Ethnography, Analogy, and Arctic Archaeofaunas: Assessing the Limits of Zooarchaeological Interpretation
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ethnography, Analogy, and Arctic Archaeofaunas: Assessing the Limits of Zooarchaeological Interpretation by Lauren E.Y. Norman A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology University of Toronto © Copyright by Lauren E. Y. Norman 2015 Ethnography, Analogy, and Arctic Archaeofaunas: Assessing the Limits of Zooarchaeological Interpretation Lauren E. Y. Norman Doctor of Philosophy Department of Anthropology University of Toronto 2015 Abstract The use of analogy to infer past lifeways from archaeological material is integral to many types of archaeological investigation. There are many sources for analogy, but the ones that offer some of the richest interpretations use ethnographic and ethnohistoric records to understand archaeological materials and their patterns. The use of these documentary records has been particularly beneficial in places where contemporary people can be linked to their archaeological ancestors through material culture using the direct-historical approach. However, the use of documentary sources in constructing past lifeways has been critiqued, with questions raised about the use of a synchronic, subjective record of a rapidly changing historical present to infer the normally fragmentary and palimpsestic archaeological material. This study aims to clarify the use of the documentary record in interpreting dwelling activities from the archaeofaunal record. By testing which ethnographically and ethnohistorically documented practices are visible archaeozoologically, archaeologists can identify activities, practices, and behaviours that can be accurately interpreted from the archaeological record using the documentary record. The Arctic is an ideal location to study the use of the analogy in the archaeological record as it has both a detailed documentary record and a well-preserved archaeological record. This study ii uses the direct-historical method to develop archaeofaunal expectations from the documentary record. Expectations for archaeozoological material were created to test for multiple stages of dwelling use: primary activities drawn directly from the documentary record, contemporary activities potentially invisible in the documentary record, and post-depositional activities. Archaeofaunal materials from a fourteenth century Thule Inuit semi-subterranean dwelling at Cape Espenberg, Alaska, were used to test these expectations. The strongest patterns that emerged were those relating to the primary activities directly reconstructed from the documentary record, specifically those relating to food storage, preparation, and consumption. Although this is a single study, it indicates that archaeofaunal patterns can help differentiate between activity areas in houses, and that activities that relate to domestic subsistence practices are similar in the early Thule period and the historic period. More broadly, it also suggests that documentary records can be used to accurately interpret archaeofaunal patterns relating to food storage, preparation, and consumption. iii Acknowledgments This work could have never been completed without the support of many people. First, I want to thank my supervisor, Max Friesen. Max introduced me to the Arctic and the academic world. He continually supports my goals and educates me in the ways of a successful academic. His sound advice, humor, and attention to detail have made my research, writing, and academic work infinitely better than I thought they could be. Max’s guidance through this process was invaluable, and the opportunities he afforded me to excavate, identify, analyze, and teach have given me experience that goes beyond a simple graduate degree. I cannot thank you enough. I would also like to thank Gary Coupland, whose comments and questions about the Arctic ethnographic and zooarchaeological work on this dissertation and in class discussions have helped me clarify my ideas and connect the Arctic to the greater word. My conversations with Genevieve Dewar about zooarchaeological method and theory in class and in the Zooarchaeology Interest group continually challenge my interpretations of animal remains. David Smith and Liye XIe deserve many thanks for their thoughtful observations and suggestions. I want to thank Dr. David Morrison, the external examiner, for his comments, insights, and questions. This work would have never been undertaken without the Cape Espenberg Project, whose co- principle investigators John Hoffecker and Own Mason invited Max and a few graduate students up to the amazing site of Cape Espenberg on the Seward Peninsula for the summer of 2011. I would particularly like to thank Owen Mason, John Hoffecker, Claire Alix, Christyann Darwent, Anne Jensen, and Shelby Anderson for their insights on the site and excavations. The field crew that excavated and mapped Feature 87 was invaluable: thank you Angélique Neffe, Arygris Fassoulas, and all the others who pitched in at the end. I particularly want to thank Michael O’Rourke, whose support in the field and in the lab was instrumental in this project. Mike digitized the Feature 87 maps, created the house map, and taught me the basics of GIS data analysis; without his support and help I would have not been able to start or complete this project. I would like to express my gratitude to my fellow lab-mates, new and old. Specifically, I want to thank Lesley Howse and Susanne Needs-Horwarth for their insights into identification, analysis, iv and all things animal bone related. My thanks go out to all the graduate students for their friendship and support: Alyson Holland, Danielle Macdonald, Jessica Taylor, Peter Bikoulis, Andrew Riddle, Lucille Harris, Adam Allentuck, Emily Hubbard, Danii Desmaris, Becky Goodwin, and many more! The Cape Espenberg Project was funded by NSF grant (ARC-0755725) to John Hoffecker, Owen Mason, Nancy Bigelow, and Christyann Darwent. I have gratefully received substantial funding for my graduate work from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, the Ontario Graduate Scholarship, and the Northern Science Training Program. Grants from the Department of Anthropology, University of Toronto, allowed me to identify small seals at the Museum of the North, University of Alaska Fairbanks, where Aren Gunderson and Link Olson shared with me their knowledge on Alaskan mammalogy. Mark Peck also helped me identify small Charadriiformes at the Royal Ontario Museum, Department of Natural History. I am thankful for my partner, Devin Clarke, who would take me out camping or recommend a glass of wine when I needed it the most. Finally, I want to thank my parents, Joan Young and Ron Norman and my sister Julia Norman for their unending love and encouragement in this and all things. v Table of Contents Acknowledgments .......................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................... vi List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... xvi List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ xviii Chapter 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 The Use of Analogy in Archaeological Interpretation ........................................................ 1 1.1.1 Limitations of Analogy ........................................................................................... 4 1.2 Household Archaeology or Archaeology of a House? ....................................................... 7 1.3 Brief History of Spatial Studies ........................................................................................ 11 1.4 Spatial Studies of Archaeofaunal Assemblages ................................................................ 12 1.5 Spatial Patterning in Houses ............................................................................................. 15 1.6 Research Materials ............................................................................................................ 18 1.7 Research Goals .................................................................................................................. 18 1.8 Organization of Dissertation ............................................................................................. 19 Chapter 2 The Cultural Setting ..................................................................................................... 20 2.1 Terminology ...................................................................................................................... 21 2.2 The Inuit Tradition ............................................................................................................ 22 2.2.1 Okvik-Old Bering Sea ........................................................................................... 23 2.2.2 Punuk .................................................................................................................... 24 2.2.3 Birnirk ................................................................................................................... 25 2.2.4 Thule ....................................................................................................................