Basal Element – The portion of the endblade between the base and the most distal limit of notching. This term does not apply to endblades that do not have notching. 289 Basal Thickness – The distance measured perpendicular to the Distal long-axis between the dorsal Marginal Planar Tip Angle Tip Angle and ventral surfaces on the basal element.

Edge Length Basal Width – The distance measured perpendicular to the long-axis between the greatest Notch Maximum Length lateral extents of the basal Notch Depth Width Inter-Notch Width element below the distal working Basal Element edge. Base

Basal Width Basal Thickness Base – The proximal end of the Maximum Width Maximum Thickness Proximal endblade. Dorsal View Right Profile View (Rotated left from dorsal view)

Edge Angle – The angle created by the intersection of the dorsal and ventral surfaces along the distal edge.

Inter-Notch Width – The shortest distance from the center of one notch concavity to the center of the opposing notch concavity.

Lateral Edge – The intersection of the dorsal and ventral surfaces along the endblade’s lateral margins.

Marginal Tip Angle – The angle created by the intersection of the lateral edges at the tip.

Maximum Length – The distance measured along the long-axis between the proximal edge and the distal tip.

Maximum Thickness - The distance measured perpendicular to the long-axis between the dorsal and ventral surfaces. 290 Maximum Width – The distance measured perpendicular to the long-axis between the left-and right-most lateral extents.

Notch Depth – The distance measured from the center of the notch concavity, outward from the tool’s margin, to a virtual plane defined by the promial and distal limits of the notch concavity.

Planar Tip Angle – The angle created by the intersection of the dorsal and ventral surfaces at the tip.

Surface Treatment – Modification made to a ventral or dorsal surface, such as flaking and grinding.

Tip – The point of intersection of the converging distal edges.

Groundstone

Edge Angle – the angle formed by the intersection of the dorsal and ventral surfaces or of the intersection of two opposing facets along the artifact’s periphery.

Facet – A flat, ground portion of a ventral or dorsal primary surface. Heavily ground chert or slate artifacts can have several differently-sloping facets on a single surface.

Inter-Notch Width – The shortest distance from the center of one notch concavity to the center of the opposing notch concavity.

Maximum Length – The distance measured along the long-axis between the proximal edge and the distal tip.

Maximum Thickness - The distance measured perpendicular to the long-axis between the dorsal and ventral surfaces.

Maximum Width – The distance measured perpendicular to the long-axis between the left-and right-most lateral extents.

Notch Depth – The distance measured from the center of the notch concavity, outward from the tool’s margin, to a virtual plane defined by the promial and distal limits of the notch concavity. 291 Notch Width – The distance measured between the proximal and distal limits of the notch concavity.

Knives

Knives are oriented with the basal element positioned towards the analyst (proximal) and the blade positioned away from the analyst (distal).

Basal Length - The distance measured along the long-axis from the proximal end to the distal limit of the basal (proximal) element.

Blade Length – The distance measured along the long-axis from the distal limit of the basal (proximal) element to the distal limit of the blade (tip).

Blade Width – The maximum distance between the left and right lateral margins of the blade.

Inter-Notch Width – The distance from the center of one notch concavity to the center of the opposing notch concavity (does not apply to single-notched specimens).

Maximum Length – The distance measured along the long-axis from the base to the tip.

Distal Maximum Thickness - The Blade Width Tip distance measured perpendicular to the long-axis between the dorsal and ventral surfaces.

Blade Blade Length Maximum Width – The distance measured perpendicular to the Maximum Length long-axis between the left-and Shouldering right-most lateral extents. Basal Element Basal Length Notch Depth – The distance

Base measured from the center of the Maximum Thickness notch concavity, outward from Maximum Width Proximal the tool’s margin, to a virtual 292 plane defined by the promial and distal limits of the notch concavity.

Notch Width – The distance measured between the proximal and distal limits of the notch concavity.

Shouldering – A pronounced expansion of the tool’s lateral margin at the point of basal and blade intersection. Shouldering often results from the differential rejuvenation of lateral edges; the blade is resharpened while the hafted or held portion remains (largely) unmodified.

Tip – The pointed intersection of the left and right lateral margins at the distal end of the knife.

Microblades

Microblades are oriented with the platform positioned towards the analyst and the dorsal surface facing upwards. Lateral margins are referred to according to this orientation; the left lateral edge is that located on the left side of the dorsal surface and on the right side of the ventral surface when the platform is oriented proximally.

Bulb of Force/Percussion – Ventral eminence adjacent to the removal platform.

Bulb Thickness – Thickness of the microblade measured at the bulb of force/percussion.

Completeness – Specimen type

Complete Incomplete: Proximal Fragment (platform retained) Incomplete: Medial Fragment Incomplete: Distal Fragment Cortex Cover – Percentage of dorsal and platform surfaces exhibiting cortex or heavy patination.

Maximum Length – The distance measured along the long axis from the proximal to distal ends.

Maximum Thickness – The distance measured perpendicular to the long axis between the ventral and dorsal surfaces.

Maximum Width – The distance measured perpendicular to the long axis, from one lateral margin 293 to the opposite margin.

Platform Thickness – The distance measured through the long axis in the same manner as overall thickness (ventral to dorsal), beginning and terminating at the platform’s limits.

Platform Treatment – modification to striking platform surface, such as grinding, faceting and isolation.

Platform Type – The shape of the striking platform.

Flat – unmodified flat surface

Concave – unmodified concave surface

Convex – unmodified convex surface

Cortical – completely cortical, unmodified surface

Multi-Faceted – two or more Maximum Width intersecting surfaces, usually Distal concave scars

Edge – segment of a bifacial edge Maximum Thickness Dorsal Scars Ovate – small, flat ovate surface; Curvature typical on small retouch flakes

Crushed – partially or completely Length Maximum damaged Retouched Proximal Platform Width – The distance Margins measured perpendicular to the Proximal long axis, from one lateral Retouched Proximal Platform platform edge to the opposite Width

Dorsal View Right Lateral View edge. (Rotated left from dorsal view) 294 Termination – Shape of the distal end on complete and distal fragments.

Feathered - fine, uniform thinning termination

Hinge - rounded termination

Step - straight break or incomplete termination

Overshot/Overpassing - blinted termination including significant portion of

Abrupt - blunted termination extending to end of flaking surface; variant of d) above

Thermal Alteration – Intentional or unintentional, pre- or post-depositional heating of the toolstone as evidenced by high sheen/lustre, and/or darkening or reddening, and/or surface charring. ITA (intense thermal alteration) is indicated by any of the above characteristics plus thermal fracture (potlidding).

Type – Typological classification based on dorsal surface morphology.

Primary - Crest blade (lame à crête) having transverse flaking from a dorsal ridge. This is the initial microblade removed from the flaking surface. May also retain cortical and patinated portions of the parent core’s flaking surface.

Secondary - Microblade(s) removed subsequent to the primary microblade and retaining a portion of the parent core’s transversely flaked and/or cortical and/or patinated flaking surface adjacent to

Overshot/ Feathered Hinge Step Overpassing Abrupt 295 existing microblade scars.

Tertiary - Microblade removed along existing microblade scars on the core flaking surface and exhibiting no transverse flaking, cortical surfaces, or patinated surfaces.

Microblade Cores

Standardized Volume – calculated by multiplying the maximum length, width and thickness of the core. When possible, the largest complete removal platform should be oriented upwards. Because of the non-standardized morphology of many microblade cores and in particular the presence of multiple removal platforms on particular specimens, no additional guidelines regarding orientation during measurement can be suggested.

Flaking Surface Treatment – Modification, such as flaking or grinding, made to the flaking surface of the core.

Flaking Surface – The surface from which microblades are removed from a core.

Proximal

Platform Width Maximum Thickness Removal Platform Platform Thickness

Removal Face

Microblade Maximum Length Removal Scars

Flake Scars (Core Preparation) Maximum Width

Front View Distal Side View (Rotated left from front view) 296 Keel – The basal ridge formed by the intersection of sloping lateral core edges.

Platform – The surface to which force is applied (percussion or pressure) to removal a microblade from the adjacent surface (i.e. flaking surface).

Platform Depth – The distance measured perpendicularly from the intersection of the removal face towards the opposite edge of the platform.

Platform Edge - The edge created by the intersection of the platform and the flaking surface.

Platform Edge Treatment – Modification, such as grinding or flaking, made to the platform edge.

Platform Treatment – Modification, such as grinding or faceting, made to the platform surface.

Platform Width – The distance measured from the lateral limits of the platform parallel with the removal face.

Scrapers

Endscrapers are oriented with the proximal (hafted) portion pointing downward or towards the analyst and the distal (working) edge pointed upwards or away from the analyst, as indicated in the accompanying diagram. Sidescrapers are oriented in a similar fashion, with the proximal end towards the analyst and the distal-most end – not necessarily the working edge – oriented away from the analyst.

Basal Element – The proximal portion of the tool, often shaped by flaking to facilitate hafting.

Maximum Length – The distance measured along the long-axis from the proximal end to the most distal extent of the working edge.

Maximum Thickness – The distance measured perpendicular to the long-axis between the dorsal and ventral surfaces.

Maximum Width – The distance measured perpendicular to the long-axis between the most protruding lateral extents. 297 Working Edge – The flaked edge Distal formed by the intersection of the Working Edge Width Working Edge Angle dorsal and ventral surfaces. It can Retouched Working Edge be oriented distally (endscraper), laterally (sidescraper) or Dorsal a combination of the two Ridge arrangements (convergent scraper, double scraper). Basal Element Maximum Length

Working Edge Angle – The angle formed by the intersection of the dorsal and ventral surfaces along Maximum Width Maximum Thickness the retouched working edge. Proximal

Dorsal View Right Lateral View (Rotated left from dorsal view) Working Edge Length – The distance measured between the lateral limits of the retouched working edge. 298 Appendix B: Artifact Plates

a f

c e d

1 cm b g

Plate B.1 - Sample of burins from the Pre-Dorset Buchanan Area 2 site. (NiNg-1).

e a b d c

1 cm

Plate B.2 - Sample of burins from the Pre-Dorset Buchanan Area 5 site (NiNg-1). 299

a b g ae f

1 cm c d h

Plate B.3 - Sample of burins from the Pre-Dorset Wellington Bay site (NiNg-7).

f c e d

1 cm b g

Plate B.4 - Sample of burins from the Pre-Dorset Menez site (NiNg-10). 300 Plate B.5 - Sample of burin spalls from several Pre-Dorset assemblages Iqaluktuuq. a a b c f d 1 cm e f g 301 Plate B.6 - Sample of burin-like tools spalls from Dorset assemblages Iqaluktuuq. c a d b e h f i g 1 cm j 302

a b c

c d e d e f 1 cm

Plate B.7 - Sample of endblades from the Pre-Dorset Buchanan Area 2 site (NiNg-1).

c d c b d c e e a 1 cm f

Plate B.8 - Sample of endblades from the Pre-Dorset Buchanan Area 5 site (NiNg-1). 303

a f c d e

c b g

1 cm

Plate B.9 - Sample of endblades from the Pre-Dorset Wellington Bay site (NiNg-7).

a c d f g

e h e d e 1 cm

Plate B.10 - Sample of endblades from the Pre-Dorset Menez site (NiNg-10). 304

a c d e f

1 cm

Plate B.11 - Sample of endblades from the Early Dorset Ferguson Lake site (NiNg-5).

c e f g h

c a b b

i d e d e 1 cm

Plate B.12 - Sample of endblades from the Middle Dorset Buchanan Area 6 site (NiNg-1). 305

f b

d e a c g 1 cm 1 cm

Plate B.13 - Sample of knives from Pre-Dorset sites at Iqaluktuuq. Note: Scale at left applies only to artifact ‘a’.

1 cm e d b 1 cm Plate B.14 - Sample of knives from Early and Middle Dorset sites at Iqaluktuuq. Note: Scale at right applies only to artifact ‘e’. 306

1 cm

Plate B.15 - Sample of microblades and microblade fragments from Pre-Dorset and Dorset sites at Iqaluktuuq.

1 cm

Plate B.16 - Sample of microblades with alternating, bilateral, proximal hafting-related retouch (indicated by brackets at top). 307

a d b c

1 cm e f Plate B.17 - Sample of scrapers from the Pre-Dorset Wellington Bay site at Iqaluktuuq.

a b

d f

1 cm e c

Plate B.18 - Sample of scrapers from the Pre-Dorset Buchanan Area 2 site at Iqaluktuuq. 308

a b c f

1 cm e

Plate B.19 - Sample of scrapers from the Pre-Dorset Buchanan Area 5 site at Iqaluktuuq.

a b

1 cm d e f

Plate B.20 - Sample of scrapers from the Pre-Dorset Menez site at Iqaluktuuq. 309

a b c a 1 cm d

Plate B.21 - Sample of scrapers from the Early Dorset Ballantine site at Iqaluktuuq.

c b

a 1 cm

Plate B.22 - Sample of scrapers from the Early Dorset Ferguson Lake site at Iqaluktuuq. 310

c a f e

1 cm

b d

Plate B.23 - Sample of scrapers from the Middle Dorset Buchanan Area 6 site at Iqaluktuuq.