The Ideological Dimensions of Whale Bone Use in Thule Winter Houses.
A. Katherine B. Patton Department of Anthropology, McGill University, Montreal.
Novernber, 1996
A thesis subrnined to the Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research in partial fulfdlment of the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts.
Copyright O A. Katherine B. Patton, 1996. National Library Bibliothèque nationale du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographic Services services bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395. rue Wellington OttawaON KIAON4 Ottawa ON KI A ON4 Canada Canada
The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence allowing the exclusive permettant a la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seil reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this thesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.
The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts f?om it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othewise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. This study attempts to demonstrate symbolic whale bone patteming within 3 1 Thule winter houses along the southeast Coast of Somerset Island. Nonhwest Temtories. Canada. Al1 visible architectural whale bone incorporated within the dwellings was mapped. Trends towards panicular patterns of whale bone distribution were demonstrated using Spearman's Rank-order Correlation Coefficient. The potential symbolic nature of
such pattemings was determined within the context of north Alaskan ethnographic and oral historical sources. The extensive use of whale bone in some Thule entrances suggests that their builders sought to create a distinction between the entrance tunnel and main room. not unlike the Inupiat dwellings in 19th-century Tikigaq. The significance of this architectural phenornenon is rooted in the Inupiat. and to some extent Inuit. association between wornen. the house and the bowhead whale. It is also suggested that whaling status may be reflected in differential access to bowhead whale bone.
Cette etude a pour but de demontrer I'occurence symbolique de I'os de baleine dans la conception de 3 1 maisons d'hiver thuleenes tout au long de la cote sud-est de Sornerset Island. Tous les os de baleine visibles dans l'architecture des habitations ont ete trace. Les tendances a concevoir des modeles particuliers en os de baleine ont ete demontrees en utilisant le coefficiant de correlation de Spearman. La nature symbolique potentielle de tels modeles a ete determinees a l'aide du contexte ethnographique du nord de 1"alaska et des differentes sources de l'histoire orale. L'usage repandu de I'os de balenine dans quelques entreees de maison thuleenes suggere que leurs concepteurs ont cherche a creer une distinction entre le tunnel d'entree et la piece principale, de la meme facon que les habiations de Tikigaq au 19e siecle. La signification de ce phenornene architectural prend
ll son origine dans traditions Inupiat. et dans une certaine mesure aussi chequ celles des Inupiat. et dans une certaine mesure aussi chez celles des Inuit. ou on y fait une assocation entre les femmes, la maison et la baleine boreale. Il est aussi suggere que le statut de echeur de baleine peut eue demontre part les differents acces qu'on ces derniers aux os de baleine boreale. .. Abstract ...... II List of Figures ...... iv ... List of Tables ...... viii
2 . A Background to Theoq ...... 5 Approach taken in this study ...... 8 3 . Culture-Histoq Background Aiaskan origins and migration ...... 11 Influences of climate and raw materiais on the Thule winter house ...... II Thule settlement and subsistence patterns ...... 17 Thule seulement patterns in the Somerset Island stud>-area ...... 19 4 . The Influences of ldeoiog: Relating east to we'r ...... 21 Releasing the sou1 ...... 28 5 . .M ethods Faunal analvsis ...... 31 Statisticai analysis ...... 41 Oral history ...... 42 6 . Results ...... 43 .Main room: overall ...... 57 Crania ...... 54 .LI aillae ...... 54 Mandibles ...... --55 Cut mandiblss ...... 55 Cervical vertebrae . scapulae and ribs ...... 56 Entrance tunnel: overall ...... -..74 Crania ...... 75 Maxillae ...... 76 Mandibles ...... 77
The sigificance. of mandibles and rnaxillae in the entrance tunnel ...... 77 Cut mandibles ...... 79 Cervical venebrae . scapulae and ribs ...... 79 7 . Discussion Implications for the Somerset Island Thule whale bone house ...... 97 8 . Conclusion ...... 103 9 . Bibliography ...... 136 Map of the Arctic region of North America (From McGhee 1981) Figure 2: Map of Somerset Island . Canada (Mer Savelle 1995: 129) 3 Figure 3: Map demonstratinp possible Thule migration route (From McGhee 1983: 370) ...... 12 Map of the Alaskan northwest Coast (After Lowenstein 1993: xii j ...... 14 Figure 5: Sketch of an Inupiat winter house tFrom Savelle 1987. after Spencer 1959 ) ...... 14 Figure 6: Skeleton of the bow head whaie . indicating elements discussed in this study (After .M cCartney 1979b) ...... 16 Figure 7: Map featuring "core" whaling main the vicinity of Sornerset Island IAfter Savelle and .M cCartney 1994: 284 ) ...... 18 Figure 8: Collecter mode1 diaz- (From Savelle 1987: 5 . after Binford 1980 i ...... 20 Figure 9: Map of the Hazard Inlet area . featunng Thule winter sites discussed in study (.Aiter Savelle 1987: 80-81 ) ...... 33 Results of Spearman's Correlation Coefficient with a main roorn combined mandible category ...... 57
Figure 11: Scatterplot of o~erallmain room ...... 58 Figure 12: Scatterplot of Pais 13 house 7: main room ...... 58 Figure 13: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 8: main room ...... 59
Figure 14: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 9: main room ...... 59 Figure 15: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 10: main room ...... 60
Figure 16: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 1 1: main room ...... 60 Figure 17: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 12: main room ...... 61 Figure 18: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 13: main roorn ...... 61 Figure 19: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 13: main room ...... 62 Figure 20: Scatterplot of PaJs 13 house L 5: main room ...... 62 Figure 2 1: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 16: main room ...... Figure 22: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 16a: main roorn ......
Figure 23 : Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 17: main room ...... Figure 24: Scatterplot of PaJs 3 house 1: main room ...... Figure 25: Scatterplot of Pals 3 house 2: main room ...... Figure 26: Scatterplot of Pals 3 house 3: main room ...... Figure 27: Scatterplot of Pals 3 house 4: main room ...... Figure 28: Scatterplot of Pals 3 house 5: main room ...... Figure 29: Scatterplor of PaJs 3 house 6: main roorn ......
Figure 30: Scatterplot of PaJs 3 house 7: main room ......
Figure 3 1 : Scatterplot of PaJs 3 house 8: main room ...... Figure 32: Scatterplot of Pals 3 house 9: main room ......
Figure 33: Scatterplot of PaJs 3 house IO: main room ......
Figure 34: Scatterplot of PaJs 3 house 1 1: main room ...... Figure 35: Scatterplot of Pals 3 house 12: main room ......
Figure 36: Scatterplot of Pals 2 house I : main room ...... Figure 37: Scatterplot of PaJs 2 house 2: main room ...... Figure 38: Scatterplot of PaJs 2 house 3: main room ......
Figure 39: Scatterplot of PaJs 2 house 4: main room ...... Figure 30: Scatterplot of Camp Stream Site house: main room ......
Figure 4 1: Scatterplot of Pond Site. nonh house: main room ......
Figure 42: Scatterplot of Pond Site south house: main room ...... Figure 43: Scatterplot of Overall entrance tunnel ...... Figure 44: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 7: entrance tunnel ...... Fipre 45: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 8: entrance tunnel ......
Figure 46: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 9: entrance tunnel ......
Figure 47: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 10: entrance tunnel ...... Figure 48: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 1 1: entrance tunnel ...... Figure 49: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 12: entrance tunnel ...... Figure 50: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 13: entrance tunnel ...... Figure 5 1 : Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 14: entrance tunnel ...... Figure 52: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 16: entrance tunnel ......
Figure 53 : Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 16a: entrance tunnel ...... Figure 54: Scatterplot of Pals 13 house 17: entrance tunnel ......
Figure 55: Scatterplot of PaJs 3 house 1: entrance tunnel ...... Figure 56: Scatterplot of PaJs 3 house 2: entrance tunnel ...... Figure 57: Scatterplot of PaJs 3 house 3: entrance tunnel ...... Figure 58: Scatterplot of PaJs 3 house 3: entrance tunnel ......
Figure 59: Scatterplot of PaJs 3 house 5: entrance tunnel ...... Figure 60: Scatterplot of PaJs 3 house 6: entrance tunnel ......
Figure 6 1 : Scatterplot of PaJs 3 house 7: entrance tunnel ...... Figure 62: Scatterplot of PaJs 3 house 8: entrance tunnel ...... Figure 63: Scatterplot of PaJs 3 house 9: entrance tunnel ...... Figure 64: Scatterplot of Pals 3 house 10: entrance tunnel ......
Figure 65: Scatterplot of Pals 3 house 1 1: entrance tunnel ...... 92
Figure 66: Scatterplot of Pals 3 house 12: entrance tunnel ...... 92
Figure 67: Scatterplot of PaJs 2 house 1 : entrance tunnel ...... 93 Figure 68: Scatterplot of Pals 2 house 2: entrance tunnel ...... 93 Figure 69: Scatterplot of PaJs 2 house 3: entrance tunnel ...... 94
Figure 70: Scatterplot of Pals 2 house 4: entrance tunnel ...... 94
Figure 7 1: Scatterplot of Camp Stream Site house: entrance tunnel ...... 95 Figure 72: Scatterplot of Pond Site. north house: entrance tunnel ...... 95 Figure 73: Scatterplot of Pond Site . south house: entrance tunnel ...... 96 vii Figure 74: Diagram indicating Inupiat settlement/subsistence patterns during the spring whaling season ...... 98 Figure 75: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 7 ...... 105 Figure 76: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 8 ...... 106 Figure 77: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 9 ...... 107 Figure 78: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 10 ...... 108 Figure 79: Diagram of PaJs I3 house 1 1 ...... 109 Figure 80: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 12 ...... 110
Figure 8 1 : Diagram of PaJs 13 house 13 ...... 111
Figure 82: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 14 ...... 112
Figure 83: Diagram of PaJs 17 house 15 ...... 113 Figure 84: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 16 ...... 114
Figure 85: Diagram of PaJs 1 3 house 16a ...... 115
Figure 86: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 17 ...... 116
Figure 87: Diagram of PaJs 7 house 1 ...... 117
Figure 88: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 1 ...... 118
Figure 89: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 3 ...... 119
Figure 90: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 4 ...... 120
Figure 9 1 : Diagrarn of PaJs 3 house 5 ...... 121 Figure 92: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 6 ...... 122 Figure 93: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 7 ...... 123 Figure 94: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 8 ...... 124 Figure 95: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 9 ...... 125 Figure 96: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 10 ...... 126
Figure 97: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 1 1 ...... 127 Figure 98: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 12 ...... 128 Figure 99: Diagram of PaJs 2 house 1 ...... 129 ... vu1 Figure 100: Diagram of PaJs 2 house 2 ...... 130 Figure 101: Diagram of PaJs 2 house 3 ...... 131
Figure 102: Diagram of PaJs 2 house 4 ...... 132 Figure 103: Diagram of the Camp Stream Site house ...... 133 Figure 104: Diagram of the Pond Site, north house ...... 134 Figure 105: Diagram of Pond Site . south house ...... 135
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Architectural utili ty index (After Savelle in press.) ...... 39
Table 2: Speman's Correlation. MAU and Ratio results for al1 houses ...... 44 This research was made possible with gants to the author from the Department of Indian and Nonhern Affairs (Northern Scientific Training Programme). and to J. M. SaveIle from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Award No.
4 10-9 1-0464) and the Polar Continental Shelf Project (Project 630-94). 1 am most grateful to my committee rnembers, Dr. James M. Savelle. Dr. Bruce G. Trigger and Dr. Michael Bisson. Each has furthered my understanding of archaeology and helped to shape this thesis through course work. seminars and cornments relating to
proposals. field work and the thesis itself. 1 wish to thank Dr. Savelle in particular. for introducing me to archaeology in the Arctic and for providing me with the opponunity to carry out research there. Dr. Trigger's seminars on theory and structure were also invaluable.
In my first field season. 1 was aided not only by Dr. Savelle. but also Catherine
Triggs. Pob Rosensweig. Matt Sturgess. Isabelle Jauron and Sheila Gregory. 1 owe
thanks to each of them and to Peter Whitridge. who kindly permitted me to map houses at PaJs 2.
For the second summer of field work. 1 thank The Hamlet of Pangnirtung for allowing me to cany out my research: The Angmarlik Centre. and panicularly Margaret Karpik, for the use of their facilities and for al1 their help: Canadian Parks Service for providing facilities and accommodation: Bill Kilabuk for translating. 1 am also most grateful to the elders who shared their knowledge with me: Etooangat Aksayuk. Pauloosie Angmarlik. Towkie Maniapik. Evee Anilniliak. Jamese Mi ke, S owdluk and Tashugat Nakashuk. Martha Kanayuk, Simon Simayuk and Joanasie Kakee. Sincere thanks are also extended to my fellow graduate students. Dr. Junko Habu (now at the University of California at Berkeley). Dr. Max Fnesen (now at the University of Toronto) and James Stemp for their suppon and advice in dl stages of this research and about the field of archaeology itself.
Finally, I am indebted to Kate Lord who helped with cutting and pasting, to Carol Walker and Bruce Worrell for helping with the finishing touches. to my parents who always provided their love and encouragement. and to David for his unfailing support. The Thule whale bone house is one of the most striking features of the Arctic landscape. Its origins are found in the Birnirk and Punuk cultures of the nonhwest
Aiaskan coast (Dumond 1987), yet exarnples are located throughout the coastal regions of
Alaska, Arctic Canada and Greenland (Figure 1). As with any architectural form, the environment is one of the strongest factors which influenced the Thule whale bone house. These structures served primarily to shelter their inhabitants from the arctic winter climate.
where substantial, solid housing is pmiculariy important. Archaeologists (e.g. Maxwell
1985: 1: McGhee 1978: 95) have been continually fascinated by people inhabiting what
appears to be a hostile environment. For this reason. rnost studies have examined Thule winter dwellings as responses to environmental conditions. or from settlement. engineering or material perspectives. This study. however. aims to interpret the ideological influences on whale bone use within prehistonc Thule Inuit winter houses.
The ideological properties of ThuIe architecture have been alluded to by some archaeologists (e-g.Dawson 1995: 77; McCmney 1979a). Dawson ( 1995) proposes that Thule whale bone house design may have been influenced by ideology. in the same way that Alaskan Inupiat ideology guided traditional architectural forms. While McCartney
( 1979a) is not inclined to discuss the parcicular nature of ideoloa in architecture. he argues [bat a processual approach to the study of Thule winter houses may expose certain symbolic patternings. Following this recommendation, Habu and Savelle's ( 1994) detailed stratigraphie study of a Thule whale bone house exposed a baleen layer between its whale bone elements and foundation, which they suggest is potentially symbolic of the dichotomy between land and sea within Inuit ideology. This snidy aims to elaborate upon the methods and ideas presented by these and other scholars. in order to interpret the symbolic patteming of whale bone use in Thule winter houses dong the southeast coast of Somerset Island, Northwest Temtories. Canada.
The selection and distribution of whale bone elements were examined in 3 1 Thule winter houses along the southeast Coast of Somerset Island during the summer of 1994
(Figure 2). Alaskan oral history and ethnographie sources. in addition to central and eastem Arctic ethnographies were used to interpret whale bone patterns within these dwellings. Lastly, interviews with elders from Pangnirtung. Baffin Island, Nonhwest Temtories (Nunawt Territory as of 1999) during the summer of 1995, produced vaiuable information about Inuit winter house construction. which has aiso been used, where relevant. to interpret Thule settlement and architectural patterning.
Figure 2: Map of Somerset Island, Canada (After Savelle 1995: 129). a: PaJs 13; b) PaJs 2; c: PaJs 3. Questions about the ideologies of past cultures have permeated the history of archaeological investigations. Yet schoiars do not agree on the extent of their influence on human behavior, nor is there consensus about the accessibility of this information from the archaeological record. The approach taken in this thesis combines aspects of many theoretical frameworks in an attempt to interpret architecture within the context of Thule ideology. To discuss the approaches which have influenced this work it is important to explain where these ideas corne from and particularly how ideology is incorporated into architecture. What follows is a brief background and explanation of the direct histonc
approach, settlement patterns and processual and contextual archaeology. This is followed
by a discussion of how elements of each are incorporated into the study.
The direct histonc approach uses the "ethnographie present" to explain the activities rellected in the composition of archaeological materials. This approach was widely accepted in North American archaeology in the middle of the nineteenth century (Trigger
1989: 105- 108: Willey and Sabloff 1974). Settlernent pattern analysis emerged in the
1930s (Trigger 1989: 204). and later encouraged interest in humanity's interaction with its physical environment (e-g. Steward 1955) and the social and behavioral aspects of past peoples (e-g.Willey 1953 in Trigger 1989: 282). These studies formed the foundation for the recent florescence of literature on the subject of architecture itself, including investigations into its symbolic dimensions (Sieadman 1996: 52).
Processual archaeology emerged in the late 1950s and early 1960s. based on the belief that ecological adaptation is the pnmary determinant of human behavior. This is best expressed by White's (1959) definition of culture as "the extra-somatic means of adaptation for the human organism" (in Binford 1962: 218). Binford (e-g. 1962. 1972). its leading proponent. argued that the 'culture' could not be understood as a single indivisible entity. but had to be examined through the sub-systems whch compose human behavior. These sub-systems relate to three subclasses of material culture. Technomic objects mediate the relationship between humans and their physical environment, socio- technic objects mediate human relationships between individuals and the cornmunity. and ideo-technic objects symbolize a group's ideology (Binford 1962: 2 l9-2X). While Binford stressed the importance of the environment in shaping al1 aspects of human behavior. processual archaeologisrs chose to examine the technomic to the vinual exclusion of other subclasses. In this context. architecture was examined as a function of people's ability to adapt to their naturai environment (e.g Hunter-Anderson 1977). Because processual archaeology seeks to understand human behavior and social organization in terms of cross-cultural regularities. it advocates looking for universal correlations between material culture and human behavior (Bell 1994: Binford 1978:
Hunter- Anderson 1977: Trigger 1989). Ethnographie analogies provide illustrations of human activities and their material resiilts. which in tum are used to form hypotheses about human behüvior to be tssted in the archaeological record. This correlation must be demonstrated repeatedly before it can be used with any cenainty to form universal generalizations. These can rhen used to predict the relationship between archaeological and systemic contexts t Bell 1994: 115- 117). While this approach acknowledges the existence of ideological factors. it regards their influence on human behavior as largely epiphenomenal. At the same time. it argues that ideological behavior is difficult. if not impossible. to interpret accurately from archaeological rnatenal (Renfrew 1993: 1: Trigger 1989: 328).
The contextual approach. however. examines 'culture' as a series of continuous human actions. Not unlike the earlier British culture-historical archaeology. this approach emphasizes the historical elements of archaeology (Hodder 1982a: l982b: 1987a: 1987b; Trigger 1989: 348-330). Contextual archaeology posits that much of human behavior is not universal. and that the particular and variable aspects of every culture. such as ideology, must be studied in addition to economic and adaptive ones. Contextual archaeolo_w also stresses that al1 hinctions of matenal objects must be examined. including the symbolic. Objects cqlayers of meaning which are enacted at different rimes and under varying conditions. An object may serve a utilitarian need and a symbolic purpose. separately or simultaneously. Xlthough the utilitarian role of an object is unlikely to change. its symbolic associations can be manipulated and altered to convey very different meanings under changing circumstances (Hodder 1982b: 10: l987a: I987b: 8). This is typified in architecture. which is employed on a pracrical level to protect its inhabitants from the natural environment and to provide designated activiry areas (Rapopon 1969:
.McGuire and Schiffer 1983). Architecture can also be infused with the ideology of its builders to replicate the cosmos (cg. Eliade 1960: Kent 19841or the natural order te.g.
Donley 1982: Hodder 1982a: 1990: Therkorn 1987 j. Arnong rhe cnticisms of this approach has ken its testabiliry. The meaning of symbols can be difficult to demonstrate in archaeological contexts. Colin Renfrew's
( 1994) edited volume The .-lncienr Mind applies processual methods ro questions of ideology. by attempting to understand how symbols were used in past cultures. This cognitive-processu approach seeks to answer questions relating to past ideologies using testable hypotheses. Although the meaning of symbols may not be accessible. this approach. which stresses their function. recognizes ideology as an active force within culture (Renfrew 1994: 6 1. One of the best examples of this approach actuaily preceded Renfrew's work.
.McGuire and Schiffer ( 1983) examined the changes of hasazi architecture from circular to rectangular forms. The! argue that the utilirarian constraints of architecture do not adequarely explain changes in vemacular architecture. On the other hand. social processes. such as status and mobility. can alter the availability of raw materials and technologies. which influence not only the utilitarian nature of house design, but also its symbolic
investment. iMcGuire and Schiffer ( 1983: 278-282) predict that symbolic functions will increase in response to greater social differentiation. The elite will have access to more
varied raw materials and will invest more time in construcring the symbols which convey their status. Similarly, structures which are ceremonial or social in nature will exhibit stronger investments in symbols, demonstrated through ties to a group's past. New technologies or changes to settlement patterns may provide new construction possibilities for utilitarian dwellings. Yet ceremonial structures are often the focal point of a group's
ideology. a position that is often strengthened by the use of ancient symbols. such as the continued use of older architectural forms. McGuire and Schiffer ( 1983: 295) test these hypotheses against data from Basketmaker and Anasazi sites in the Amencan Southwest. Despite the new forms and modes of construction available to Anasazi, their kivas (ceremonial houses) maintained older Basketmaker architectural forms. while rectangular. domestic suuctures were now produced on a vastly enlarged scale.
Approach taken in this studv The focus of this study is to examine how ideological components of Thule behavior rnay have influenced Thule winter house form and to ascertain. where possible. the meaning of these symbols. Though it is undeniable that the winter house form is predominately controlled by the environment and the available raw material (Dumond 1987:
144: Mathiassen 1927a and b: McCartney 1979b: 54-55: McCmney and Savelle 1993:
McCullough 1989; Nagy 1994: Savelle and McCanney 1994: 304; see also chapter 4), Thule ideology may have exerted some influence over winter house design. As McGuire and Schiffer ( 1983: 28 1 ) state, "[s]ymbolic functions do under cenain circumstances lead individuals and social groups to make investments in architecture beyond or in spite of a building's utilitarian requirements". The cognitive-processual approach is useful in determining the use of symbols in archaeological contexts, but because of its adherence to
a positivist epistemology it seeks to avoid questions of symbolic meaning (McGuire and
Schiffer 1983; Renfrew 1994). To study the culturally-specific, it is necessary to resort to the direct historic approach. This thesis argues that the ethnographic and oral historical accounts. combined with the unique history of the Arctic, give a glimpse of the rneaning of symbols in Thule contexts.
A fonn of the direct historic approach has re-emerged in recent years, specifically to tackie questions about the symbolic meanings of archaeological phenornena. Ethnographie and ethnohistorical material about ideology, ritual. and symbolism in regions of North America have been used to interpret the meanings of symbols in these same areas (Trigger 1989: 353). Early arctic exploren often subconsciously used contemporary Inuit cultural
traits to give rneaning to the ancient remains (Dekin 1978). a practice that persisted in the study of ancient Thule ideology (cg. Dawson 1995: McGhee 1977: Sproull Thomas
1979). In this respect. this study emphasizes the direct histone approach in order to give meaning to the symbolic attributes of Thute winter houses. These structures are also viewed contextually because the history of Thule winter houses is so crucial to their analysis. and because they fulfill both utilitarian and ideological needs. The Thule arrived in the central Arctic from Alaska about A. D. 1000. They constructed houses similar to those in Alaska. but modified them to suit the new environment and raw matenal availability. At the sarne time, Alaskan Inupiat continued to construct dwellings comparable to Thule winter houses. Relying on this historical relationship, this thesis uses ethnographic and oral history information about Alaskan winter houses to illuminate the ideological components of the central Arctic Thule winter house. The vdidity of this approach is strengthened by the common themes which pervade Inuit and Inupiat ideology (e.g. Lantis 1938: Rasmussen 1929; S~by1969/70. See also chapter 4). The processual influence in this thesis is in its methodology. Although the approach does not attempt to answer questions conceming human behavior in general, hypothetico-deductive methods are used to interpret patterns of whale bone use in Thuie winter houses. It is these patterns which permit the information obtained through the direct historic and contextual approaches to be used confidently. Alaskan origins and migration
Thule culture ernerged dong the nonhwest Alaskan coast around A. D. 900, in conjunction with increased bowhead whaling. An arneliorating climate and a coinciding decrease in pack ice brought about this event and prompted a change in subsistence from ringed seal. walms. bearded seal. and ice-lead whaling to one which emphasized open water whaling. It has been suggested that these changes encouraged a rapid Thule migration into the surnmer feeding grounds in the western Canadian Arctic. across the
Parry Channel and into Greenland (Figure 3) (McCartney and Savelle 1985: 39: McCulIough l989:6: McGhee l96WO: 176- 1 77). The speed of this migration is reflected in a high degree of cultural uniformity throughout the Canadian Arctic and Greenland. Many essential components of Alaskan Thule culture were altered slightly to suit these new environments. One of the most substantial examples is the Thule winter house.
Influences of climate and raw materials on the ThuIe winter house
The primary function of the whale bone house was to provide shelter within the environment in which the Thule lived. Variations in the design of this structure across the Arctic reflect differences in local resources. subsistence and settlement patterns (Mathiassen 1937b). Thule whale bone houses were occupied through the winter rnonths until approximately A. D. 1500 (although the termination of their use varied from region to region). For example, the traditional Cumberland Sound qarnrnaq. used through the fa11 and winter until early this century, shared many similarities with the Thule winter dwellings. Likewise, the Inupiat continued to construct dwellings similar to those of their
Thule ancestors well into this century. Thule-type dwellings were also constructed by the
Sadlermiut on Southampton Island unril their (Sadlermiut) disappearance in 1902/03
(Mathiassen 192%: 133, 136; Rowley 1994: 374). The fioor and walls of the Alaskan Thule winter house were partially excavated into the ground, while frames of wood. stone, sod and occasionally whale bone formed the roof. Semi-subterranean houses have a long history in this region and have been detected in some of the earliest Arctic Srna11 Tool tradition sites (Dumond 1987). The living space. or main room. of the Thule dwelling was accessed by a long whale bone. semi- subtemanean passage. These entrance tunnels sometimes provided extra storage and work space, though their primary function was to protect inhabitants from the natural environment. The success of this entrance design was enhanced by a well. or cold trap. dug into the entrance tunnel floor below the kntak, the entrance hole in the tloor of the main room. The rear of this room consisted of a raised platform which provided warmer working and sleeping areas. Piatforrns were also sometimes built along the sides of the house interior and cooking was often designated to an adjunct off the main room or the entrance tunnel (Dumond 1987: 133: McCullough 1989: 6: McGhee 1984: 37 1: Turcy
1990 : 128-133). The size and strength of whale bones provided the Alaskan Thule with a solid. dependable and effective building material. As fhis group migrated into the Canadian Arctic. whale bone tended to be incorporated more fully into winter house construction.
The Thule remaining along the northwest Alaskan Coast. however. continued to build predominantly wooden houses with whale bone entrances. At Utqiagvik (Figure 4). for exarnple. the entrances of the oldest houses were constructed from a senes of upright mandibles, embedded in holes 20-30 cm deep and roofed with timben (Smith 1990: 85). Although whale bone has not been used in the 20th-century houses. elder Inupiat are still familiar with this practice (Kilmarx 1990a: 4). Indeed, until the end of the last century. many coastal Inupiat groups built their winter houses of wood. whale bone. sod and stone, in a manner and design comparable to their Thule ancestors (Figure 5) (Lowenstein 1993; Figure 4: Map of the Alaskan northwest Coast (After Lowenstein 1993: xii).
I UWOEN SLEEPING PtAtFORY -€ SKtUS
Figure 5: Sketch of an lnupiat winter house (From Savelle 1987, after Spencer 1959). Ray 1984: 290; Spencer 195951-52: 1984: 327). The Alaskan Thule house was thus modified by central and eastem Arctic raw material supplies (Mathiassen I9Yb: 133; McCullough 1989; McGhee 1984: 37 1-372; Dawson 1995). The most striking alteration was necessitated by a lack of trees and extensive driftwood. Whale bone (Figure 6) became a principal building material. as exemplified by the Somerset Island examples. Bowhead skulls formed the entrance and lower wails. Mandibles. maxillae and premaxillae were used predominantly as the main room roof supports, though sometimes they also extended over the entrance tunnel roof. Vertebrae were used in entrance and main room lower walls. Ribs served to brace the roof by creating a latticework over the premaxillae. maxillae and mandibles. Scapulae were also used in roof construction. probably as shinpies to support the sod block covenng. Stone slabs also helped to build up the main room and entrance lower walls. This form was then covered with skins. sods and snow (Habu and Savelle 1993: Mathiassen 1927a. I927b:
McCartney 1979a: McCartney and Sa\?elle 1 993: 5 1. The resulting domed-roof structures were more rounded in form than the Alaskan houses (McGhee 1984: 372).
Though the arctic environment from Alaska to Greenland is not homogenous. overall climatic similarities. reflected in the general absence of trees. the presence of permafrost and low average summer temperatures (Stager and McSkimrning 1984: 30). would encourage a series of similar adaptive strategies across this entire area. including similarities in houses. In areas of less intensive bowhead whaling. Thule relied on other building rnaterials. In the western Arctic. driftwood and sod was used almost exclusively (Arnold 1994: 273-274: Nagy 1994: 30). while in northem Greenland. the Thule used stone and sod (Mathiassen 1927b: 148- 149). The "Cape York" stone houses of Greenland were consmcted using the cantilever principle. which supponed roofing Stones on solid stone walls. Some archaeologists have suggested a separate and independent origin for these structures. They are, nevertheless. a variant of the Thule winter house altered by the nature of the region's raw materiais (Mathiassen 1927b).
Thule settiement and subsistence patterns There are a number of factors which would have made the southeast coast of Somerset Island a favourable whaling location. Its current summer ice break-up patterns mark Prince Regent Inlet as a core whaling region (Figure 7). It is one of the earliest centrai Arctic watenvays to clear in the rnidsummer and one of the last to freeze over in the fall, due to prevailing nonhwest winds. local water depth. tides and strong currents. In addition. small bowhead whales and fernales with calves. favounng the protection of the ice edge. follow the ice lead as it retreats from Lancaster Sound through Prince Regent Inlet to the Gulf of Boothia. ahead of older whales. These young whales arrive dong the
Somerset coast first. are confined to it by the currents and ice cover. and thus would have ken the most susceptible to capture by Thule whalers (Grier and Savelle 1994: McCanney and Savelle 1985: 45-47: 1993: 3-4: Moore and Reeves 1993: Savelle 1981: 68: Savelle and McCartney 1990: 702-7W: 1994: 284-288 ).
Although some question the notion of the Thule as bowhead whalers (Freeman 1979). a number of factors indicate an active Thule whale hunting strategy. Most bowhead remains on Somerset Island are of yearlings and the occasional one or two year old individuals. It seems likely that these reflect a Thule hunting strategy which favoured smaller bowheads because of their size and numben. Also. both the right and left element of paired bones, such as mandibles. occur in houses in equal numbers. Both factors suggest that the bones were removed from hunted carcasses. not scavenged from the decomposing and potentially disarticulated skeletons of beached whales (McCartney and
Savelle 1985: 47; 1993: 6).
ThuIe settlement Dattems in the Somerset Island smdv area The Thule sites from Creswell Bay to Hazard Inlet were classified by Savelle
( 1987) into four categories based on Binford's (1980) collecter mode1 (Figure 8). Although this thesis focuses on the winter residential sites. Thule whaling in this region was undertaken dunng the late summer and early fall. The whaling camps, flensing sites and whale rneat caches seem to demonstrate an aggregation of micro-bands during this season. From these sites whaie migrations could be rnonitored and a sufficient population assembled to launch rtmiat and hunt and butcher whales. Landed whales were butchered at the ice edge or shore line and the latter are recognizable today as flensing sites. The meat. blubber and bone was then stored in affïiiated caches to be transported at a later date to winter villages (McCartney and Savelle 1985: 33). Although it seems more likely that the whale bone house villages were vacated at this time, it is possible that. at least late in the season. village members remained in or near the houses. while whaling task-groups set up camp eisewhere.
CHAPTER4: THE INFLUENCES OF [DEOLOGY
Relating east to West Architecture is only one of many attributes which reflect the shared Thule past of the Inupiat, Inuit and Inuvialuit. General linguistic and material cultural similarities also
exist among these groups (Damas 1984: 1: Dumond 1987: 2 1-3 1 ) and a study of Arctic ethnographie and oral historical literature indicates that there are similarities in rituals and ideology. As this study focuses on patterns of bowhead whale bone use in Thule winter houses, some of the most relevant information derived from the sources listed above relates
to the symbolic dimensions of whale bone use and bowhead whaling ntual in recent Inupiat
and Inuit history. Many histone central and eastem Arctic Inuit groups lived in regions
where bowhead whaling was not possible. Information relating directly to the ideological dimensions of whale bone use in winter houses is not directly relevant or no longer attainable. Their ideology. however. holds general themes common with Inupiat belief.
Both Alaskan lnupiat and Thule whaling comrnunities utilized two types of dwellings. qnrgich (Alaskan ceremonial houses: sing. qurgi ) and domestic dwellings.
These can often be distinguished pior to excavation. Excavators at Utqiagvik noted that some qnrgiclz were built like dornestic structures. Others lacked semi-subterranian entrances. and were built instead with surface entrances (Sheehan 1990: 185). In any case. the essential structural difference between domestic houses and qargich is found inside. where benches. and not platforms. circle the inside wall. The living areas of both structures were built of wood. while the entrance tunnels were almost entirely built of whale bone, specifically ribs, jaws. venebrae and scapulae (Dumond 1987: 132- 135;
Lowenstein 1993: 32-33; Murdoch 1 892: Spencer 1959: 5 1 -53). Regrettably. few authors writing about Inupiat houses distinguish between mandibles. maxillae and premaxillae, referring only to "jaws" or "jawbones". Archaeological reports state that mandibles are more often used as roof supports in both the main room and entrance tunnels of Alaskan Thule and Inupiat houses (Hall and Fullerton et al. 1990). It seems likely that the
'Jawbones" referred to in this respect are mandibles (Confirmed by J. Savelle, pers.
cornm., 1996). (As maxillae may have ken used in certain instances, the term "jawbones"
will continue to be used.) Rainey ( 1947: 244) and Lowenstein ( 1993: 33) both noted that the long sunken entrance tunnels of the 19th-century gargich at Tikigaq were based on a framework of whale jawbones. The tunnels were excavated and then built up with sods and whale bone pillars. Whale bone and wood were placed on top of these to form a raised
roof (Kilmarx 1990b: 1 13). It is notable that bowhead rnandibles were used as entrance tunnel building material in a region where wood is generally available (Murdoch 1892:
Spencer 1959; Lowenstein 1993). Qargich (karigit in the central Arctic or knzgir in Labrador) were ceremonial. social and political centres and the focal point of whaling crews (Lowenstein 1993: Rainey
1947: Sheehan 1990: 1995; Habu and Savelle 1994: 1 1). They also carried overt symbolic associations. Lowenstein ( 1992: xxxi) indicates that two whaie jawbones were mounted in the wooden walls of each qargi. This insured that al1 celebrations took place in the presence of the bowhead whale. the community's provider. Prior to "the sitting." a pre- whaling ceremony. the lunialit (whaling captains. singular: umialik) painted pictures on these whale bones of whales being harpooned or trapped. When the uniialir's wives brought food into the qnrgich. it was first presented to these images (Lowenstein 1993: 1 16; Rainey 1947: 247-239).
"The sitting," as with other qargi ceremonies. demonstrates the imponance of these structures to Inupiat belief and their role in bowhead whaling. In another pre-hunt ceremony, a shaman stood beneath the karak and poked his head through this hole repeatediy to received water from the women inside. He is descnbed with whaie flukes in his mouth. which disappeared once he received water from the women's sacred wooden pots (Lowenstein 1993: 1 IO: Rainey 1947: 249: Victor 1987: 142). In this instance. the sharnan represented the harvested whale. welcomed into the cornmunity. A successful ~tmialikkwife was responsible for greeting the harvested whale at the flensing site in this manner. In domestic dwellings, the symbolism does not appear to have been so obvious. The whale bone entrance tunnels and kutak of houses in Tikigaq (Figure 4) were reputed to have had supernaturd qualities. For example. there are a number of stories which tell of items thrown through the katak into the entrance passage later being found inside landed whales, or of whales being created and hunted frorn the katak. In another example. a woman is said to have pulled her husband's whaling harpoon float. used during the hunt. from the karak. These whale bone entrance tunnels were also seen as transitional areas between land and sea. Regional Inupiat legends state that Tikigaq was created frorn the first whaie which was harpooned by the raven. Al1 whales thus ernerge from the land to the sea through the whale bone entrance tunnels of Tikigaq houses (Lowenstein 1993: 33, 42-50j. The spiritual nature of these entrance tunnels was evoked in whaling rituals as well. Beginning each fa11 at each new moon. mamied women in Tikigaq stood on top or in the entryway of the whale bone entrance tunnels and asked the rnoon man, Alinnaq, to drop a whale into her immiiin. the sacred wooden bowl used to give water to harvested animals. Whales caught by the married women's husbands during the spring hunt were considered to be the same whales that had been given to the women during this ritual
(Lowenstein 1993: 129: Rainey 1947: 253: Pulu, Ramoth-Sampson and Ncwlin 1980: 15-
16).
Perhaps the most important ritual undertaken in the house occurred during the spring hunt, when the wife of the umialik took on the persona of the whale's sou1 inside her house. A series of restrictions was placed on her. varying somewhat from region to region. Throughout the bowhead whaling areas of Alaska, and indeed parts of the North American northwest Coast. the wife's primary role was to lie motionless on the sleeping
platform until her husband's boat had killed a whaie. As she represented the whale's soul,
her inactivity made the whale easier to kill (Lantis 1938: 445-459: Lowenstein 1993: 38- 50. 144-145: Spencer 1959: 338). In the Bering Suait region, this association was played out again and again. cornmencing dunng the fall "sitting" ceremony. Although Seby (1969/70: 47) States that only men participated in this ceremony. both Rainey (1947: 247)
and Lowenstein ( 1993: 1 14- 1 15) mention that the urnialit's wives played active roles. The participants sat motionless within the qargi and concentrated on whales. The women involved also had to loosen their clothing to make themselves sleepy. This in tum would make the whales confronted during the hunt sleepy and easier to catch. Once the spring whaling season began. the role of an umialik's wife intensified. "The sitting" was repeated and the wives of crew members prepared a new skin for each
umiak (Anungazuk 1995: 342: Lantis 1938: 443: Spencer 1959: 333). At the floe edge, the wife of the uminlit lay on the ice with her head towards the cornrnunity. The crew then
launched the tirniczk and rowed it back towards the woman. as if in pursuit of a whale. At the last moment. the harpooner dipped his harpoon into the water and then touched her parka. Because she symbolized the whale. this procedure ensured a successful hunt. Some accounts state that the ~mialik'swife symbolized the pursued whale. while others state that, upon witnessing this ritual. the whales allowed themselves to be killed. In any case, her presence at the ice edge was crucial to the outcome of the whale hunt (Lowenstein 1993: 40: Rainey 1947: 259: Saby l969/7O: 47). Once these procedures were completed. the wife retumed to her house in the village where al1 her activity ceased. At Tikigaq. she pretended to be sick and refrained from any movement. She also removed one kamik (or boot). the first step in preparation for bed, in order to confuse the whale's sou1 into believing it was tired and weak. Spencer's (1959: 338) account of the same ntual in Utqiagvik stated that a woman in this role was not permitted to use knives or the harpoon Iine would break. neither could she sew or make noise. Also, if she stooped upon entenng her house. the whale rnight be Iost under the
pack ice. In Bodenhorn's ( 1990: 63) description of this role. a woman was pennitted to move. but only very slowly. through the house. She had to think peaceful thoughts and be generous. Al1 accounts. however. indicate that this role was slightiy different from her role at the floe edge, where a wornan tended to represent the body and sou1 of the whale. In the house, she symbolized the whale's soul. and the house in which she waited became the whale. Because her actions had direct implications for the hunters' success, a woman in
this role formed a bond beiween the men at sea and the community (Lowenstein 1993: 38-
10: Rasmussen 1952: 25-26: Rainey 1947: 159: S0by 1969/70: 53-54: Spencer 1959:
338). In fact, Lowenstein's ( 1993) informants refer to the rtniinlit's wives as unziali~in
their own right. It is difficult to tell if this was specific to Tikigaq. although it seems part of a penrasive notion that these women were as responsible for the outcome of the hunt as the whaling captains. The reasoning behind the association between women and the whale's soul is spelled out in the Inupiat myth of the whale and the raven. The raven flies into the rnouth of a whale and finds a house inside. The version recorded by Nelson (1899: 464-465) describes a main room frame built of whale vertebrae and ribs. A young woman is seated on a bench tending to her Iamp. Every few minutes the woman gets up and leaves the room. When the raven asks her why she is so restless. she replies that it is because of Me and breathing. She has told the raven not to touch the lamp. but during one of her absences, the raven tastes the lamp oiI. Again. Nelson's recorded version is more detailed, stating that the lamp is fed from a long tube which mns down the back of the whale. The woman falls into the house dead and the whale itself begins to die. The woman is the whale's soul and her lamp is its hem. This is precisely the image chat is being played out by the umialik's wife during the spring hunt. Her house becomes the house inside the whaIe (or really, the whale itself) and she becomes its sou1 (Lowenstein 1993: 40-45: Nelson 1899: 464-465; Rasmussen 1952: 24-25). Through most of the year. the house undoubtedly functioned as a domestic dwelling. but dunng the whaie hunt. the house took on these additionai and highly symbolic roles.
In order to demonstrate a Thule origin of this ideology and its effect on Thule house design. the Thule winter house itself must be examined. Alaskan examples of Thule winter dwellings were constructed much like the Inupiat structures discussed above (Dumond
1987: 132-135; see also chapter 4). It is possible then. that the same distinction between entrance and main room. which was an important symbol in Inupiat whaling ntual. may have ken made by Thule as well. This suggestion is supponed by similarities between Inuvialuit. lnupiat and Inuit ideology. For exarnple. the relationship between women. houses and whales permeates much of Inuit and Inuvialuit ideology. The position of these women was traditionally defined by their control over the storage. preparation and distribution of food to their families in Inuit. Inuvialuit and Inupiat houses. Kitchen and food storage areas were often physically restricted and confined to adjuncts off the living area or entrance tunnel. to alcoves or to carefully constructed lamp stands and work areas. Likewise. food was stored in rooms off the entrance tunnels. in alcoves or in lockers within the main room (Dawson
1995: 77 j. Women were responsible not only for monitoring food supplies. but also for preparing harvested game as food for their families (Bodenhorn 1990: 65: Oosten t 986: 127). Another common theme across the Arctic is the division of the living area into male and female sides. When a house was constructed in Cumberland Sound. for example, the woman of the house selected a side in which to work and sleep (Etooangat Aksayuk, Pauloosie Angmarlik, Towkie Maniapik, Martha Kanayuk, Sowdluk and Tashugat Nakashuk: al1 pers. comm. 1995). The relationship between women and the domestic house is strengthened by the fact that qnrgicli. or karigit, functioned for much of the time as work and sociai houses for men (Spencer 1959; Lantis 1947). This does not mean that only men were permined inside. As demonstrated above, Inupiat wornen often entered the qurgi and sometimes panicipated in its rituals. Yet women's day-to-day activities and their mythic roles were situated within the winter house. Both these gender-specific work areas have been observed in both Alaskan and central and eastern Arctic Thule winter settlements
(Arnold 1994: 274; Dekin 1990: 339; Dawson 1995).
There are also parallels to the story of the raven and the whale within Inuit ideology. Just as Inupiat women were affiliated with houses and whales. Inuit women were affiliated with the house and with Sedna. the provider (Oosten 1983: 150: 1986: 127:
Saladin D'Anglure 1978). In Cumberland Sound. Sedna was said to [ive in a house made of stone and whale ribs at the bottom of the sea (Boas 1901: 1 19). Inuit women in traditional whale hunting areas were also specifically associated with whales. not unlike Inupiat women. This relationship is seen in the historic bowhead whale hunting regions of the Foxe Basin and Labrador. lglulik women had to loosen their clothing and lie still in their tents with relaxed limbs. to keep the stmck whale from driving the u)niur out to sea
(Lantis 1938: 460; Saby l969/7O: 53-54: Rasmussen 1929: 187). in Labrador. women sat cross-legged and motionless on the sleeping platform so that their coat tails would not move. They were also forbidden to eat whale mear or sew. If they left their houses during the hunt. the hunted whale would fight the whaiers. makinp the catch difficult and dangerous (Taylor 1985: 127). Kittegaryuit womeri were also apparently confined to their houses or tents until the pursued whales were killed or escaped (Lantis 1938: 460). Evidence of this extensive bowhead whale cult is also seen in the distribution of ceremonial houses throughout bowhead whaling regions. Karigit are not only found in 19th-century and Thule Aiaska, but in such places as Labrador. West Greenland. southern Baffin Island.
Nonhem Quebec and Foxe Basin (Lantis 1938: 448: Mathiassen 1927b: 156: Taylor 1985;
1990). Even in non-whaling regions. karigir were altered by Inuit groups to serve as dance houses and social centres (e-g. Baiikci 1970: 6 1-62) In archaeological contexts. karigit have been found at Pals 13 (Habu and Savelle 1994) and at several other sites on Somerset Island (McCartney 1979c: 288: Savelle 1987; in press), including two potential karigit observed at Pals 3. Karigit also have ken noted at Thule sites on Ellesmere Island (McCullough 1989: Schledermann and McCullough
1980: 834) and in Labrador (Sheehan 1990: 183), in addition to the numerous examples found in later Inuit contexts (Balikci 1970: 6 1-62; Taylor 1985: 129: 1990 ). This evidence suggests that Thule division of labour may have been analogous to that of traditional Inuit. Inuvialuit and Inupiat groups. In this respect. Thule women may have carried the sarne association with the domestic sphere. McGhee ( 1977 ) and Sproull-Thomson ( 1979) see the relationship between women and the sea reflected in aspects of central and eastem Arctic Thule marerial culture. Sea mamrnal hunting harpoons. bird dam. half marine birdhalf woman figurines and women's tools were constructed primarily of sea rnammal ivory. while caribou hunting implements and men's tools almost consistently were made from antler. If regions in the central and eastern Arctic exhibit similarities in ideology. ritual and architecture with Inupiat Alaska. and if the tangible similarities are visible in
Thule contexts. it seems logical to suggest that the essence of these ideas was denved frorn the common Thule past of both the Inuit and the Inupiat.
Releasing the soui One final important and pervasive ritual conceming the treatment of captured whales needs to be addressed at this point. Although bowhead whale crania are found throughout Alaskan Inupiat and Thule contexü. Inupiat belief contends that the sou1 of the dead animal rnust be released so that it may inform others of how weil it has been treated and retum the following year. When a whale was caught and brought to the ice edge or the shore in Alaska and in other parts of the Arctic. the wife of the successful urnialik welcomed the animal to the cornmunity and thanked it for providing them with food. A part of the whale's head was removed and fresh water poured onto it. The whale's head. and at times its cervical vertebrae. were then severed from its body and retumed to the sea. This ensured the whale's return the following year and gave the crabs their share of the meat (Larsen and Rainey 1948: 28; Lowenstein 198 1: 56: 1992: xxix; 1993: 172; Pulu,
Rarnoth-Sampson and Newlin 1980: 26; Rainey 1947: 26 1: S0by 1969170: 67). Crania were nonetheless incorporated into Inupiat house entrances as steps and sometimes as wall braces (Murdoch 1892; Spencer 1959: 51-52). Some the earIiest Alaskan Thule houses also used bowhead crania in this rnanner (Hall and Fullenon 1990: Jolles 1995: 222). Similarly. crania have been observed in central Arctic Thule contexts. perhaps with an even greater frequency (Habu and Savelle 1994: Mathiassen L927a. 1927b: McCartney and
Savelle 1993: 5). Because the belief that the soul of any hunted animal must be released is so pervasive throughout contemporary Arctic cultures. it seems likely that their Thule ancestors also held a form of this belief.
A cornparison of the Inupiat ethnographic literature indicates that a number of variations existed on this theme. Rasmussen ( 1952: 123) observed that the Inupiat retumed the head and backbone of the whale to the sea only if there were no other uses for them. This is in keeping with Spencer ( 1959: 49-52). who suggests that adequate numbers of crania and ribs had to be collected before houses could be constnicted. It is possible that crania were retained when needed and perhaps retumed to the sea once sufficient numbers had been taken. Other Alaskan accounts state that crania were not the important bones. In some southwest Alaskan Coast whaling comrnunities, which share many sirnjlarities in ritual and ideology with the Inupiat, whale bladders were retumed to the sea (Lantis 1947:
53). Anungazuk's ( 1995: 342) discussion of contemporary and recent whaling practices, however, States that a whale's soul is released once its jawbone is retumed to the sea. As rnandibles appear to be used in hupiat house enuances more frequently than maxillae, it is possible that maxillae or pre-maxillae could have been returned to the sea after each hunt. while the other bones were used where needed. In any case. the manner in which this
custom was enacted appears to have ken somewhat flexible.
As great numbers of crania exist within Thule sites throughout the Arctic, it seems likeiy that, if releasing the soul was a concem to the Thule, a varied and perhaps less stringent fom of this rule may have applied. For exarnple. a cranium used as a step into the entrance tunnel of a house at Utqiagvik had a hole cut into it just anterior of the foramen magnum. This phenornenon has been observed throughout the Arctic (Turcey 1990: 148). Almost al1 crania found along the southeast coast of Somerset Island feature a hole just antenor of the foramen magnum. Savelle's 1980 survey of the Somerset Island coast from Bellot Strait to Creswell Bay. demonstrated that 989 of visible occipital bones were modified in this manner. The precise number of cut versus naturally formed holes is. however. unknown. Most of these crania are from immature whales where this bone is only I cm. thick or less. Some holes may have occurred naturally as the bone dried or may have resulied frorn harpoonings. Others. however. exhibit definite cut marks. McCartney suggests that some of these holes may have been intentionally cut into the crania in order to extract the brains or to release the whale's soul ( McCartney 1980: 531: McCartney and
Savelle 1985: 46; Savelle and McCartney 1988: 46). The Thule may have cut the occipital area of the crania used in their houses to fulfill this ritual requirement. rather than dispose of the much needed architectural raw material. The preceding discussion indicates that Inupiat ideology influenced the patteming of bowhead whale bone in traditionai winter houses. The continuity in house design from
Thule Alaska to the historic Inupiat suggests that Thule ideolou must have kenanalogous to Inupiat ideology and affected whale bone patterning in Alaskm Thule winter houses in a similar rnanner. Considering the demonstrated relationship between Inupiat and Inuit societies. it is suggested that the bowhead whde bone patteming in the Somerset Island Thule winter houses may have been equally influenced by ideology. The methods employed to decipher these patterns incorporate both statistical and faunal analyses. The interpretation of these patterns borrow from the direct historic. contextual and cognitive processual approaches. This chapter looks at the first of these approaches. while the interpretations are discussed in chapter 7.
Faunal analvsis
In the last 30 years. zooarchaeology hüs emerged as an important and productive field in archaeology. At one time discarded from collections of excavated material. faunal remains have proved invaluable to the study of past adaptive behaviours. Because the bones of hunted animals are manipulated through human activity. not created by it. faunal remains provide a "culture-free" product in which to view the adaptive behaviors of pasr peoples. As Binford notes. "[Alny variability observed in the relative frequencies of anatomical parts among archaeological sites must derive from the dynarnics of their use"
(1978: 1 1). It follows that faunal assemblages created by modern populations also reflect adaptive behaviors. If pattems. and the activities which create these assemblages. can be isolated in ethnographic examples. they should help explain the same patterns in related archaeological contexts. For example. Binford ( 1978) studied the butchering practices of the Nunamiut in order better to understand the activities which created archaeological faunal assemblages. The aims of this thesis differ from studies such as the Nunamiut example in two ways. First. faunal analytical techniques are ernployed to examine a different aspect of Thule adaptation, namely architecture and the use of whale bone in its construction. Bowhead whdes were important to Thule survival in this area, and over 90% of bowbead whale bone in central Arctic Thule sites is found in winter houses (McCartney and Savelle 1993: 3). In addition to Thule subsistence. the formation of these bone assemblages provides information about other aspects of Thule adaptation. perceptions, use of space and ideology. Second. the purpose of this study is not to confirm or disprove hypotheses concerning the regularities of bone use in architectural contexts. but rather to determine their significance in Thule contexts. The data were collected from three Thule winter house groups (sites Pals 13, Pals
2. Pals 3) along the southeast Coast of Somerset IsIand and from three isolated Thule winter houses (Pond and Camp Stream Sites) between Pals 13 and Pals 2 (Figure 9) during the surnmer of 1994. Thirty-one unexcavated Thule winter houses were mapped as part of the Hazard Inlet Thule Whaling Project. under the direction of Dr. James Savelle. Particular emphasis was placed on the distribution of the bowhead whale bone visible on the surface. Although taphonomic processes. such as erosion. collapse and human disturbance have altered the context of many of these bones. the whale bone is arranged in a manner which generally reflects its original distribution. As illustrated by Savelle and
McCartney ( 1994: 285). the collapsed roof of an undisturbed dwelling is reasonably intact.
Mandibular posts. though alrnost always broken or cut. are often still embedded in the walls of the main room. Partially buried and decomposed rnandibles. maxillae and premaxillae lie in the centre or dong the edge of main rooms and entrance tunnels. Ribs, scapulae and vertebrae tend to be associated with roof collapse, though they cm also be 10 Km
Flgure 9: Map of the Hazard Inlet area, featuring Thule winter sites discusred In study (After Savelle 1987: 80-81). found embedded in walls. (Habu and Savelle 1994; McCartney 1979a: 306; 1979b: 25; McCartney and Savelle 1993: 5). Crania are unlikely to have moved significantly from their original positions, due ta their size and weight (McCartney 1979b: 33). The crania in the Somerset Island houses seem to be in their original positions as wali braces, though many are no ionger upright. The first phase of the analysis determined precisely which elements were more frequently associated with Thule winter houses. Seven categories were created to reflect the most commonly occumng elements and those which provided relatively reliable indicators of overall whale bone distributions: crania; maxillae ( including maxillae and premaxillae); mandibles: cut mandibles: cervical vertebrae: ribs: scapulae. Post- abandonment human disturbance has been particularly damaging to these and other Thule houses in the vicinity. Excavations at Cape Garry and the Learmonth Site. also on Sornerset Island. demonstrate the differences between pre-and post-excavation bone counts
(McCmney 1979b). The Learmonth site houses were not mined by carvers. though they had been somewhat disturbed dunng the post-abandonment stage. At this site. the surface whale bone constituted approximately 40% of the total bone counts. Whale bone from the
Cape Garry houses, however, hüd been extensively collected, and as a result. the surface whale bone comprised only about 20% of the total bone counts (McCartney 1979b: 25: McCartney and Savelle 1993: 4). Although the houses examined in this study were not excavated, a number of factors dernonstrate post-abandonment disturbance. First. the collapsed roof supports are not found in the "spoke-wheel" pattern indicative of undisturbed roof collapse. Second. a high number of cut mandibles were observed throughout these structures. Mandible shafts have been used as sled runners since Inuit groups first entered this region. and abandoned houses provide an ample supply of this raw material. More recently. the whale bone cming industry has encouraged the funher destruction and rnining of these sites. The size and weight of cornpiete mandibles makes them cumbersome to transport. Few complete mandibles were observed. yet the high number of cut or fractured mandibles suggests ihat most original mandibles are represented in these houses, as embedded stumps or remaining distal ends (Habu and Savelle 1994: 13- 14; McCmney 1979a: 307-308; 1979b: 25: McCartney and Savelle 1985: 48). Crania and maxillae demonstrate little variation in their pre- and post- excavation counts. because of their large size and shape (McCartney 1979b: 35). These elements rnay not be representative of their original numbers, as crania, in particular. were favoured by whale bone carvers. Recently removed elements of this size leave sod depressions, but those removed in the distant past usually leave Meor no vestige of their presence.
Surface cranial fragments at PaJs 13 bouse 7 (Figure 75) and PaJs 3 house 5 (Figure 9 1) may have splintered from collected crania. These fragments are generally fully exposed and at a distance from possible iii sitic positions and were not included in the analysis. It is difficult. therefore. to determine to what extent crania were removed from the Cape Gany or other Thule sites. As mosr remaining crania and maxillae are visible from the surface, these were included in the analysis. Smaller surface bones, such as vertebrae. humerii. radii and hyoids elernents. viewed from the surface. are probably not representative of their overall numbers, and as a result. were excluded from analysis.
A number of assumptions were made concerning cut mandibles, as it can be difficult to detennine when these elernents were modified. First. the cut mandible category encompasses both sawed and chopped mandibles. Saw marks indicate that these elements were modified since the 1920s. long after these structures were abandoned, while chopped mandibles could have been cut prior to construction. or earlier in the post-abandonment phase. The placement of cut mandibles in the main room, however, is a more reliable indicator of whether they were modified pnor to construction or after abandonment. Second. to distinguish between cut and broken mandibles. only those embedded and with a relatively even cut were considered to have been cut. These were most often found in the wails of the main room or protmding from the sod of the main room itself. Cornplete mandibles ernbedded in the walls would have ken more useful than chopped ones and
thus the latter were more likely produced during the pst-abandonment stage. This is
supported by Matniassen's ( 1 9Yb) observations of undisturbed Thule houses in the
central Arctic (see also Habu and Savelle 1994: 13; Savelle and McCartney 1994: 285). Third, cut mandibles may represent one of two things within the main room itself. They may have been embedded as platform supports at the time of construction or used as
pillars. Although McCartney ( i979a: 305) doubts that mandibles were used as central posts, a few houses suggest that central pillars may have existed to support the roof
structure. The Camp Stream Site house (Figure 103). for example. located between Pals 2 and Pals 13, has a broken mandible stump in the centre of the main room. The only other
mandible associated with this house is a shaft which fits to this sturnp. suggesting that the structure's roof was supported by a central pillar. Some mandibles inside the main room
of other Thule houses therefore might have served as central pillars. cut or broken during
the post-abandonment phase. Fourth, cut rnandibles embedded in the walls of entrance
tunnels were most likely chopped at the time of construction. The size and shape of entrance tunnels negate the need for long curved bones to fom its roof. Cut rnandibles. or deeply embedded ones. could provide the wall support needed to construct a roof of horizontal beams or of ribs. For this reason, cut mandibles have a different value in the entrance tunnel than the main room. Deeply embedded mandibies could have served the same function in the entrance tunnel as cut mandibles. Because their purpose is unclear. mandibles used in this manner were placed in the mandible category. Embedded mandibles, which might have served this function in entrance tunnels, occur so infrequently that the distinction between them and cut mandibles was not deemed necessary at this stage. Fifth. cut mandibles. entirely exposed on the surface and exhibiting no signs of decay or lichen cover. were discounted. These could have been sawn or chopped at any time in the post-abandonment phase and could not be reliably attributed to the main room or entrance tunnel of any house. Scapulae and nbs were considered in this study. although some may be completely buried. Both elements were often collected by carvers dunng the post-abandonment stage (McCartney 1979b: 22). but bones probably were removed equally from entrance tunnels and main rooms. Surface observations most likely exhibit the same proportions of scapulae and ribs that existed at the time of the dwellings' construction. Ribs are also undeniably important to these dwellings. Their use in the roofs of similar dwellings has been recorded by Mathiassen ( 1927a: 1937b) and has been described by elder inhabitants of Pangninung. a region noted for its strong continuities in Thule house design (Boas
1888: 550: Etooangat Aksayuk. pers. comm. 1995). Although McCartney ( 1979b: 25) suggests that ribs could easily be buried. the bones are of a large enough size that most remaining ribs and scapulae are probably partially visible from the surface. especially in disturbed houses where once completely covrred bones might be exposed. McCanney (I979b) does not deal with cervical vertebrae. so there is no indication of whether these were generally removed during the post-abandonment stage. However. because cervical vertebrae are fused in the bowhead whale. their size shouid allow most to be seen from the surface.
To illustrate how these seven elements were selected and used within the main room and entrance tunnel of each house, bone counts were converted to Minimum Animal Units (MAU). MAUs are calculated by dividing the number of each element in an assemblage (irrespective of side) by the number of that element in the living animal. The results indicate if certain bones are seiected in higher frequencies from the carcasses of dead animals than remaining bones (Binford 1978: 69-71). For example. if an assemblage of bowhead bones contains 6 crania, 9 maxillae and 25 ribs. the MAUs would be calculated as 6. 2.35 and 0.96. Although more ribs are actually represented in the assemblage, the MAU indicates that crania are selected from the carcasses of hunted whales in higher frequencies than ribs. and thus six whales were needed to create this assemblage.
Any element within 1 metre of the entrance runnel or main room was ascribed to its respective area. Bones which fell evenly between the two sections were mapped, but excluded from the analysis. as they could not be placed in either area with any certainty. Most bones were broken and slowly decomposing, but sufficiently intact to be considered complete. Any bones entirely exposed on the surface were mapped. but not calculated in the MAU. because their original placement could not be determined. Bone fragments were noted, but were not calculated in the MAUs. because the' are as likely to have splintered from present bone as to be the remains of now decüyed ones. These decisions were necessary in order to demonstrate more accurately the differences in whale bone patteming between entrance tunnels and main rooms. The MAUs were correlated against a modified version of Savelle's architectural utility index (Savelle, in press) for bowhead whale bone (Table 1). Following Savelle, every bone in the seven categories was evaluated for its "bulk" and "frame" utility in Thule winter houses. The "bulk" utility measures the effectiveness of each bone as wall building material. Entrance tunnels and main room walls both require the sarne etements to act as boulders or wall braces. Bones such as crania. cervical vertebrae and cut mandibles were
Eoiven high values. because they provide the bulk needed to create walls. or to keep the earth and other structural elements in place. As mentioned above. most cut mandibles in main room walls served as roof supports. and were cut dunng the post-abandonment phase. These could, however, add bulk to the walls of either the main room or the entrance tunnel and could have provided solid entrance tunnel roof supports. Scapulae also provide bulk to the walls. especiaily to fil1 gaps. bone buIk main room entrance u tility frame utility tunnel frame utility utilit tunnel utilit
Cran. 7.00 1 .O0 1 .O0
Mx. 3 .O0 6.00 1 .O0
1 Cut M. 1 5.00 1 1 .O0 1 1 .O0
Rib. 1.O0 5 .O0 7 .O0
Table 1: Architectural utility index (after Savelle in press.). Main room frames. however, require different building materials than do enmce
tunnel frames. Two "frarne" utility indices were created in order to account best for the
structural differences between main rooms and entrance tunnels. The perimeter of the main
room wall in the sample houses is on average twice the size of the entrance tunnel perimeter. Main rooms tend to be circular in form. while the envances are generally long and nmow. The main room "frarne" index. therefore, measures the effectiveness of each bone to comply to these design requirernents. Main room frames need large. strong. solid pillars and roof supports. which are easily provided by rnandibles. These bones are long
and curved. compnsing 7530% of the whale's total length and would have created sizable
domed roofs. Maxillae make good seconde roof supports and probably remained
attached to crania, which were used as wall braces (Habu and Savelle 1994: 1 1 : .McCartney
and Savelle 1993: 5 1. Ribs and scapulae could be used as crosspieces and shingles respectively (Habu and Savelle 1994: 1 1: McCartney and Sa~elle1993: 5')and were thus assigned lower values. Al1 other bones were given values of one. Excavated examples of semi-subterranean entrances suggest that these passages were narrow and cramped. An rnrrance frame uould require smaller and shoner bones in its construction. and the entrance tunnel frame utility was created to reflect this. Cornplete mandibles and rnaxillae were assigned low values in the entrance frame utility because their length precludes their use in these frames in convast to the way they would have ken used in the main room. Bowhead whale ribs would be most useful. spanning the width of the entrance tunnel. either sin& or in pairs. and were thus given the highest value in the entrance frame utility. Again. scapulae could be used as shingles. and al1 other elernents were given values of one. In sum. the two frarne utilities (the envance and main room) differed in their emphasis on bowhead mandibles and rnaxillae. The final utility indices were created by combining the bulk utility with each of the frame utilities. producing a combined entrance tunnel utility and a combined main room utility. These were then correlated against the entrance tunnel and main room MAUs of each house in this sample.
To maintain an "objective" perspective in interpreting archaeological data. processual approaches sometimes use statistical analyses to demonstrate patterns in the archaeological record (Shennan 1988: 4-5). These are tested against hypotheses of human behavior deduced from ethnographic exarnples. Statistics were employed in this study in order to test the hypothesis that whale bone patteming reflects Thule ideology. The combined utilities were correlated with the entrance tunnel and main room
MAUs respectively using Speman's Rank-order Correlation Coefficient. As it is applied in this study, the ranked data based on the relative frequency of bone elements (MAüs) in Thule winter houses. are compared with the architectural utility rank of these same elements. The resulting correlations confirm the extent to which the elements occur in frequencies that reflect their relative architectural utility.
The next requirement was to determine whether proportionately more whale bone was used in the entrance tunnel than expected. The perimeter of each main room and entrance tunnel was measured. divided by the total house perimeter and converted to a figure out of 10. This perimeter ratio represents the expected distribution of each element between the main room and entrance tunnel. if these bones were selected to fulfill utilitarian needs only. Each bone MAU was also convened to a proponion out of 10. The penmeter ratio was then compared with each eiement ratio. Crania, cut mandibles and cervical vertebrae have the same values in both the main room and entrance tunnel utilities. If these elements were used in a strictly utilitarian manner. they should occur in the proportion dictated by the perimeter ratio. Mandibles and maxillae have sipificantly lower values in the entrance tunnel than the main room and therefore should occur in far lower numbers in the entrance tunnel than the main room. Because the values come from two different indices. they cannot be directly compared. The relative difference between mandibles and maxillae in the main room and entrance tunnel is unknown. Thus, entrance tunnels which exhibit greater proportions of these elements than expected may reflect ideological. and therefore non-utilitarian. concems. Finally, ribs and scapulae have higher values in the entrance tunnel than the main room. If their proportions in the main room are greater than expected by the perimeter ratio. they may also reflect a selection for non-utilitarian purposes.
Oral histoq Lastly. oral historical research was undenaken during the sumrner of 1995 in
Pangninung. Baffin Island. Nonhwest Territories (Nunavut Temtory as of 1999). Ten elder inhabitants of this cornrnunity were interviewed about winter house construction and use. settlement location and length of occupation. Because of their Thule ancestry and attributes of their traditional settlement and subsistence strategies being sirnilar. this information has been used to funher the understanding of Thule settlement patterns and house design. Much of this information is discussed in chapter 4. The following examines whale bone distributions within the main rooms and entrance tunnels. Two distinct patterns of whale bone use in the Somerset Island Thule
winter dwellings were revealed by the analysis (Table 2: Figures 1 1-73. 74-105). The tests presented in the previous chapter measure the different relationships between various whale bone elements and their positions within the dweilings. The Spearman's Correlation Coefficient measures the association between element frequency (MAU) and architectural utility variables. "High rank" elements are those that were assigned high utility values.
while "low rank" elements were assigned low utility values. Likewise. the three element types occurring rnost often are termed "relatively frequent". The three elements which
occur least often are termed "relatively infrequent" or absent. It is the relationship between element ranks and frequencies that determines the strength of a correlation. The ratio test examines the same data from a slightly different perspective. It compares the distribution of each element (main room and entrance tunnel) to reveal those which occur in greater proportions within each area than expected. In this respect. the results of the two tests are not necessarily related.
bone pl3hYm pl3hY pl3hlOm p13h10 pl3hllm p13hll
I 1 Spearman's correla tion .5049 .6472 ,6039 - ,2894 -.3721 N( 7) N( 7) N( 7) N( 7) N( 7) N( 7) signficance Sig, 248 Si. 1 l fi Sig. 15 l Si#. 529 Sig. 41 1 Sig.
1 1 1 MAU Crania 1 .O0 1 .O0 1 ,O0 .O0 1.00 .QO MaxiIlrie .75 .O0 1.50 ,O0 .O0 .O0 Mandihlc 2.00 .O0 2.50 .SO .O0 .O0 Cui mrindiblc 1 ,O0 .O0 1.50 .50 -50 .O0 Ccrvicül V. .O0 .O0 .O0 .O0 .O0 .O0 Rih -19 .O0 .26 .O4 .O0 .OC) Scapulae .SO ,511 .O0 .O0 1 .O0 .O0
I . 1 Ratio test Pcr . ratio 6.80 3,20 6.40 3.60 7.20 2.80 Crania 5.oU 5.00 10.00 .O0 I 0.00 .O0 Moxillac 10.00 .O0 10.00 .O0 .00 ,O0 Mandihle 10.00 .O0 8.30 1.70 .O0 .O0 Cut mnndihlc 10.00 .O0 7.50 2.50 10.00 .O0 Cervical V. .O0 .O0 .O0 .O0 .00 .O0 Ri b .00 .O0 8.70 1.30 .O0 .NI Scapulric 5.00 5 .O0 ,O( 1 , O0 10.00, .O
Table 2, continued.
OI'E
00' Of '9 OP' I 00'0 1 OE'Z 01'8
00' 00' PO' LI' ZI' 21' Zf' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' 00' ' OS' 00' 00' 00. 1 OS' 00' OS' OS'- - 00' 1 OS' 1 SL' I OS' 1 SZ' 00' 1 00' 1
auoq
Main Room: overall The main room Spearman's results exhibit a tendency towards positive correlations with the main room utility index (Figures 1 142). The 25 houses which demonstrate this tendency contain "high rank" bones more frequently than "low rank" bones. In house 7 at Pals 13 for example (Figure 12). bone elements occur in an order which reflects their architectural utility values. Mandibles (architectural utility value of 1 1 ) occur most frequently, followed by maxillae (9). cut mandibles (6) and ribs (6), which results in a strong correlation of .7854. with a significance of -036. There is a negative correlation for six main rooms. and these are generally weak. Elements in the Pond Site. south bouse (Figure 42), occur in frequencies that aimost reverse their ranking in the architectural utility index. the MAUs correlating at 4991 with a significance of .080.
Most results fa11 between these two exarnples. In general. the strongest correlations are displayed when elements occur in an order which approximates their utility index ranking. Correlations are weakened if "low rank" bones occur in greater frequencies than "high rank" bones. For example. for the Camp Stream Site house (Table 2 and Figure 40). there is a strong correlation with the main room utility (.7308). As crania (utiliry value of
8) have a greater MAU than mandibles or maxillae (utiliry values of 1 1 and 9 respectively). the correlation is marginally weaker in cornparison to other dwellings. In this respect. an absence of "high rank" elements creates a similar effect. In Pals 2 house 2 (Figure 37), for example. mandibles and maxillae occur rnost frequently, with a utility value of I I and 9 respectively. The next most frequent elements were cut mandibles and scapulae. each with values of only 6. Because elements with values of 7 or 8 are absent. the strength of this correlation is reduced to .5049. Crania Crania occur in 19 of the 31 main rooms. Fifteen of these exampies correlate positively with the utiliry index. Crania have a relatively high utility value (see Table 2),
and occur relatively frequently in 14 of the positively correlating examples. A high frequency of crania strengthens a correlation, though the result depends on the ordering of al1 elements in a main room. For example, crania have the highest MAU in the main room
of house 14 at Pals 13 (Figure 19). Because it is only one of two element types in this part of the house. a weak and negative correlation is produced.
M axill ae
Maxillae are ranked the second highest in utility (9). The fact that most main roorns exhibit positive correlations confirms that these elements occur in relatively high frequencies. Again. thsre are a few exceptions. Moderate to weak positive correlations occur at Pals 13 house 12 (Figure 17) and the Pond Site. north house (Figure 41). In both cases. maxillae occur in relatively low frequencies. Although absent in some instances. these elernents occur in PaJs 3 house 3 (Figure 26). Pals 13 house 15 (Figure 20) and
Pals 3 house 4 (Figure 17). These MAUs correlaied negatively with the main room utility
index because elements occurred in frequencies contrary to their utility ranking and many elements were absent al1 together.
Although it seemed likely that rnaxillüe were incorporated into these structures attached to main room crania (Habu and Savelle 1994; McCartney 1979a). maxillae MAUs do not correspond closely to crania MAUs (see Table 2). Sixteen main rooms exhibited greater maxillae than crania MAUs. Of these houses. only 5 (Pds 13 house 8, Pals 13 house 13. Pals 3 house 10. PaJs 2 house 1 and Pds 2 house 3-Figures 13, 18, 33. 36, 38) contain crania in the main room and thus maxillae could not have been taken from entrance tunnel crania. A funher seven houses contaîn no crania at dl. In these examples, maxillae could have been taken from older dwellings and used to support the main room roof independently or as large cross pieces. Most likely. however. crania were removed during the post-abandonment phase by carvers and the once associated maxillae left behind. Eleven main roorns contain greater frequencies of crania than maxiliae. In some cases, maxillae may have been removed from the main room crania and used in the entrance tunnel. Maxillae are also relatively light bones (McCartney 1979b: 33) and could have fractured into unrecognizable fragments, especially in houses which were disturbed by carvers looking for whale bone raw material. Although McCartney ( 1979b) suggests that these bones are unlikely to be buried. some could have become obscured by these post-abandonment disturbances.
Mandibles
Mandibles have the highest utility value ( 1 1 ). and these elements occur in relatively high frequencies in those main rooms exhi bitinz positive correlations. Mandibles occur relatively infrequently. or not at dl. in only three main rooms and are only moderately or weakly correlated with the utility index (Pals 3 house 8. Pals 3 house 1 1 and Pals 3 house 13.-Figures 3 1, 34. 35). Main rooms that exhibit negative correlations contain no mandibles at dl. This suggests that mandibles are a necessary component of main room roof supports.
Cut mandibles Cut rnandibles occurred in 18 of the 3 1 main rooms and were observed in relatively high frequencies in 12 of these cases. These MAUs produced a variety of results with the Spearman's test. except strong, positive correlations. Because cut mandibles only have a utility value of 6. high nurnbers of these elements in a main room weaken the overall correlation with the main room utility index. As discussed above, these would have ken used in the main room ptimarily as complete elements. For example. in the main room of Pals 13 house 8 (Figure 13). cut mandibles are the most frequently occumng element. As a result, this main room exhibits a moderate correlation of .3077 with a significance of
-502. The same sample of main room MAUs was tested against a second main roorn utiiity index with a combined mandible category (Figure 10). The results were notably stronger in 19 of the 3 1 examples. In the case of Pals 13 house 8, the correlation increased to
.9706,with a significance of .O01. Though the creation of such a category has significant effects on main room correlations. the separate category is necessary because of the potentially important role of cut mandibles in the entrance tunnel.
Cervical vertebrae. scapulae and ribs Cervical vertebrae were observed in only four main rooms. In two cases they occur relatively infrequently and in two cases they occur relatively frequently. As they have a relatively low architecrural value. their presence in relatively high frequencies weakens the correlation. The Pond Site, south house (Figure 42). however. exhibits a fairly strong negative correlation. The cervical vertebrae MAU is the highest of only a very few elements. each with lower utility values. The fact that al1 high rank bones are absent results in a negative correlation.
Scapulae, with a value of 6. occur in 1 1 houses. These elements generally appear relatively infrequently, usually in those houses exhibiting moderately strong positive correlations. In those houses exhibiting weak or negative correlations. these bones tend to occur relatively frequently. Ribs occur in 26 of the 3 1 main rooms, and almost always constitute the lowest MAU. As a result, these bones do not radically affect the overall main room correlations. --- SPEARMAN CORRELATION COE
.398S PHNM .a407 .6468 N( 6) Ni 61 Ni 61 Sig .431 Sig -036 Sig -165 -4853 PHSM .a676 N( 6) ?II( 6) Sig -329 Sig -025
.a676 .9706 N( 61 N( 61 Sig -02s Sig .a01
-7537 N( 6) Sig -084
.2572 .6377 .6377 N( 6) 6) Nt 61 Sig .623 Sig .173 Sig -173
-6912 .6468 .9549 N( 6) Nt 6) N( 61 Sig -128 Sig -165 Sig .O03
-7500 N( 6) Sig .O66
.5000 ,6468 N( 6) N( 6) Sig .313 Sig .165
-6468 -8088 -7613 N( 6) N( 61 N( 6) Sig -165 Sig -051 Sig ,079
.la79 .7613 Nt 6) N( 6) N( 61 Sig .572 Sig -722 Sig .O79 Figure 10: Results of Spearman's Rank-order Correlation Coefficient with a main room combined mandible category. Overall main room
PaJs 13 house 7: main room PaJs 13 house 8: main room 2.5 -
C"<,M. 2.0.
1.5-
z le0. B v- '7' I0.0, * 5 8 7 8 O 10 11 12
PaJs 13 house 9: main room 2s
2.0 '%
1.5-
M." Crin. 1.0- . 3 -5- 9 E Y CeW. @ 0.0- . 9.5, % i 5 6 7 8 O 10 11 12 Main room utalty PaJs 13 house 10: main room
PaJs 13 house Il: main room 12 PaJs 13 house 12: main room 12
PaJs 13 house 13: main room 2.0 -,
1.5.
1.0-
3 " E Rlb g 0.0- 8 Cut M. -P. % 4, 5 6 7 6 O 10 11 1 PaJs 13 house 14: main room 12
PaJs 13 house 15: main room PaJs 13 house 16: main room
PaJs 13 house 16a: main room PaJs 13 house 17: main rom 12
PaJs 3 house 1 : main room 5 PaJs 3 house 2: main room
Pa& 3 house 3: main room
"M. PaJs 3 house 4: main room
PaJs 3 house 5: main room PaJs 3 house 6: main mm 3.0
PaJs 3 house 7: main room PaJs 3 house 8: main mm
PaJs 3 house 9: main room PaJs 3 hoose 10: main room
Main rwm utüity
PaJs 3 house 11: main room 127
Crin, 1.0. 9
-8
b-
.4
2- 3E Y' %P. o.o* Csrv. % C CuthL z -2, i 5 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 PaJs 3 house 12: main room 3- Y
2-
-1
3 Clrv. E 0.0- T Gin M. 8 WD- fi 2 4, 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
PaJs 2 house 1: main room
Main mmutiiity
Figure 36: Saüorpiot of Pd82 home 1: main mm. PaJs 2 house 2: main room
PaJs 2 house 3: main room PaJs 2 house 4: main room 1O
Main mmutillty
Camp Stream Site house: main room 7
c 0 0 Q Cut M.
4 S e 7 8 Q 1O 11 12
Main mmutility Flgute 40: Scatterplat ofCamp Sûeam Sibe hause: miti mm. Pond House, north house: main room
Main room util'i Qu,41: &ittrrpiul of Pond Sb,noim home: iri.h room.
Pond House, south house: main room 12
T 12
Main mmuülii Flgurs 42: Scmmrpiot of Pond Situ, wuth homa: main m. Entrance tunnel: overail The entrance tunnel comelations are strikingly different from the those for the main room. Over half of the 31 examples. and the overall entrance tunnel counts. exhibit negative correlations (Table 2 and Figures 43-73). Five of these are considered strong correlations (4077 to -.5850), six moderate (-.4615 to -.3429) and six weak (--2894to
-.O6 13). The strongest negative correlations occur in those houses, such as PaJs 2 house 2 (Figure 68). where "low rank" elements occur in greater frequencies than "high rank" bones. thus demonstrating a tendency towards a reverse of the entrance tunnel utility index. Weaker negative correlations tend to exhibit a mixture of both high and low rank elements. as presented in PaJs 13 house 7 (Figure 44). Absent elements have an equally powerful effect on the strength of these entrance tunnel correlations. For example. PaJs 3 house 7 (Figure 61 ) correlates at -.0613. Although the present elements appear in reverse order to their rank in the utility index. the correlation is made very weak because the elements ranked 5 rhrough 7 are absent. In contrast. PaJs 13 house 16a (Figure 53) has a much stronger correlation of 4923. The difference in correlation between this and the former example is due to the presence of mandibles (with a utility rank of 5)in reasonably frequent numbers. Only elernents ranked 6 and 7 are absent. The reduced gap between the second and third highest MAUs results in an order of elements which approxirnatrs the reverse of the utility index. No correlations were detemiined for the empty entrance tunnels or for PaJs 13 house 13 (Figure 501, which contained only a cervical vertebra. Eight house entrances exhibited positive correlations. As with the main room positive correlations, the bone elements in these houses occurred in frequencies which reflect their order in the entrance tunnel utility index. These few examples suggest that bowhead whale bone was selected for utilitarian purposes only. As most entrance tunnels, however, exhibit tendencies towards negative correlations. bowhead whale bones seem to have ken used in some respect for non-utilitarian reasons. The ratio analysis (Table 2) also indicates that certain houses exhibit the differenual
use of whale bone between main rooms and entrance tunnels. The total MAU for each element was calculated and compared to the overail penmeter ratio of main room to entrance tunnel (7.1: 1.9). Ribs and scapulae have a greater value in the entrance tunnel than the main room, and as such. their ratios do not dernonstrate non-utilitarian patteming in entrance tunnels. Crania and cut mandibles generally occur less frequently in the enuance tunnel than expected. demonstrating a bias towards their use in main rooms. The fact that crania occur slightly more often in the main roorn than the entrance tunnel probably
reflects their value as wall braces and maxiilary supports in the main room. As a result. crania may be far more usefui in the main room than is expressed by the main roorn utility
index. It is also possible that a greater proportion of crania in the main roorn than expected reflects their symbolic function. Although logically. crania should be removed indiscrirninately from both the entrance tunnel and the main room. it is dso possible that crania were collected unevenly in the entrance tunnel and the main room. The reiatively frequent presence of cut mandibles may indicate that most would have originally served the sarne function as complete mandibles. Mandibles and maxillae have a lower value in the entrance tunnel than in the main room. Their presence in greater proportions than expected may suggest a non-utilitarian function. Overall then. whale bone occurs in the entrance tunnel in greater numbers than expected by the proportioned perimeter ratio. This is particularly significant for mandibles and maxillae that have significantly iower architecturai value in the entrance tunnel than in the main room.
Crania Crania were absent from 22 entrance tunnels and from 9 houses altogether. In general, the sample sizes are probably too small to detemine if a difference exists between their use in the main room and entrance tunnel. Over half of the houses do not contain enough crania to be measured accurately against the perimeter ratios. Only PaJs 13 house 7 (Figure 44). PaJs 3 house 1 (Figure 55) and Pals 3 house 5 (Figure 59) have crania present in adequate nurnbers to be compared with the expected distribution presented by the penmeter ratio. Although the resulü of these tests for crania are inconclusive. a number of observations cm be made. When crania are present. their MAUs tend to be relatively high. Just as in the main rooms. crania would have served primarily as wall braces in the entrance tunnels. Examples from other houses at PaJs 13 indicate that these bones could also have been used as lintels (Habu and Savelle 1994).
As crania are observed relatively infrequentlp throughout the sample. their very presence rnay reflect an aspect of Thule ideoiogy. This is particulariy so for the multiple crania in some entrance tunnels. Habu and Savelle ( 1994)exarnined a possible karigi at Pds 13 with six in situ crania comprising its entrance tunnel and seven serving as wai1 braces within the main room. House 2 at the same site also has an entrance created almost entireiy from crania. Although these were not considered in this analysis. they illustrate the potential for large numbers of crania to have symbolic associations. For example. if the disassociated crania at Pals 13 house 7 t Figure 75 1 originated in the entrance tunnel. this house may have had a sirnilar appearance to the entrance of houses 2 and 5.
Maxillae ~Maxillaeoccur relatively frequently in 15 of the entrance tunnels which exhibit negative correlations. By contrast. they are absent from al1 enuance tunnels exhibiting positive correlations. except Pals 3 house 3 (Figure 57). The presence of maxillae in entrance tunnels is significant because these low ranked bones often occur frequently and contribute to the resulting negative correlation. Maxillae not only appear in higher frequencies than other bones. but often occur in greater proportions than predicted by the perirneter ratios. Thirteen of the 3 1 houses displayed greater frequencies of maxillae in the enuance tunnel than expected by the perimeter ratio. In seven of these cases. maxillae MAUs also exceeded those of the main room. As noted above. most of these bones seem to have ken incorporated into entrance tunnel design. separate from crania.
MandibIes Mandibles occur relatively frequently in 14 of the entrance tunnels which exhibit negative correlations. In contrast. they tend to be absent from positively correlating
entrances. the only exception king the south house at the Pond Site (Figure 73). They were observed in greater proportions in the entrance tunnels than expected in eight
examples (Table 2 ).
The significance of mandibles and maxillae in the entrance tunnel Both mandibles and maxillae are often unequally distributed in favour of entrance
tunnels. Cnlike main rooms. ii is unclear precisely how these elements were incorporated into entrance tunnel roofs. The size and strength of maxillae malie them unlikely pillan in either the entrance tunnel or the main room. An embedded mandible ma- have been used as a pillar in the entrance tunnel of Pals 3 house I ( Figure 87 1. The only other possible pillars were constnicted from cur mandibles. Shallowly embedded and uncut mandibles and maxillae. however. would have been cumbersome entrance tunnel roof supports because of their large size and the area they would have been used to span. Entrance tunnels roofed like main rooms would have been impractical and disadvantageous to the semi-subterranean enuances. serving primarily to protect the structure's inhabitants frorn the physical environment. üsing mandibles and rnaxillae in such a fashion would compromise the main purpose behind its design. Indeed. no such examples were observed in the sampled houses. For the rnost part. maxillae were used in the entrance tunnels of these houses not as pillars, but probably as roof cross pieces. The practice of anachinp nbs to a single mandible as witnessed in eastern Siberia (Nelson 1899: 257-258), or the use of two large jawbones to mark the entrance tunnel as in Labrador (Mathiassen 192%:
139). could have been considered by those constmcting these central Arctic houses. though the Sornerset Island examples tend to exhibit larger quantities of both mandibles and maxiilae in the entrance tunnels.
These results may indicate that: a) the utility index is incorrect, b) the bones visible from the surface may not be representative. c) a significant number of bones were removed from the houses over the coune of the post-abandonment stage or d) the bones were king used in a non-utilitarian. but not random. manner. It is difficult to respond to the first point. The same index (the main room utility index) was initially applied to both the entrance tunnel and main room. Although the resulting entrance tunnel correlations were suonger and often positive. the index did not reflect the fundamental differences between the desisy and function of main rooms and entrance tunnels. The entrance tunnel utiiity index was created to accommodate these factors. In response to the second and third points. mandibles and maxillae. tend to protmde from the sod. As discussed in the preceding chapters. these are unlikely to have been fully removed from houses during the post-abandonment stage. Generally. the elements observed on the surface are representative of whale bone use throughout the house. The final point is pivotal to this discussion. If the results of the entrance tunnel correlations are negative. this suggests that bowhead whale bone was king used to some extent in a non-utilitarian manner. Although the two analyses measure different aspects of whale bone distribution within Thule winter houses, 15 of the 17 entrance tunnels which produced negative correlations also exhibited greater quantities of mandibles and/ or maxillae in the entrance tunnel than expected (Table 2). Only one positive correlation (the south house at the Pond Site) displays mandibles in the entrance tunnel in greater proportions than expected. This phenornenon also coincides with positively correlating main rooms. except for Pals 3 house 4 (Table 2). In any case. both tests demonsuate that mandibles and maxillae often occur in greater than expected numbers in entrance tunnels. but not at the expense of the main rooms. as rnost are still able to fulfill their utilitarian requirements.
Cut mandibles
Without excavating each house, it is difficult to determine how rnany entrances jack pillan. As most mandibles probably protrude frorn the sod. pillars likely would be visible frorn the surface. The most logical items to fulfill this requirernent are cut mandibles. or deeply embedded mandibles as in Pals 3 house 1 (Figure 86) and Pals 2 house 3 (Figure 100). Cut mandibles occur in five entrance tunnels. In PaJs 3 house 5 (Figure 90) and
Pals 2 house 2 (Figure ,991 the cut mandibles seem to exhibit chopped markings. One would. therefore. logically expect these elements to have been rnodified prior to house construction. Yet an upright mandible in a handful of house entrances is not sufficient reason to suggest that mandibles were generally used in house entrances as uprights as they were in Alaskan Inupiat dwellings. Rather. cut mandibles occasionally ma): have been used as entrance pillars or wall braces if an insufficient quantity of Stone was available. This does not alter their significance in the main room of the Somerset Island Thule dwellings.
Cervical vertebrae. scapulae and ribs The rernaining bones were generally observed in insufficient quantities to generate conclusions regarding their use and distribution within the Thule winter house. Cervical vertebrae were detected in only four entrance tunnels. Entrance tunnels that demonstrated negative correlations had cervical vertebrae in relatively low frequencies. An entrance tunnel that dernonstrated no correlation. and one that exhibited a positive correlation, had cervical vertebrae in relatively high frequencies. In each exarnple. cervical vertebrae occur in proponionately greater quantities than dictated by the perimeter ratio. However. these MAUs are too srnail, and the exarnples too few. to dernonstrate a greater use than expected in the entrance tunnel. Scapulae were observed relatively frequently in 8 entrance tunnels that exhibit various levels of positive and negative correlations. Six of these exhibit greater proportions in the entrance tunnel than expected. Scapulae exist in sufficient numbers to be compared accurately with their perimeter ratios only in Pals 3 house 1(Table 2 and Figure 58).
Finally. ribs were observed in the entrance tunnel in greater proportions than expected in 12 houses (Table 2). Five of these 12 exhibited a higher entrance tunnel MAU than main room MAU. As ribs have the highest utility value in the entrance tunnel and a lower value in the main room, the significance of these results is somewhat unclear. First, the number of examples which exhibit greater proportions of ribs than expected in the entrance is close ro the number of examples which exhibit Sreater proportions of ribs in the main roorn than expected. Second. because ribs have such a high value in entrance tunnels. those which exhibit greater proportions than expected probably result from utilitarian concems. Third. although it is tempting to suggest that large numbers of ribs in the main room might be symbolic. the potential exists for rib numbers to have been depleted during the post-abandonment stage. Therefore. in the context of the present study it is not possible to determine whether a house with a greater proportion of nbs in the main room than the entrance tunnel is indicative of ideology or utility. Overall entrance tunnel
Enb-ance tunnel utility
PaJs 13 house 7:entrance tunnel 3.5
Cran. 4
Rlb Cut M. 8
Entrance tunnel utility Fgure U:Scaüarplot of PaA 13 hwre 7: r-œ tunnel. PaJs 13 house 8: entrance tunnel -10
PaJs 13 house 9: entrance tunnel 12-
1.O 9".
Enbance tunnel utility
FQura 48: Scatterplat of PaJs 13 home O: enîmnca tunnel. PaJs 13 House 10: entrance tunnel .II
Enbence tunnel ub'fity FIgun 47: Saüqiot of PaJa 13 hamm 1O: ontrance tunnel.
PaJs 13 house i1 : entrance tunnel -8 - t
.4 -
2-
Mx. Sap. -Oq Fÿ'D 3- Cm. QI C -2- -3 j -A*
E UJ -.6, I 3 4 5 6 7 0 0
Figura 48: Scaüerpiot of PiJs 13 ho- 11: enmnce tunnel. PaJs 13 house 12: entrance tunnel 12
PaJs 13 house 13: entrance tunnel PaJs 13 house 14: entrance tunnel
Entrante tunnel utilfty FiOun 51: Scatbrplot of PaJs 13 horiw 14: anhnœ tinrnl.
PaJs 13 house 16: entrance tunnel .6 -
-4
2- a?" s- -O= aa -2* 3 Y g -A - P C LIJ -.O . 3 4 5 6 7 6 94 PaJs 13 house Ma: entranœ tunnel 1.6 - Mi 1.4.
PaJs 13 house 17: entrance tunnel
Entnvice tunnel utMy 54: &itPnpkt ol PU13 houu 17: iribirna tunnmi. PaJs 3 house 1: entrance tunnel
PaJs 3 hause 2: entrance tunnel .6
Sy. Crin. FW PaJs 3 house 3: entranœ tunnel
PaJs 3 house 4: entrance tunnel PaJs 3 house 5: entrance tunnel
PaJs 3 house 6: entranœ tunnel
'?F L?. C?M. C=" v Crin. PaJs 3 house 7:entrance tunnel 1/- 1/-
PaJs 3 house 8: entrance tunnel PaJs 3 house 9: entrance tunnel
PaJs 3 house IO: entrance tunnel
Entrancc tunnel PaJs 3 house 11: entrance tunnel
i L 3 4 5 e 7 8 O
Enbance tunnel utility FlQun 85: Safbrpld of Pmh 3 horns 11: entnna tunnel.
PaJs 3 house 12: entrance tunnel .6 -
Entrance tunnel utility Figura W: Scatterplot of PeJ. 3 home 12: enbancs tunnel. PaJs 2 house 1 : entrance tunnel
CU,"
PaJs 2 house 2: entrance tunnel 101
M. 8- 0
6*
3 a- s5 29 "!F culpl. cent. Wbe Gtrp. Crm. uli -2 i 3 4 5 6 7 8 SI PaJs 2 house 3: entrance tunnel
Entrance tunnel utiiity mure 89: Scaüarpiot of Pb2 hou3: anbina tunnel.
PaJs 2 house 4: entrance tunnel
Entrance tunnel uülity Camp Stream Site house: entrance tunnel
C.M. Cep -P.
Entrance tunnel utility Figure 71: Scatterplot of Camp Stream Sire how:eribanca tunnel.
Pond Site, north house: entrance tunnel
-al t E: 3 .1 C Rib 8 Mx. Cut M. Cerv. CT- E 0.0- 4 4 C C -P. -2+ 3 4 5 6 7 8
Entrance tunnel utility Figure 72: Scatterplot ofPond Site, nom house: entnance tunnel. Pond Site, south house: entranœ tunnel 12-
1.0. =Y
Ba
a- I f .- 3 " g 0.0- Y W." 'fb* Crin. -2, w 4 3 4 5 6 7 8 O Implications for the Sornerset Island Thule whale bone house Alaskan Inupiat houses, and particulaily their entrances. functioned at certain times of the year to symbolize the bowhead whale and to act as a means by which whales are released to the sea. The shared history of both the Somerset Island Thule and the Inupiat suggests that such aspects may also be present in those Somerset Island houses which exhibit higher proportions of whale bone than expected in the entrance tunnels. The Spearman's test reveals that mandibles and maxillae occur relatively frequently in most of
the 18 house entrances that exhibit negative correlations (Table 2). Most of these entrances also exhibit proportionately greater quantities of mandibles and maxillae than would be expected if these bones were used for utilitarian purposes only. The combined results imply that these elements were selected for use in some Thule winter houses for reasons other than utility.
For the Inupiat. the house. and particularly its whale bone entrance tunnel, seems to have been central to the ceremony surrounding the spring bowhead whale hunt. Thule living along the southeast Coast of Somerset Island. however. hunted these whales in the late summer and early fall. Current archaeological and settlement pattern information suggests that winter villages were. most likely. vacated for whaling camps during this season. Whaling task groups, or the men associated with each itrniak, appear to have left the villages to exploit the most strategic whaling areas. Yet it remains unknown if the other members, and particularly the women, remained in or near the village, as was and in some respects still is the practice in Inupiat Alaska. Inupiat umiat crews leave the settlements and set up camp along the floe edge, while women remain in the village (Figure 105)
(Lowenstein 198 1 : 1993: Spencer 1959). Similar subsistence and settiement patterns occur frequently throughout the Arctic. For exarnple. some elders interviewed in Pangnirtung Figure 74: Diagram indicating lnupiat settlementl subsistence patterns during the spring whaling season (From Lowenstein 1993). 98 (Pauloosie Angmarlik. Towkie Maniapik pers. cornm. 1995) stated that hunting parties dispened from summer camps, often for extended periods of time.
Although most evidence indicates that these houses were only used in winter, it is
possible that some members of the Somerset Island winter villages remained at the winter
site. and perhaps occupied the winter houses, at least late in the whaiing season. A number of comparable ethnographie exarnples indicate that some winter houses were occupied in the fall and even through the surnrner. Interviews with Inuvialuit elders indicated that some winter houses were occupied year-round. At Kitigaaryuit. for example. many residents continued to live in winter dwellings. while people from other communities camped in tents
in the area dunng the sumrner beluga whale hum (Nagy 1994: 34). Elders interviewed in Pangnirtung stated that winter houses were vacated around May. but reoccupied sometime
in the fail. One intenriewee (Pauloosie Anparlik) recalled qarnrnnq king used. from time to tirne. through the summer because they could be cool inside. These examples do not provide concrete evidence of Thule whale bone house sumrner occupation. but give reason to suggest that future archaeolo_oical investigations might be undertaken to determine precisely when these villages were occupied and by whom.
If Thule winter houses were not occupied during the whaling season. it seems unlikely that ceremonies associated with these houses were identicai to those observed in Inupiat Alaska. The association between women. houses and the sea 1s prevalent in Thule contexts (See chapter 4). but to what extent it influenced Thule whaling ritual is unclear. The relationship between women's inactivity and the success of the whale hunt occurs in rnany Arctic regions al1 sharing a Thule past. and thus Thule women may have participated in a sirnilar manner. As exemplified by the Iglulik, this role may not have ken canïed out within the winter, whale bone house, but in summer tents. This does not, however, invalidate the potentially symbolic dimensions of whale bone houses. The Thule arriving at Somerset Island were confronted with an environment similar to northwest Coast Alaska, but which differed in the seasonal availability of bowhead whales. Similar symbolic dimensions may have remained a part of these Thule dwellings, but they may not have been enacted in precisely the same rnanner. Ancient architectural designs or attributes of a
design tend to be better preserved in a structure's ceremonial elements, despite modifications to settlernent and subsistence patterns, as well as a changing iechnology. h other words. the symbolic elements of architecture are often the most conservative (McGuire and Schiffer 1983). In this respect. the entrances which exhibit a tendency towards a negative correlation with tunnel utility index. or greater proportions of certain whale bone elements in entrance tunnels than expected. may have been built to symbolize the bowbead whale and its passage between land and sea. Most houses which exhibit this
pattern seem to be domestic dwellings. For example. house 17 at Pals 13 (Table 2 and
Figure 86) and Pals 2 house 1 (Table 2 and Figure 99) contain higher proportions of mandibles. maxillae and crania than expected and exhibit moderate negative correlations.
Without wood. the Sornerset Island Thule could only express the distinction between the entrance tunnel and main room in whale bone proportions. not in building material. As
McDonald observes ( 1979: ix):
The large whaie skulls perched over the entqway and the imposing rafters of the whale jaws leave an impression on entenng one of them that you are actually entering into the whale itself. a potent image that 1 am sure did not escape the ancient Thule people who built them.
Such entrances also could have served as status markers within the cornmunity. Access to raw materials often expresses differences in status between people. or groups of people (McGuire and Schiffer 1983). Although bowhead whale bone is a logical and riecessary resource in an area with so little wood. some individuals may have had access to greater quantities of some of the more important elements. such as rnandibles, maxillae and even crania. Bowhead whale bone in the AIaskan pre-commercial whaling period symbolized the successful hunter or wealthy farnily (Lowenstein 1993: 33). Success was achieved through a distribution system of whale by-products, determined by the order in which umiat arrived to assist with a harpooned whde. In addition to the distribution of
meat. blubber and skin. Lowenstein ( 1993: 16 1 - 166) States that the jawbones. vertebrae. ribs and baleen of the harvested bowhead whale were taken by the first umialik to stnke the whale. Pulu, Ramoth-Sampson and Newlin (1980: 25). however. state that this umiulik received only the two lower jawbones. and the venebrae were shared by all. A successful umialik, and/or his crew members. may have received, or at least had access to. greater quantities of bowhead whale bone. This. in tum. allowed his family to construct large whale bone entrances. the height and length of which reflected the success of its owner as a whaler (Lowenstein 1993: 33). If the Thule inhabiting Somerset Island distributed whale bone in a comparable fashion. the most successful whaling captains and their crews might have had access to the choicest whale bone. particularly the mandibles and maxillae. Pals
2 house 1 (Figure 99) has large numbers of whale bone associated with it. and greater proportions of mandibles and maxillae in the entrance tunnel than expected. Although this house has not been excavated. it appears f:om the surface to be a domestic dwelling. The builder of this house may have been a more successful whaler than the builder of PaJs 13 house 1 1 (Figure 79). which contains almost no whale bone. Knrigir may also have been built with finer materials than the averige domestic dwelling. Despite interpretations of the Alaskan Inupiat qargi as a communal house. recent analyses suggest that they were owned by wealthy umialit (Sheehan 1995: 200).
Successful umialit could have provided larger quantities of bowhead whale bone to construct their qarich. Again. if the division of whale bone among Thule urnialit was similar to the Inupiat examples. differences in status could be observed in karigir as well as in domestic dwellings. Although not included in this snidy. house 5 at Pals 13 has thirteen in situ crania, 6 of which were observed in the entrance tunnel. which is more than would be expected by the penmeter ratio. Houses 3 and 12 at Pals 3 (Figure 88 and 98), on the
other hand, contain aimost no whale bone. In addition to the many taphonomic processes which may have altered the appearance of these structures. from the period of their
construction and use to the present, differences in whale bone quantity and use may aiso reflect the initial differential access of their owners to building resources. determined by their respective successes as urnializ. The use of mandibles and rnaxillae in high frequencies, and in greater proportions than expected, seems to reflect two dimensions of symbolism in Thule winter houses. First. the whale bone entrance tunnels syrnbolized the bowhead whale rhrough a more
intensive use of whale bone in the entrance tunnels than expected. Although most. if not all, Somerset Island Thule were probably living elsewhere during the whale hunt. these house entrances. combined with the evidence from archaeological investigations and aspects of Thule rnaterial culture. allude to an association between women. the house and the sea. Second, these entrances served as status markers of successtùl whalers.
Although these houses have not been excavated, and thus total bone counts are currently unknown. a high proportion of the original bones. particularly mandibles and rnaxillae. are probably represented. With this in mind. observed differences in element MAL'S between houses are probably indicative of original overall differences. Finally, these two ideological dimensions of the Thule winter house are intertwined. To create a difference between the main room and entrance tunnel of a Thuie whale bone house, its builders must have had access to sufficient resources to both constmct it and invest the extra time and resources needed to invoke its ideological attributes. Assuming that whale bone was divided amongst umialit in a manner not unlike the Inupiat, the most successful umialit had the resources to use whale bone in a non- utilitarian fashion. Less successful umialit. or some of the poorer people in the cornmunity. only mipht have had enough to use this resource in a purely utilitarian manner. In the present climate surrounding archaeological research in the Arctic, excavation has become difficult, if not impossible. Valuable information can be attained. however. from surface studies such as this one. No doubt excavated houses would produce more accurate whde bone counts and offer additional information conceming the inhabitants, and their use, of houses exhibiting these different whale bone patterns. Acknowledging that excavation may become increasingly difficult to undenake. this study is an example of the kinds of questions which may be investigated unobtrusively. To sum up the principal points of this thesis, pattems of whale bone use in some Thule house entrances suggest that their builders may have been influenced by ideological as well as utilitarian considerations. Alaskan archaeological. ethnographie and oral history documentation indicate that there is an ideological component to the use of whale bone in recent Inupiat and ancient Thuie dwellings. Examples of the whale cult appear in areas and amongst peoples with a comrnon Thule past. The Somerset Island houses which exhibit greater than expected frequencies of mandibles and maxillae in the entrance tunnels seem to reflect ideological dimensions in their design. These houses may be reminiscent of the whale cult in architectural form. Houses exhibiting these pattems rnay also indicate high status families, as determined by the success of their rnembers as bowhead whalers. Successful umialit or valued crew members would have had the privilege of using rnandibles. maxillae and perhaps other elements more frequently in their bouse entrances, where they were used to create the distinction between the main room and the enuance tunnel, the latter symboiizing the jaws of the bowhead whale. Legend for Figures 75 - 105.
Cranium Maxilla rvlx
Mandible M
Cut Mandible CM
Cervical Vertebra Cv Other Vertebra v Rib R
Scapula Sc
Humerus H
Radius R
Hyoid HY
S urface bone (excluded from analysis) S
Unidentified whale bone Uwb Platforrn Stone and Lintel m In Situ S tmctural Stone rn Outside Mound Edge
Inside Wall Outline . - .I
Interna1 Divisions (Platforrns, Alcoves, etc.)
In Situ Bone f-1 Figure 75: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 7. Figure 76: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 8.
106 Figure 77: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 9. 107 Figure 78: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 10. 108 Figure 79: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 11. 109 Figure 80: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 12. Figure 81 : Diagram of PaJs 13 house 13
111 Figure 82: Oiagrarn of PaJs 13 house 14. Figure 83: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 15.
113 Figure 84: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 16.
114 I lm 4
Figure 85: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 16a. Figure 86: Diagram of PaJs 13 house 17.
116 Figure 87: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 1.
117 Figure 88: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 2. 118 Figure 89: Diagram of Pa& 3 house 3. 119 Figure 90: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 4. Figure 91: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 5. Figure 92: Diagrarn of PaJs 3 house 6. t-m-(
Figure 93: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 7. Figure 94: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 8. Figure9S: Figure 96: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 10. 126 Figure 97: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 11.
127 Figure 98: Diagram of PaJs 3 house 12.
128 Figure 99: Diagram of PaJs 2 house 1. Figure 100: Diagram of PaJs 2 house 2. Figure 101: Diagram of PaJs 2 house 3. Figure 102: Diagram of PaJs 2 house 4. Figure 103: Diagram of the Camp Stream Site house.
133 Figure 104: Diagram of the Pond Site, north house.
134 Figure 105: Oiagram of Pond Site, south house. 135 Arnold, C. 1994 The Lmportance of Wood in the Eariy Thule Culture of the Western canadian Arctic. In Threads of ~rcricPrehistory: Papers in Honour of William E. Taylor, Jr.. edited by D. Momson and I. L. Pilon. pp. 269-279. Canadian Museum of Civilization, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 149, Ottawa. Anungazuk, K. O. 1995 Whaling: A Ritual Way of Life. In Hunting the Lorgesr Animnls: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic and Sub Arctic, edited by A. P. McCartney, pp. 339-345. Studies in Whaling No. 3, Occasional Publication No. 36. Canadian Circumpolar institute. University of Ai berta. Edmonton.
BaIikci. A. 1970 The Netsilik Eskirno. The Natural History Press. Garden City, New York.
Bell, J. A. 1994 Reconsrructing Prehiston: Scienrific Method in Archaeology. Temple University Press. Philadelphia.
Binford. L. R. 1962 Archaeology as Anthropology. Anterican Antiquity 28: 2 17-225. 1972 An Archneologicd Perspective. Seminar Press. New York. 1978 Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. Academic Press. New York. 1980 Willow Smoke and Dogs' Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological Site Formation. Arnerican Antiquin 45: 4-20.
Boas, F. 1888 The Central Eskimo. In 6th Annrtnl Report of the Bureau of Ethnology for the Years 1884-1885. pp. 399-669. Washington. 1901-1907 The Eskirno of Baffin Land and Hudson Bay. In Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural Histon 15, Part 1. New York.
Bodenhorn, B. 1990 "I'm Not the Great Hunter, My Wife 1s": Inupiat and Anthropological Models of Gender. Etudes/lnuir/Studies 14 ( 1-2): 55-74.
Damas, D. 1984 Editor Handbook of North Amrican Indians. vol. 5. pp. 1-7. Srnithsonian Institution, Washington. Dawson, P. C. 1995 "Unsympathetic Users": An Ethnoarchaeological Examination of Inuit Responses to the Changing Nature of the Built Environment. Arcric 48 ( 1): 7 1-80.
Dekin, A. A. 1990 Summary and Conclusions. In The Utqingvik Excavations. vol 3, edited by E. S. Hall and L. Fullenon, pp. 234-241. North Slope Borough Commission on Inupiat History. Language and Culture. 1978 Arcric Archaeology: A Bibliography and History. Garland Publishing. Inc., New York.
DoneIy , L. W. 1982 House Power: Swahili Space and Symbolic Markers. In Symbolic and Structiu-al Archaeology. edited by 1. Hodder. pp. 63-73. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Dumond, D. 1987 The Eskimos and Alertts. Thames and Hudson. London. Eliade, M. 1960 Structures and Changes in the History of Religion. In Cir? In vincible: A Synlposirîni on Urbanizarion and Ctcltural Developnlent in the Ancient and Modern Near East. edited by C. H. Kraeling and R. Adams. pp. 35 1-367. University of Chicago Press. Chicago.
Freeman, M. M. R. 1979 A Criticai Review of Thule Culture and Ecological Adaptation. In Thule Eskimo Gilture: A,? Anthropologicd Retrospectii~e.edited by A. P. McCartney, pp. 178-285. ASC paper No. 88. National Museum of Man, Mercury Senes. Ottawa. Gner, C. and J. M. Savelle 199 1 Intrasite Spatial Patteming and Thule Eskimo Social Organization. Arctic Anrhropology 3 1 (2):95- 107.
Habu, J. and Savelle, J. M. 1994 Construction, Use. and Abandonment of a Thule Whale Bone House, Somerset Island, Arctic Canada. Quartenary Research 33 (1): 1-18.
Hall, E. S. and L. Fullerton (eds.) 1990 The Utqiagvik Excavations. 3 volumes. North Slope Borough Commission on Inupiat History, Language and Culture. Hodder, 1. 1982a Symbols in Action. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1982b Theoretical Archaeology: A Reactionary View. In Symbolic and Structural Archaeology, edited by 1. Hodder, pp. 1 - 16. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1987a The Contribution of the Long Tem. In Archaeology as Long Tem History, edired by 1. Hodder, pp. 1-8. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1987b The Contextual Analysis of Symbolic Meaning. In The Archaeology of Contextual Meanings. edited by I. Hodder, pp. 1- 10. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. 1990 The Domestication of Europe. Basil Blackwell Ltd.. Oxford. Hunter-Anderson. R. L. 1977 A Theoretical Approach to the Study of House Form. In For Theory Building in Archaeologj. edited by L. Binford. pp. 287- 3 15, Academic Press. New York.
Jolles, C. Z. 1995 Paul Silook's Legacy: the Ethnohistory of Whaling on St. Lawrence Island. In Hrmting the Largesr Animals: Nnriiv Whnling in the Westenl Arctic mzd Sub Arctic. edited by A. P. McCartney. pp. 339-345. Studies in Whaling No. 3, Occasional Publication No. 36. Canadian Circumpolar Institute. University of Alberta. Edmonton.
Kent. S. 1984 i2izaIying Activi~Areos: An Etlt~zonrclzaeologicalStudy of the Use of Space. University of New Mexico Press. Albuquerque.
Kilmarx. J. N. 1990a Archaeological Investigations ii~Mound 6. In The Utqingvik Excavntior~s,vol. 3, edited by E. S. Hall and L. Fullerton, pp. 4- 26. North Slope Borough Commission on Inupiat History. Language and Culture. 1990b The Katak Antechamber and Interior Parts of the Tunnel. In The Utqiagvik Excavariom, vol. 3. edited by E. S. Hall and L. Fullenon, pp. 1 13- 126. North Slope Borough Commission on Inupiat History, Language and Culture.
Lantis, M. 1938 Alaskan Whale Cul t. American Anthropologist 40: 438-464. 1947 Alaskan Eskimo Cerenionialisrn. Monographs of the American Ethnological Society. 1 1. J. J. Augustin, New York.
Larsen, H. and Rainey, F. 1 948 Ipiurak and the Arctic Whale Hmting Cornplex. Amencan Museum of Natural History. Anthropology Papers. vol. 42, New York. Lowenstein. T. 1981 Somr Aspects of Sea Ice Subsistence Hunring in Point Hope. Alaska: A Report for rhe North SZope Borough f Coastal Zone Managemeni Plan. 1992 Things Thar Were Said of Them: Sharnan Srories and Oral Histories of rhe Tikigaq People. University of California Press. Berkeley. 1993 Ancient Land, Sacred Whale: The Inuit Hum and its Rituals. Bloomsbury, London. MacDonald, G. F. 1979 Preface to Archaeological Whale Bone: A Northern Resource. edited by A. P. McCartney, pp. i-xii. University of Arkansas Anthropological Papers, No. 1, Fayetteville.
Mathiassen, T. 1927a Archaeology of the Central Eskimos: The Thule Culture and its Position within the Eskimo Culture. Report of the Fifh Thule Expeditioii 192 1- 1924: 4 ( 1 ). Nordisk Forlag, Copenhagen. 1927b Archaeology of the Central Eskimos: The Thule Culture and its Position within the Eskimo Culture. Report of the Fifh Thule Expedirion 192 1 - 1924: 4 (3). Nordisk Forlag. Copenhagen.
Maxwell. M. S. 1981 A Southeastern Baffin Thule House with Ruin Island Characteristics. Arctic 34(2): 133- 130.
McCartney, A. P. 1979a A Processual Consideration of Thule Whale Bone Houses. In Th~cleEskirno Ciïlture: Ail Antltropological Retrosprctive. edited by A. P. McCartney. pp. 301-373. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 88. Ottawa. 1 979b Archaeological WkleBone: A Norrhern Resource. University of Arkansas Anthropological Papers No. I . Fayetteville. 1979c 1 976 Excavations on Somerset Island. In A rchaeologicnl Whule Bone: A Northem Resource. pp. 285-3 14. University of Arkansas Anthropological Papers No. 1, Fayetteville. 1980 The Nature of Thule Eskimo Whale Use. Arctic 33(3): 5 17-54 1. McCartney, A. P. and J. M. Savelle 1985 Thule Eskimo Whaling in the Central Canadian Arctic. Arctic Anthropology 22(2):37-58. 1993 Bowhead Whale Bones and Thule Eskimo Subsistence-Settlement Patterns in the Central Canadian Arctic. Polar Record 29 ( 168): 1- 12. McCullough, K. M. 1989 The Ruin Islarzders: Early Thule culture Pioneers in the Eastern High Arcric. Canadian Museum of Civilization. Mercury Series. Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 14 1. Ottawa. McGhee, R. 1969ff0 Speculations on Climate Change and Thule Culture Development. Folk 11-12: 173-184. 1977 Ivory for the Sea Woman: The Symbolic Attributes of a Prehistoric Technology . Canadian Journal of Archaeologv 1 : 14 1- 149.
1978 Canadian Arctic Prehistory. Van Nostrand, Reinhoid. Toronto. 1984 Thule Prehistory of Canada. In Handbook of North American Indiuns. vol. 5. edited by D. Damas, pp. 369-376. Smithsonian Institution. Washington.
McGuire, R. H. and M. B. Schiffer 1983 A Theory of Architectural Design. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 2: 277-303.
Moore, S. E. and R. R. Reeves 1993 Distribution and Movement. In The Bowhend Whale. edited by J. J. Burns. J. J. Montague and C. J. Cowles. pp. 3 13-386. Society for Marine Marnmalogy. Special Publication 2.
Murdoch. J. 1892 Ethnological Results of the Point Barrow Expedition. In 9th Annual Report of the Bureau of Arnerican Ethnologu for the Yenrs 1887-1888, pp. 1941. Washington.
Nagy, M. 1994 Interpretations in Arctic Archaeology: Lessons from Inuvialuit Oral History . In Bridges Across Tinie: The NOGAP Archaeolog- Project edited by J.-L. Pilon, pp. 29-38. Occasional Paper no. 2. Canadian Archaeological Association. Ottawa.
Nelson, E. W. 1899 The Eskimo about the Bering Strait. In 18th Atznud Report of the Bureau of American Etlmology for the Years 1896-1897. pp. 3- 5 18. Washington.
Oosten, J. G. 1983 The Incest of the Sun and Moon: An Examination of the Symbolism of Time and Space. Etudeslnuit/Srudies 7( 1): 143- 15 1. 1986 Male and Female in Inuit Shamanism. Etudes/7nuit/Studies 10 ( 1 - 2): 115-131. Pulu, T. L., R. Ramoth-Sampson and A. Newlin 1980 Whaling: A Way of Life (Agvigich Iglauninat Niginrnum). Anchorage National Bilingual Materials. Development Centre. Rural Education, University of Alaska. Rainey. F. G. 1947 The Whale Hunters of Tigara. Anrhropology Pnpers of rhe Arnerican Mi Rapoport, A. 1969 House Fom and Culture. Prentice Hall: Englewood Cliffs. N. J. Rasmussen, K. 1929 The Intellectual Culture of the Iglulik Eskimos. In Report of the Fifrh Thule Expedition 192 1-1924: i(l). Nordisk Forlag. Copenhagen. 1952 The Alaskan Eskimo. In Report of the Fifrh Thule Expedition 1921-1924: 1 O(3). Nordisk Forlag. Copenhagen. Ray, D. J. 1984 Bering Strait Eskimo. In Hondbook of Nortli Arnerican Indians. vol. 5. edited by D. Damas. pp. 285-302. Srnithsonian Institution. Washington. Renfrew, C. 1 994 Towards a Cognitive Archaeology. In The Ancient Mind: Elements of Cognitive Archaeo1og~-.edited by C. Renfrew and E. B. W. Zubrow, pp. 3- 1 1. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Rowley. S. 1991 The Sadlermiut: Mysterious or Misunderstood? In Threads of Arctic Prehiston: Papers hl Honour of Williaw E. Taylor. Jr.. edited by D. Morrison and J.L. Pilon. pp. 361-384. Canadian Museum of Civilization. Mercury Senes. Arc haeological Survey of Canada Paper 149. Ottawa. Saladin D'Anglure, B. 1978 L'Homme (Ang~ct).le Fils (Iniiq)et la Lumière (Qalc).ou le Cercle du Pouvoir Masculin chez les Inuit de l'Arctique Central. Anthropologica XX (1-2): 101-144. Savelle. J. M. 198 1 An Appraisal of Thule Archaeology. M. A. Thesis, University of Arkansas. 1987 Collectors and Foragers: Subsistence and Sertfernent Systern Change in the Central Canadian Arctic A. D. 1000- 1%O. BAR International Series 358, Oxford. 1995 An Ethnoarchaeological Investigation of Inuit Beluga Whaie and Narwhal Harvesting. In Hunting the Lorgesr Animals: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic and Sitb Arctic. edited by A. P. McCartney, pp. 127- 148. Studies in Whaling No. 3. Occasional Publication No. 36. Canadian Circumpolar Institute. University of Alberta. Edmonton. in press The Role of Architectural Utility in the Formation of Zooarchaeological Assemblages. Journal of Archaeological Science. Savelle, J. M. and A. P. McCartney 1988 Geographical and Temporal Variation in Thule Eskimo Subsistence Economies. Research in Economic Anthropology 10: 2 1-87. 1990 Prehistoric Thule Eskimo Whaling in the Canadian Arctic Islands: Cument Knowledge and Future Research Directions. In Canada's Missing Dimension: Science and Histor\y in the Canadian Arctic Islands. edited by C. K. Harington. pp. 695-723. Canadian Museum of Nature, Ottawa. 1994 Thule Inuit Bowhead Whaiing: A Biometrical Analysis. In 77zread.s of Arcric Prehistory: Papers in Honour of William E. Taylor Jr.. edited by D. Morrison and J.-L. Pilon. pp. 281-310. Canadian Museum of Civilization. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 149. Ottawa. Schledermann. P. and K. McCullough 1980 Western Elements in the Early Thule Culture of the Eastern High Arctic. Arctic 33(4): 833-84 1. Sheehan. G. W. 1990 Excavations at Mound 34. In 73e Utqiagvik Excavations. vol. 2. edited by E. S. Hall and L. Fullenon. pp. 181-325. Nonh Slope Borough Commission on Inupiat History, Language and Culture. 1995 Whaling Surplus. Trade. War and the Inteeration of Prehistoric Northern and Northwesrern Alaskan Economies, A. D. 1200- 1826. In Hunting the Largest Anb>ials: Native Whaling in the Western Arctic and Sub Arctic. edited by A. P. McCartney. pp. 185-306. Studies in Whaling No. 3. Occasional Publication No. 36. Canadian Circumpolar Institute. University of Alberta. Edmonton. Shennan. S. 1988 Quantif'ing Arcltneology. Edinburgh University Press, Edinburgh. Smith, T. 1990 The Mound 8 Excavations. In The Utqiagvik Excavations, vol. 1. edited by E. S. Hall and L. Fullerton, pp. 84-1 1 1. Nonh Slope Borough Commission on Inupiat History, Language and Culture. Saby, R. M. 1969/70 The Eskimo Animal Cult. Folk 1 1- 12: 43-78. Spencer, R. F. 1959 The North Alaskan Eskimo: A Study in Ecoiogy and Sociev. Smithsonian Institution, Bureau of Arnerican Ethnology, Bulletin 17. Washington. 1984 North Alaska Eskimo: Introduction In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 5, edited by D. Damas, pp. 278-284. Smithsonian Institution, Washington. Sproull Thomson. J. 1979 Recent Studies in Thule Art: Metaphysical and Practicai Aspects. In Thule Eskimo Culture: An Anthropological Retrospective, edited by A. P. McCartney, pp. 485-489. National Museum of Man, Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No. 88, Ottawa. Stager, J. K. and R. J. McSkirnrning 1984 Physicd Environment, In Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 5, edited by D. Damas, pp. 27-35. Smithsonian Institution. Washington. Steadman, S. R. 1996 Recent Research in the Archaeology of Architecture: Beyond the Foundations. Journal of Archaeological Research 4( 1 ): 5 1-89. Steward, J. H. 1955 Theop of Cultrrre Change. University of Illinois Press. Urbana. Taylor. J. G. 1985 The Arctic Whale Cult in Labrador. Etudes/lrluit/Studies 9(S): 12 1 - 132. 1990 The Labrador Inuit Kashirn. Arctic Anthropolog~ 27(2): 5 1-67. Therkom. L. 1987 The Inter-Relationships of Materials and Meanings: Some Suggestions on Housing Concerns within Iron Age Noord- Holland. In The Archaeology of Contextrtal Meanings, edited by 1. Hodder, pp. 102- 1 10. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge. Trigger. B. G. 1989 A Histor~of Archaeological Thouglzt. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Turcey, B. L. 1990 The Tunnel Passage, Storage Alcove. and Entryway. In The Utqiagvik Excavafions, vol. 3, edited by E. S. Hall and L. Fullerton, pp. 127-160. Nonh Slope Borough Commission on hupiat History, Language and Culture. Victor, A.-M. 1987 Eléments Symbolique de la Chasse à la Baleine. Etudes./7nuir;/Studies 1 1 (2): 1 39- 164. White, LIA. 1959 The Evolution of Culture: The Development of Civilization to the Fa11 of Rome. McGraw-Hill Book Company. Inc., New York. Willey, G. A. 1953 Prehistoric Settlernent Patterns in the Viru Valley Peru. Bureau of Amencan Ethnology. Bulletin no. 155, Washington. Willey, G. A. and J. A. Sabloff 1974 A Hisron of American Archaeology. W. H. Freeman and Co.. San Francisco. IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (QA-3) APPLJED IMAGE. lric 3 1653 East Main -.- Street --- - Rochester. NY 14609 USA ------Phone: 7 1W482-0300 ---- Fax: 716/288-5989 O 1993. Appiied Image. inc.. Ali Rqhrs Reserved