An Experimental Approach to Inuit Ground Stone Technology at Nachvak Fiord, Labrador by John Lawrence Higdon A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Anthropology and Archaeology Memorial University ofNewfoundland August 2008 St. John' s Newfoundland Abstract Although nephrite use has been studied from various perspectives in many parts of the world (Asia, Mesoamerica, and western Canada), discussion of its use amongst the precontact Inuit of Labrador is limited. Archaeologists have discussed possible nephrite sources in Labrador in the past, but have not dealt directly with its exploitation. Focusing mainly on the nephrite assemblage recovered from Nachvak Village (lgCx-3) in northern Labrador, the difficulties associated with nephrite procurement, manufacture and use are discussed. The fibrous crystalline structure that gives nephrite its strength and durability also makes it very difficult to work. Concepts of agency, chaine operatoire and anthropology of technology are used to characterize the ground stone assemblage according to provisional function and stage in the production process. Based on the tools and implements available, the experimental production and use of drill bits are discussed in order to assess the costs and benefits of using nephrite as opposed to slate. Successes and failures associated with the experimental approach are also discussed to highlight the learning process, as well as the nuances of Inuit ground stone technology. Acknowledgements Many thanks to individuals at the organizations that funded my research, namely: Memorial University of Newfoundland for awarding me two one year master' s fellowships; the Provincial Archaeology Office (Government ofNewfoundland and Labrador) for a research grant to purchase supplies and travel to Gatineau, to conduct comparative studies at the Canadian Museum of Civilization; and the Northern Scientific Training Program (Indian and Northern Affairs Canada) for research grants which helped to pay for three expeditions to conduct research at Nachvak Fiord. I should also thank British Columbia's Jade West for donating some of the nephrite used in the experiments. I would like to thank my supervisor and friend, Dr. Peter Whitridge. He helped to develop my interest in arctic archaeology by deciding to take me to Nachvak in the summers of2004-2006. Not only did this experience provide fodder for my honour' s and master's research, I also learned how to deal with people, bears, and the logistics of living and working in remote Labrador. As a supervisor, Pete offered sound advice and was always eager to help. In addition to thanking Dr. Whitridge, I would also like thank to Dr. Lisa Rankin, Dr. Peter Ramsden, and Dr. Jim Tuck for the interesting discussions at Ben' s. I also appreciate the suggestions of Dr. M.A.P. Renouf, Dr. Peter Pope, Dr. Barry Gaulton and others during my thesis proposal and classes throughout the year. The support staff at the Archaeology Unit were also invaluable, ensuring that I had the correct forms and signatures when required. - ))- I would also like to thank the field crews who made excavations at Nachvak Village a success. They include: 2004- Matthew Beaudoin, Juliana Coffey, Erin Glavine, Johnny Harris, Irena Jurakic, Juliana Lidd, and Mark Penney; 2005 -Andrew Chapman, David Dicker, Richard Maggo, Sheena Merkeratsuk and Lindsay Swinarton; 2006 - Amy Fay, Tim Kalleo, Michael Pijogge, and Ben Shields. I would also like to thank Ches, Joe and Jarrett Webb for safely piloting the Viola Dee from Nain to Nachvak and for their help and hospitality while in Nain. I would also like to thank my master's cohort: Jamie Brake, Kip Keen, Sarah Newstead, Mary Penney (nee. Melnik) and Ben Pentz for helping me to develop my thesis, while at the same time realizing the importance of celebrating victories, no matter how trivial they may be. Sorry to exclude anyone, but I would also like to thank Stuart Barnable, Ainslie Cogswell, Robyn Flemming, Scott Neilsen, Mark Penney and others, for helping me throughout my time at Memorial. Our adventures over the past couple of years have truly enriched my graduate experience. In addition to thanking the Provincial Archaeology Office for funding my research trip to the Canadian Museum of Civilization in March 2007, I would also like to thank Dr. Patricia Sutherland, Dr. Robert McGhee, Dr. David Morrison and Christina Brushett for their hospitality and assistance while looking at collections. I would also like to thank Tim Rast and John Erwin for encouraging my involvement in experimental archaeology by teaching me how to flintknap and by providing me with sound advice during my experimental trials. Corey Hutchings was also an important player in my success, by providing technical support; he was always - Ill- interested in my experimental work and would often help, not afraid to get dirty and/or cut himself in the process. Thanks also to Lindsay for offering moral support, taking an interest in my project, and helping me with the finicky parts of my thesis; it was greatly appreciated. Last but not least, I would like to thank my friends and family for their acceptance of this atypical career choice. In addition to providing me with support and well needed trips out home, they also provided me with ample stores of berries, jams, moose and fish. Thanks. -IV- Table of Contents Abstract Acknowledgements II Table of Contents v List ofTables IX List of Figures X List of Appendices Xll Chapter 1 : Introduction Chapter 2: Background 7 2.1 Thule Culture History 7 2.2 Labrador Inuit Culture History 9 2.3 Inuit Ground Stone Technology 11 2.3.1 Range of Materials Worked 12 2.3.2 Gaps in Present Knowledge 14 2.4 Nachvak Overview 16 2.4.1 Overview of Past and Present Research 16 2.4.2 Nachvak Overview 18 Chapter 3: Theoretical Framework 25 3.1 Chaine Operatoire 25 3.2 Agency 28 3.3 Anthropology ofTechnology 31 3.4 Cognition and the Constellation ofKnowledge 32 3.4.1 End Goal 34 3.4.2 Raw Material 34 3.4.3 Technique 36 3.6 Conclusion 41 Chapter 4: Ground Stone Tool Descriptions 43 4.1 Classification by Provisional Function 44 - v- 4.1.1 Blades 49 4.1.1 .1 Weapon Blades 50 4.1.1.1.1 Harpoon Head End Blades 50 4.1.1.1.2 Lance End Blades 52 4.1.1.1.3 Arrowhead End Blades 56 4.1.1.1.4 Knives as Weapons 57 4.1 .1.2 Knife Blades 58 4.1 .1.2.1 Ulu Blades 58 4.1.1.2.2 Baleen Shave 66 4.1.1.2.3 Flensing Knives 68 4.1.1.2.4 Men's Knives 69 4.1 .2 Drill Bit 74 4.1.3 Awls and Gravers 84 4.1.4 Adzes 85 4.1.5 Beads 91 4.1.6 Round Slate Disk 92 4.1.7 Conclusion 92 4.2 Classification by Role in Production Process 93 4.2.1 Manufacturing Implements 98 4.2.1.1 Hammerstones and Peekers 98 4.2.1.2 Sand as an Abrasive 100 4.2.1 .3 Whetstones 101 4.2.1.3.1 Classifying Whetstones by Material 101 4.2.1.3.2 Distribution of Whetstones at Nachvak 105 4.2.2.1 Raw Material 112 4.2.2.2 Blanks 113 4.2.2.3 Preforms 113 4.2.2.3.1 Unfinished Drill Holes 114 4.2.3 By-Products 116 4.2.3.1 Sand 117 -VI- 4.2.4 Finished tools 118 4.3 Conclusion 120 Chapter 5: Comparison of Slate and Nephrite 121 5.1 Working Nephrite 121 5.2 Hardness 124 5.3 Chemical Makeup 125 5.4 Raw Material Procurement 126 5.4.1 Finding Nephrite 126 5.4.1.1 Nephrite, Serpentine and Soapstone 126 5.4.1.2 Distance Decay 129 5.4.1.3 Nephrite Sourcing Problems 130 5.4.2 Slate 131 5.5 Evidence ofTool Production 133 5.5.1 Incised Lines 134 5.5.2 Coarse-Grained Whetstones 136 5.6 Material Distribution 137 5.7 Conclusion 139 Chapter 6: Experimental Replication and Use 140 6.1 Value 140 6.2 Problems 141 6.2.1 Learning Curve 141 6.2.2 Raw Material 142 6.3 Replica Production 143 6.4 Experimental Drill Bit Production 144 6.4.1 Experiment 1: Experimenting with Drill Technology 144 6.4.2 Experiment 2: Determining the Tang 145 6.4.3 Experiment 3: Creating a Nephrite Drill Bit 146 6.4.4 Experiment 4: Drill Bit Production Time Trials 148 6.4.4.1 Experiment 5: Preform Production 149 6.4.4.2 Experiment 6: Drill Bit Production without a Vice 150 - VII- 6.4.4.3 Experiment 7: Drill Bit Production with Sand, Water and a Vice !51 6.4.4.4 Results 155 6.4.5 Nephrite Ulu Production 157 6.5 Experimental Use 159 6.5.1 Assessing Drill Bit Efficiency !59 6.5.1.1 Making ofthe Bow Drill. 160 6.5.1.2 Using the Bow Drill 162 6.5.1.3 Assessing Drill Bit Efficiency Based on Material 163 6.5.1.4 Problems with Experimental Drilling 166 6.6 Conclusion 167 Chapter 7: Discussion 169 7 .I Characterization by Ground Stone Assemblage 170 7.2 Comparison ofSlate and Nephrite 174 7.3 Experimental Use 175 7.4 Experimental Replication of Inuit Drilling Technology 178 7.5 Future Research 180 Chapter 8: Conclusion 185 Bibliography 188 Appendix I 199 Nachvak Village (IgCx-3) 2004-2006 Ground Stone Tool Database 199 - VIII- List of Tables Table 1.1: Examples of the sorts of objects produced with ground stone tools.