|
It is necessary to comment on the use of the word 'Eskimo' in
Palaeo-Eskimo. I agree with the observation "...that the Dorset
population spoke some old variant of the Eskimo language"
(Taylor 1968a: 9), a
view supported by the oral traditions of the Inuit, more
commonly referred to as Eskimos, which state that the Tunit
(Dorset) spoke the same language as themselves
(Rasmussen 1931: 113-114).
Others are not as sanguine regarding the foregoing language
association (e.g.
McGhee 1996: 41).
During most of Period IV (1,000 B.C. to A.D. 500) the Eastern
Arctic was involved in a cooling trend that began around 2,000
B.C. The greatest impact a cooling climate would have had on
people was how it influenced sea ice conditions and the pockets
of open water called polynyas where concentrations of sea
mammals would have been available.
Middle Palaeo-Eskimo culture is used as a rubric for all of
the related regional complexes of the Arctic Small Tool
tradition dated between 1,000 B.C. and A.D. 500. This involves
an occupation that extended from the Mackenzie River Delta in
the west to Greenland in the east and north to northern
Ellesmere Island and south to the Island of Newfoundland. Such
an occupational distribution encompasses an east-west span of
3,700 km and a north-south one approaching 4,000 km
(Taylor 1968a: 6). Given
the variability in physiography, animal resources, and sea ice
conditions across this enormous expanse of land and sea
considerable cultural variability is to be expected, but always
within a broadly shared cultural pattern. In order to identify
regional cultural variability within Middle Palaeo-Eskimo
culture the local complex involved will be specified. The
term 'subculture' for such complexes was used earlier, but is
discontinued here as an unnecessary source of potential
confusion. A much expanded data base is going to be required
to assess the interrelationships of these complexes to one
another and undoubtedly there will be significant classification
changes in the future. For example, each complex was undoubtedly
composed of a number of independent communities that would have
had their own name for themselves and a clear sense of
self-identity. Such classificatory fluidity cannot and should
not be avoided in a data-driven discipline like archaeology. As
a discipline whose classifications are based upon cultural
processes, rather than the laws of genetics or physics,
archaeology is forced into the situation of having to establish
the classifications necessary to control the mass of data but
with the realization that these data are always incomplete and
must be adjusted with the advent of new information. An
increasing interest in Arctic archaeological classification
problems should resolve some of the current classificatory
difficulties, such as the same site being assigned to different
complexes by different researchers.
In addition to complications arising from the relationships
between regional variants of Middle Palaeo-Eskimo culture
there is evidence that a number of different migrations took
place in various places at different times. The antecedents
of the Middle Palaeo-Eskimo Groswater complex of northern
Québec, Labrador, and Newfoundland, for example, were
derived from cultural developments in Ellesmere Island and
adjacent Greenland. Colonization of the Hudson Bay region,
on the other hand, originated with populations further to
the west in the Foxe Basin.
Middle Palaeo-Eskimo culture descended from the Early
Palaeo-Eskimo culture of Period III (4,000 to 1,000 B.C.).
Controversy surrounding the transition of the Pre-Dorset
complex into the Dorset complex continues into Period IV. For
example, there is still argument concerning exactly when and
how the Pre-Dorset complex became the Dorset complex. Here
the period of the Pre-Dorset transition into Dorset is
included in Middle Palaeo-Eskimo and, thus, begins at 1,000
B.C. rather than 500 years later as many would advocate for
the beginning of Dorset
(McGhee 1996).
Differentiation of the two complexes has been mainly based
upon the presence or absence of certain technological elements,
with a clear emphasis being placed upon the differences rather
than the similarities. A number of assumptions of a
questionable nature have been made regarding the relationship
between the two complexes, such as the suggestion that Early
Palaeo-Eskimos had the bow and arrow but that Middle
Palaeo-Eskimos abandoned the weapon system. Another
assumption is that all Palaeo-Eskimos lacked the technological
capabilities to capture large sea mammals from boats. This
appears to have been mainly based on the absence of later
Inuit specialized whaling gear that survives archaeologically.
Large whale remains are occasionally recovered from Middle
Palaeo-Eskimo sites but are assumed to have been the result of
people scavenging the bodies of stranded whales. The accuracy
of this assumption has been questioned by the evidence of
large whale hunting at the late Period III Saqqaq complex
site of Queqertasussuk in western Greenland
(Grønnow 1994: Table 1).
It is necessary to accept the fact that many elements of
ancient technologies are archaeologically invisible. There is
no doubt that a reliance on the rich ethnographic documentation
of Inuit technology and lifeways has influenced interpretations
of Palaeo-Eskimo technology, especially when it deviates from
the Inuit norm. Such a one-to-one assumption contains many
pit-falls.
A major difference between the Early Palaeo-Eskimo of Period
III and the Middle Palaeo-Eskimo of Period IV was the
abandonment by the latter of formerly occupied territories in
the interiors of northern Alaska and the barrengrounds of
Keewatin and Mackenzie districts in the Northwest Territories
(McGhee 1987). This
shift in settlement strategy away from the interior suggests
a reduced focus on caribou and a concentration on sea mammal
hunting. Indeed, the transition into the Dorset complex has
been regarded as a direct product of an adaptation to the
advantages of greater sea ice coverage resulting from climate
change.
A central tenant of Eastern Arctic archaeology during Period
IV and later is that a central core area, represented by Hudson
Strait, the Foxe Basin, and the Baffin Island region, was
continuously occupied and functioned as a launching pad for
population migrations to more remote regions as well as a place
to retreat to during unfavourable situations. While the concept
still has some utility, it appears to be an over-simplification
of events. Other core areas, such as the High Arctic and
northern Greenland, Labrador, and the Central Arctic, existed
for considerable periods of time and interacted with one
another as well as the Core area. Interaction, however, was
variable in intensity. For example, it now appears that the
earliest Middle Palaeo-Eskimos of Labrador and Newfoundland
had more in common with people in the High Arctic, adjacent
Greenland, and most of northern coastal Québec than
they did with people in the Core area proper.
The Arctic Small Tool tradition
(Irving 1957), of which
Middle Palaeo-Eskimo culture represents a segment of the
eastern branch of the tradition, was well-named. Stone tools
are typically minuscule in size and maintain an exceptionally
conservative adherence to culturally approved stylistic models.
Tools were also fashioned with meticulous care. A wide range of
burin varieties are represented, most with ground working edges
unlike the burin blow sharpened implements of Period III.
Burins appear to have served a wide range of cutting, gouging,
and etching functions and, as they were always fashioned from
very hard stone like chert and nephrite, were ideally suited
for fashioning implements and ornaments out of ivory, antler,
and bone. Microblades may or may not be present or abundant
on Middle Palaeo-Eskimo sites. On sites with wood preservation,
microblades have been found hafted in wooden handles. Their
main function would have been as knives for cutting up hides
for clothing and for slicing meat. Points are generally assumed
to have tipped toggling harpoon heads rather than arrow shafts
but this assumption is questionable. Chipped side blades were
fitted into slots along the sides of bone and antler lances,
harpoons and, on rare occasions, arrows. Ground slate points
and knives become common and are frequently side-notched like
many of the chipped stone points. There is a wide range of
scraper, knife, and chipped adze forms, the latter generally
ground only at the bit. Important bone and ivory implements
are needles with gouged-out rather than drilled eyes and a
range of toggling harpoons, the latter being particularly
useful as horizon markers. Some of the ivory and antler
harpoons were tipped with chipped or ground stone points
while others were self-armed in the sense that their piercing
tips were simply ground to a sharpened point. Thanks to
permafrost conditions, wood preservation occurs at some sites
where items like handles for stone burins and microblades and
boat and sled parts have been recovered. Art objects in ivory,
bone, antler, wood, and soapstone are present in increasing
numbers but do not achieve the degree of florescence apparent
during Period V. The first detailed quantitative and
qualitative descriptions of Early and Middle Palaeo-Eskimo
tool kits were done by Taylor
(1968) in his effort
to demonstrate technological continuity between the Pre-Dorset
and Dorset complexes.
Regional complexes of Middle Palaeo-Eskimo culture have been
identified mainly on the basis of their tool kits. This not
only applies to Middle Palaeo-Eskimo culture but also to the
preceding Early Palaeo-Eskimo culture. Thus, during Period
III (4,000 to 1,000 B.C.) "In the North American Arctic, the
early ASTt is represented by the Proto-Denbigh and the Denbigh
Flint complex in Alaska, the Independence I complex found
primarily in the Canadian High Arctic and northern Greenland,
the Saqqaq complex, found primarily in southwest and southeast
Greenland and the Pre-Dorset and Dorset complexes generally
found in the Canadian central and eastern Arctic regions,
including Labrador and Newfoundland"
(Schledermann 1990: 20).
Regional differentiation appears to increase during Period IV
with such complexes as the Lagoon complex in the Central
Arctic and the transitional Pre-Dorset, Independence II,
late Saqqaq, Dorset I, and Groswater complexes to the east.
As with Period III, however, the similarities between these
regional complexes exceed their differences.
There was a significant subsistence shift from Period III to
Period IV with Middle Palaeo-Eskimos of the latter period
abandoning former interior hunting territories and focusing
on sea ice hunting of sea mammals
(Maxwell 1980: 170).
Terrestrial animals were still important but more as a
supplementary resource than a primary one. Colder climate is
speculated to have reduced the availability of caribou. Also,
marine mammals tend to be a more dependable food source
although their availability is affected by sea ice conditions.
As Middle Palaeo-Eskimo culture occupied over 1,500,000 square
kilometres of quite variable landscape, extending from the
Mackenzie River Delta across Arctic Canada into Greenland and
south along the Labrador coast onto the Island of Newfoundland,
the animal resources and the methods necessary to capture them
would also have been variable. Despite regional differences in
resource availability and seasonal emphases on specific prey
animals, like caribou, seal appear to have been the mainstay
of sustenance throughout the entire region.
Concomitant with a concentration on sea mammal hunting was a
natural settlement pattern shift onto the coast and away from
earlier interior settlements. This is one of the outstanding
characteristics of the Period IV occupation of the Arctic.
Many sites are situated within easy distance of the sea-ice
interface with its sea mammal concentrations. A major problem
facing a fuller understanding of settlement patterns is the
likelihood of winter settlement on the sea ice in igloos. Such
winter settlements would be ideally suited for purposes of
either flow edge or seal breathing hole hunting. The
possibility of winter sea ice settlement was raised for Early
Palaeo-Eskimo culture in such places as the Central Arctic
where winter occupation sites on land appear to be missing
(Wright 1995: 435). Of
course, all evidence of winter sea ice occupation would
disappear each year along with the ice. There are also
problems with both acquiring faunal samples and drawing
inferences on sustenance from them. Large animal bones, for
example, were used as fuel and, given the climate and
availability of permafrost or snow banks in the summer, foods
could be readily cached for winter consumption. Thus, a
concentration of aquatic bird remains on a site need not
indicate a summer occupation when the birds would have been
available but, rather, could represent other seasons of the
year when cached bird carcasses were being consumed. In many
instances site locations are likely a more reliable indicator
of season of occupation than recovered animal remains.
Middle Palaeo-Eskimo dwellings range from tent rings and
semi-subterranean rectanguloid structures to dwellings with
axially aligned hearth-work areas and adjacent sleeping
quarters to either side; the latter being most characteristic
of the High Arctic, northern Greenland, and
Labrador-Newfoundland.
Middle Palaeo-Eskimo shamanism is undoubtedly reflected in
the mainly naturalistic carvings in ivory, antler, bone,
soapstone, and wood. A number of these objects may also have
functioned as personal amulets. While such art had its
beginnings in Period III and became increasingly common in
Period IV, it was not until Period V (A.D. 500 to European
contact) that they achieved the peak of their development.
In addition to animal and human forms other relatively common
objects are containers for shaman paraphernalia carved from
walrus tusk and miniature toggling harpoons. Some stylistic
correspondences in the art forms exist with the Okvik and
Ipiutak complexes of the Bering Strait region of Alaska. The
petroglyph sites on the Québec side of Hudson Strait
cannot be dated but on stylistic grounds should pertain to
Period IV. Not only archaeologists but also art historians
have been fascinated by Palaeo-Eskimo art (e.g.
Taylor and Swinton 1967).
Indeed, it has elicited the observation that "The importance
of magico-religious beliefs and their association with Dorset
technology is apparent in the most striking accomplishment of
the Dorset people: the creation of a body of art that is
unique, unexpected, and remarkable"
(McGhee 1996: 148).
Evidence of Middle Palaeo-Eskimo burials is extremely rare,
coming mainly from vandalized crevice burials in the
limestone cliffs of Newfoundland. A few more northerly sites
have produced occasional human remains. For some unexplained
and presumably symbolic reason these remains are often
represented by mandibles. Dog remains are equally rare.
Possibly dogs were accorded similar treatment as humans;
probably exposure or placement on the sea ice. Physical
anthropological studies of the limited evidence attribute
the individuals to a northern Mongoloid racial stock to which
the present Inuit people belong.
It has been popular to consider Middle Palaeo-Eskimos as being
isolated in their Eastern Arctic homeland. There is clear
evidence, however, of influences coming from related peoples in
Alaska. Middle Palaeo-Eskimo depopulation of the Labrador coast
around A.D. 200 has been attributed to Indian intrusions to the
coast as well as to natural disasters
(Tuck 1976: 101). Direct
evidence of Indian-Middle Palaeo-Eskimo contact, however, is
lacking and indeed, "The overall conclusions regarding
Dorset-Indian contacts in Labrador must be that there is very
little evidence to suggest that it occurred..."
(Fitzhugh 1980: 29).
The highly mobile, small family groups composing Middle
Palaeo-Eskimo society were likely organized into local bands
which, in turn, would be related by blood to neighbouring
bands. Given the necessity for people to find food and that
prey animals can be affected by natural and not totally
predictable circumstances, considerable mobility can be
anticipated including occasional long distance population
shifts. Such moves, however, were likely in conjunction with
other groups and thus a mutual support system would still
be in place. Throughout most of the year it can be
anticipated that the nuclear family was the major social
unit and that two or three such families either moved
together or were in close proximity to one another. At
favourable times of the year, such as during the fall char
(Salvelinus alpinus) spawning runs in lakes and
rivers or near a summer bird rookery, a number of these
family groups could come together to reaffirm their social
identity, arrange marriages, perform ceremonies, and exchange
information and gossip.
To judge from the nature of the Middle Palaeo-Eskimo tool
kit and, indeed, that of all Palaeo-Eskimos, it can be
inferred that the people placed a high value on tightly
constrained behaviour. There was only one way to do
something and that was the Palaeo-Eskimo way. In this
respect, there appears to have been little tolerance of
idiosyncratic behaviour, even in terms of tool production.
It has been suggested that the Middle Palaeo-Eskimo
obsession with ultra conservative ways of doing things may
have been largely responsible for their disappearance as a
recognizable cultural entity when the ancestors of the
Inuit occupied their territories around the beginning of
the 10th century
(Nash 1976: 155).
Limitations in the archaeological evidence are much the same
as elsewhere in Canada, such as a scarcity of detailed
published regional accounts, component mixture due to
repeated occupations of the same sites, and so forth.
There are, however, two circumstances largely unique to the
Arctic; the probability of archaeologically invisible winter
settlements in snow houses on the sea ice and, as a degree
of compensation for the former, the visibility of
archaeological remains from the air. As the Inuit of Period V,
with their highly visible large stone, whale bone, and sod
winter dwellings, frequently occupied the same sites as
Palaeo-Eskimos aerial survey will accidentally lead to the
discovery of the earlier occupations. It has been suggested
that Arctic archaeology "...shares certain patterns with
mythological belief: acceptance of prior authority,
intolerance of alternative views, and a search for simple
explanations for complex phenomena"
(McGhee 1983: 21).
There has also been a tendency to assume that the absence
of direct archaeological evidence of a technological or
cultural element equates with an actual absence. This has
been the basis for questioning the existence of elements
of technology such as kayaks, umiaks, snow houses, dog
traction, and the bow and arrow. In other words, there has
been an over reliance on Inuit ethnographic analogy and
the tacit assumption that it can be applied to Palaeo-Eskimo
technology. As recent ethnographic studies amply demonstrate,
there are numerous ingenious ways that people have been able
to achieve their ends without leaving any archaeological
record.
|
