Towards an archaeology of the Nain Region, Labrador

1. Towards an archaeology of the Nain Region, Labrador

2. Table of Contents

Towards an archaeology of the Nain Region, Labrador

Hood, Bryan C., 1955-

Fitzhugh, William W., 1943-

Arctic Studies Center (National Museum of Natural History)

This book was produced in EPUB format by the Internet Archive.

The book pages were scanned and converted to EPUB format automatically. This process relies on optical character recognition, and is somewhat susceptible to errors. The book may not offer the correct reading sequence, and there may be weird characters, non-words, and incorrect guesses at structure. Some page numbers and headers or footers may remain from the scanned page. The process which identifies images might have found stray marks on the page which are not actually images from the book. The hidden page numbering which may be available to your ereader corresponds to the numbered pages in the print edition, but is not an exact match; page numbers will increment at the same rate as the corresponding print edition, but we may have started numbering before the print book's visible page numbers. The Internet Archive is working to improve the scanning process and resulting books, but in the meantime, we hope that this book will be useful to you.

The Internet Archive was founded in 1996 to build an Internet library and to promote universal access to all knowledge. The Archive's purposes include offering permanent access for researchers, historians, scholars, people with disabilities, and the general public to historical collections that exist in digital format. The Internet Archive includes texts, audio, moving images, and software as well as archived web pages, and provides specialized services for information access for the blind and other persons with disabilities.

Created with abbyy2epub (v.1.7.0)

Contributions toCircumpolar Anthropology 7National Museum of Natural HistorySmithsonian Institution2008

enter

^^tudies

Bryan C. Hood

f Jan 7 "2009 j

contents ^^^-^rari^.^

Prefa ce

i TABLE OF CONTENTSiv FOREWORD

vi PREFACE

vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSix List of Figures

xlli List of Tables

chapter 1

1 INTRODUCTION

The Goals of this Text

A Brief History of Archaeological Research in the Main Region and Adjacent AreasOutline of Central and Northern Labrador Culture-History

C h a p t e r 2

1 3 ENVIRONMENT OF THE NAIN REGIONOverview of the Nain RegionBedrock Geology of the Nain RegionPaleoenvironmental Change

Recent Seasonal Resource Use in the Nain Region

Nukasusutok Island

Webb Bay/Port Manvers Run

chapter 5

23 THEORY AND METHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACESpatial Analysis in Archaeology

The Maritime Archaic: Longhouse Models and Spatial Muddles

The Functional and Social Dimensions of Maritime Archaic Dw/ellings

Expanding the View: Other Archaeological Contexts

Ethnography: Social Space and Meaning

Methodological Strategy for the Spatial Analysis of Maritime

Archaic Sites

Paleoeskimos: Axial Features and Bilateral OrganizationMethodological Strategy for the Analysis of Paleoeskimo SpatialPatterns

Notes on the Quantitative Methods.

Conclusion: Behavioral Space and Signifying Practices

cha pter 4-

53 NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND: OVERVIEW AND SURVEYED SITESNukasusutok-1 (HcCh-4)Nukasusutok-2 (HcCh-5)Nukasusutok-4 (HcCh-6)Nukasusutok-6 (HcCh-8)Nukasusutok-9 (HcCh-1 1)Nukasusutok-1 0 (HcCh-12)Nukasusutok-1 1 (HcCh-1 3)Nukasusutok-1 3 (HcCh-1 5)Nukasusutok-14 (HcCh-16)Mount Pickle Harbour-1 (HcCh-17)

cha pter ^

61 NUKASUSUTOK-5; DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEWThe Site and its EnvironsArchaeological Activities and Field MethodsArea 1Area 2Area 3

chapter 6

77 NUKASUSUTOK-5; AREA 2 SPATIAL ANALYSISLimitations and ComplicationsPreliminary OverviewArea 2AArea 2BArea 2C

C h a p t e r 7

139 NUKASUSUTOK-5: AREAS 1 AND 3Area 1Area 3

chapter S

157 NUKASUSUTOK-5: MATERIAL CULTUREDefinitionsArea 1Area 2AArea 2BArea 2CArea 3

The Nukasusutok-5 Assemblage in a Comparative Perspective

chapter 9

1 77 NUKASUSUTOK-5: INTER-AREA COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONSInter-Area ComparisonsConclusions

cha pter 1 0

1 89 NUKASUSUTOK-1 2: EARLY/MIDDLE DORSET AXIAL STRUCTURESStructure 1Structure 2Structure 3Structure 4Test Pits 1-3Test Pits 4 and 5Surface Collections

Overall Assemblage Characteristics and Technological OrganizationChronology

Structural ComparisonsSettlement Pattern and Seasonality

chapter 11

213 POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLANDPost-Contact Inuit Society and Settlement Patterns in LabradorAn Ethnohistoric Sketch of the Nukasusutok SettlementThe Archaeology of Nukasusutok-7 (HcCi-8)

The Archaeology of Nukasusutok-8 and W. D. Strong's Grave CollectionConclusion: Big-Men, Big-Women and Negotiating the 18^'^ CenturyEuropean World System

chapter 12

245 WEBB BAY/PORT MANVERS RUN: SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONSPort Manvers Run-1 (HfCj-5)Double Island Cove-1, L-1 (HeCj-1)Sunset Point (HeCj-8)Attu's Bight-1 (HeCk-4)Webb Point (HeCk-6)

chapter 1 ^

273 ATTU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAYOverview

Excavation and Collection Methods

L-1 Excavation

L-5 Excavation

L-7 Excavation

L-9 Test Excavation

Other Loci

Inter-Locus ComparisonsConclusions

C h a p t e r 1 -f

319 THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE-DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADORCulture-Historical Background

Working at Theoretical Boundaries: "Landscape " as a Platform for Dialogue?Partial Readings: Navigating the BoundariesEcological Space

Constructed Social and Ideological LandscapesBack to the Archaeological ContextPaleoenvironmental ConsiderationsA Note on Other Cultural VariablesNavigation 1: An Ecological Narrative

Navigation 2: A Social and Ideological Landscape NarrativeConclusion

Chapter 1^

347 CONCLUDING REMARKS

351 REFERENCES CITED363 INDEX

foreword

BY WILLIAM W. FITZHUGH

In 1969 while in the second field season of my PhDwork in Hamilton Inlet, Geoff Conrad, Peter Wells, and Iflew 200 miles north to survey two locations at the for-est-tundra boundary in northern Quebec-Labrador. Oneof these locations was on the George River, whereDillon Wallace, Mina Hubbard, and W. B. Cabot haddescribed Naskapi (today's Innu) camped in the early1900s to intercept the annual caribou migration inAugust and September at Indian House Lake (Hutte dela Sauvage) near the Labrador border in northeasternQuebec. Here we found many historic Innu camps at thenorthern edge of the forest. This country was harsh andits scoured surface still bore the scars of continental icesheets. For the Innu who lived here, starvation wasalways just a breath away, for if the 'deer' migrationchanged the Innu were often too weak to re-locate.

After a few days we flew east to the comparativeparadise of Village Bay, where Port Manvers Run joinsthe Labrador Sea at the southeast side of the KiglapaitMountains. To the north lay the Qkak archipelago; tothe south the island archipelago east of Nain, then thenorthernmost town in Labrador, settled by Moravianmissionaries in 1771. As we waded ashore in the blis-teringly cold water, the contrast with the interior bar-rens was stark indeed. It wasn't that the land was so dif-ferent, for it had the same stunted spruce trees and tan-gled alder thickets, the same patches of wind-blownsand and winter-killed tree stumps. What was differentwas the wealth of resources provided by the ocean. Thebountiful Labrador coast waters made the barrens seemlike the most desolate place on earth. If you had a

Iv

choice - and in the competitive world of early Labradorhistory, one often did not - you would choose the coast,and if you know how to hunt sea mammals and navi-gate a treacherous coastline, it could sustain larger andmore sedentary communities.

Our brief visit to Village Bay and Thalia Pointdemonstrated great archaeological potential, with findsof Inuit camps dating to the past 5-600 years, the firstPre-Dorset and Dorset sites to be found in Labrador,and scattered traces of yet-to-be defined early Indiancultures. The region was well-described in detailedannual reports of the Moravians in the 18-1 9th C. andsome ethnographic work had been done by geologistE.P. Wheeler, whose student, Stearns (Tony) Morse, andPeter Johnson had studied its geology and geomorphol-ogy. Wheeler and Morse were still working in the Nainarea when we arrived, as was Terje Brantenberg, asocial anthropologist. My brief excursion to Thalia Pointconvinced me that Nain, which lay just south of thecoastal tree-line, was more central to the question ofIndian-Eskimo boundary dynamics than Hamilton Inlet,where I had been working on this problem sincel968.

Beginning in 1 973 I acquired a boat and startedmaking excursions to Nain from Hamilton Inlet, and in1975 1 began to focus exclusively on this area. In 1 977-78 I undertook a large survey of the coast north ofNain, as far as Killinek and Port Burwell at the northerntip of Labrador. By this time Bryan Hood had becomepart of the field team, and when we returned to contin-ue work in Nain in the early 1 980s, Bryan began his ownproject at a large Maritime Archaic site at Nukasusutok5. In later years he researched other sites atNukasusutok and explored the inner fjords north of

FOREWORD

Main. Hood's work more than complements our earlierstudies; he has advanced it in important ways, makingthe first detailed published test of the Maritime Archaiclonghouse model, exploring Maritime Archaic-Paleoeskimo contacts, and expanding knowledge ofDorset settlement patterns. This volume is the firstdetailed description of Nain culture history to be pub-lished, spans a period of 6000 years, and includes alarge number of sites from different environmentalzones, from outer coast to interior bays and fjords.Hood's analytical study of settlement data using k-means and other methods is a model approach to thestudy of settlement information and the first such studyto appear for any arctic or subarctic region. Descriptionof Duncan Strong's finds from the early historic Inuitvillage at Nukasusutok, housed at the R.S. PeabodyFoundation in Andover, Massachusetts, brings hisstudy up toward the present day. While not a completescenario of the early history of Nain it is a fine start at

creating an accessible published literature on thearchaeology of northern Labrador.

I thank Bryan for his long and continuing dedica-tion to the peoples and cultures of Nain, and for hismeticulous description and analysis of hard-won fielddata. It gives me great pleasure to publish this workthrough the Arctic Studies Center as the first of severalfuture monographs on Smithsonian-related Labradorresearch. We dedicate this volume to the people of Nainin gratitude for the support and encouragement theyhave provided our collective efforts for many years.

Heading home to Nam over the sea ice east of Strathcona Run, April 1996. (Photo. B. Hood)

FOREWORD

V

reface

The research described herein was undertaken in twophases separated by twelve years. The first phase tran-spired on Nul<asusutol< Island in 1979 and 1980 asfieldworl< directed towards an M.A. degree at TrentUniversity (Hood 1981). During subsequent years Ipursued my Ph.D. at the University of IVlassachusetts,Amherst. That research was directed primarilytowards north Norwegian Stone Age archaeology, buta prominent underlying theme was that comparisonbetween Norway and Labrador could provide usefulinsight concerning hunter-gatherer complexity. Havingeventually acquired a teaching position at MemorialUniversity of Newfoundland, I returned toNukasusutok in 1992 and 1993 to reevaluate the pre-vious work. I also expanded my geographical scope toinclude a modest program in the Webb Bay and PortManvers Run area from 1992 to 1994.

This temporal split presented some problemswhen it was time to proceed with the final analysis ofthe material from the Nukasusutok-5 site. There wasalways the nagging question as to whether or not theobservations made by naive eyes in 1979 could reli-ably be compared with those made on the basis ofmore experience in 1992. Should inconsistencies inobservations between the two periods be attributed toinexperienced omissions in 1979 rather than to realbehavioral differences? There were also some differ-ences in recording techniques between the tworesearch phases which had an impact on the methodschosen for the final analyses. For example, in 1979-1980 debitage was collected in 1 m^ units while 50cm^ units were used in 1 992-1 993. Or, in 1 979-80 uti-lized flakes and bipolar cores were not point plotted

vi

systematically in the field, so many of them were onlyprovenienced within 1 m^ units. Thus, the distributionpatterns of these types could not be studied at thelevel of detail I would prefer today. These and otherproblems were annoying and frustrating, but hardlyfatal. Although hitches remain they are not sufficientto subvert the main conclusions reached herein.

Despite the intensity of fieldwork in Labrador dur-ing the 1970s and 1980s, very little has been pub-lished beyond preliminary reports and some doctoraldissertations. This situation imposes significant limita-tions on the extent to which the material presentedhere can be used to elucidate broader culture-histori-cal problems. Consequently, this volume will not offera new synthesis of Labrador archaeology, althoughone is badly needed. The task of integration lies withothers. Instead, the main purpose of the volume is toprovide a detailed descriptive report that will be usefulto other researchers. Of course, there is more to itthan that; the material is also used to direct attentiontowards broader methodological and conceptualissues. The unifying theme for several of the chaptersis the social structuration of space, which is treated attwo different scales. The first scale is site structure, forwhich a set of methodological strategies is outlined.The second scale is regional and inter-regional, whichis played out in general discussions of settlement pat-terns and theorization of the Pre-Dorset/MaritimeArchaic social boundary relationship. In both cases thediscussions feed on the tensions between processualand post-processual archaeologies. Thus the worm'seye view opens onto the wider world.

Bryan Hood

acknowledgments

This text has been many years in the making and hasinvolved perambulations on both sides of the Atlanticsuch that the assistance of a rather wide range of peo-ple and institutions must be acknowledged.

During the 1979-80 field seasons financial sup-port was received from the Arctic Institute of NorthAmerica, the Committee for Research and Departmentof Anthropology, Trent University, and the HistoricResources Division, Government of Newfoundland andLabrador. The 1992-1994 field seasons were support-ed by grants from Memorial University (Vice-President's Research Grant and internal SSHRC funds),the Institute of Social and Economic Research and theHistoric Resources Division of the Government ofNewfoundland and Labrador. Much of the cataloguingand lab work performed by students was supported bythe Memorial University MUCEP program. TheArchaeology Unit, Memorial University, kindly kept meemployed from 1990-1995.

Over the years, many people participated in thisresearch in one capacity or another. In 1979 I wasaccompanied in the field by Jack Contin and CharlesCurtis and in 1980 by William Fitzhugh, Eric Loring,Stephen Loring, Morten Meldgaard and DouglasSutton. From 1992 to 1994 Edward Flowers of Nainserved as my field assistant, joined in 1994 by EliasHenoche, also of Nain. Also joining the crew on amemorable survey/hunting trip to Hebron in 1997were Kitti Flowers, Chesley Ittulak and Sam Kalleo. Labassistance in cataloguing and related matters was pro-vided by Marcus Anderson, Patricia Barefoot,Stephanie Barry, Marie-Claire Coyer, Randolph Lawlor,Sandy Ste. Croix and Robin Tuck.

Specialized analytical assistance was performedby Rodolfe Fecteau ( University of Western Ontario;charcoal species identification), Dosia Layendecker(Smithsonian; charcoal species identification), BrianRitchie (Trent University, soils analysis), Michael Deal(Memorial University, botanical identification) and AnnRick (Canadian Museum of Nature, zoological analy-sis). Most of the lithic artifact photos were taken byJohn Bourne (Photo Services, Memorial University).

Once upon a time (1981, precisely), a preliminarylook at the Maritime Archaic material reported herewas presented as an M.A. thesis at Trent University(Hood 1 981). I would like to thank the members of mythesis committee, Morgan Tamplin and the lateRichard Johnston, for their guidance in thesis prepara-tion and Romas Vastokas and Paul Healy for assistancein acquiring funding from Trent sources.

A special thanks is due to William Fitzhugh(Smithsonian). His invitation to participate in theTorngat Archaeological Project in 1978 was the step-ping stone to everything that has happened since. Healso suggested the work on Nukasusutok-5, providedsubsistence and logistical support in 1980 and servedas an outside committee member for the M.A. thesis.In recent years he has provided valuable commentaryon my attempts to theorize the Maritime Archaic.

I also appreciate the efforts of the staff of theCultural Heritage Division, province of Newfoundlandand Labrador, and the Newfoundland Museum, forauthorizing research and export permits, providingvaluable information from site records, and sendingme copies of unpublished manuscripts. Specifically:

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

vii

Martha Drake, Ken Reynolds, Delphina Mercer,Stephen Hull, Elaine Anton and Kevin McAleese.

My access to W. D. Strong's collection at theRobert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, PhillipsAcademy, Andover, Massachusetts, was kindlyarranged by Malinda Blustain. The material and photo-graphs are used by permission of the PeabodyMuseum. I would also like to thank the staff of theNational Anthropological Archives at the SmithsonianInstitution for making available Strong's field notesand photographs. Some of Strong's photos are usedhere with permission of the Smithsonian Institution.

Over the past several years the financial andinfrastructural support of the University of Troms0,Norway, has been instrumental in bringing this workto completion. Additionally, without tutoring in thebasics of AutoCad from Tor Mikalsen, I would neverhave managed to produce the maps and floor plansherein. Anne Tommervag and Geir Davidsen providedpointers on digital photo retouching.

I would also like to thank the manuscript peerreviewers for pointing out various errors and omis-sions and for suggesting improvements. The remain-ing blemishes are my own fault.

Last but not least, much gratitude must beextended to the Labradorians who assisted in imple-

menting the fieldwork and invited me into theirhomes. In 1979 Henry Webb of Nain provided boattransportation to and from Nukasusutok and SueWebb provided radio communications. Winston Whitewas most gracious in supplying accommodation dur-ing our sojourns in Goose Bay and provided us withsome memorable mid-summer rest and recreation athis summer home at Kauk in 1979 and 1980. GaryBaikie of the Torngasok Cultural Center (Nain), in hiscapacity as the community liason for archaeologicalmatters, approved the 1992-94 fieldwork and provid-ed assistance with logistics in 1992. Joe Webb andDennis Wyatt provided boat transportation to our fieldsites in 1992. Edward Flowers kindly contributed theuse of his boat and his father's motor in 1993 andCus Flowers provided us with transportation out toWebb Bay in 1994. Thanks to Christine Denniston forproviding accommodation in Nain in 1992 and 1993.

A special thanks to the Flowers family for takingme into their home, and to Gus and Edward for givingme the opportunity to travel with them on summerhunting trips and an especially memorable winter tripto Nutak in April 1993. Not to mention other forayssince then. Without their support my ignorance wouldhave been much worse and I might truly have goneisumaitsik...

Motoring up Port Manvers Run with Edward Flowers, 1993. (Photo: B. Hood)

viii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

f iVures

1 Map of Labrador with places mentioned in the text. xvi

2 Culture-history chart for central and northern Labrador. 6

3 Map of the Nain region. 12

4 RADARSAT synthetic aperture radar satellite photo of the Nain district. 14

5 Relative sea level curves for Nain and inner Voisey's Bay. 16

6 Binford's external/internal hearth models. 24

7 Recent Innu camp structure. 26

8 Innu summer tent site, 1 980. 27

9 Maritime Archaic longhouse, Aillik 2. 28

10 Maritime Archaic longhouse, Aillik 2, excavated into a cobble beach. 29

11 Maritime Archaic longhouses from Nulliak Cove 1. 31

12 Pre-contact Recent Indian dwelling features. 35

13 Late Dorset and Russian Upper Paleolithic longhouses. 38

14 Spatial organization of a Nenets summer camp. 41

1 5 Early Paleoeskimo axial features. 45

16 Archaeological sites on Nukasusutok Island. 52

17 Tools from surveyed Maritime Archaic sites on Nukasusutok Island. 55

18 Nukasusutok-2; Structure 2. 56

19 Dorset tools from Mount Pickle Harbour-1. 59

20 Nukasusutok-5 in its landscape. 60

21 Nukasusutok-5 main beach terrace. 62

22 Nukasusutok-5 excavation layout. 64

23 Area 2 subareas. 64

24 Area 2A soil profile. 64

2 5 Area 2 features. 66

26 Area 2A bipod photo. 67

27 Area 2A hearth-1. 67

28 Area 2A hearth-5. 69

29 Area 2B under excavation. 69

30 Area 2C overview looking north. 70

31 Area 2C hearth-9. 70

32 Area 2C hearth-1 2. 71

33 Area 2: total flake distribution in relation to features. 76

34 Area 2A: inferred flake lobes in relation to features. 79

35 Area 2A: rock distribution in relation to inferred flake lobes. 79

36 Area 2A: flake lobes superimposed on vertical bipod photo. 80

37 Area 2: /c-means cluster analysis. 82

38 Area 2: quadrat groupings used in the analyses. 83

39 Area 2; distribution of quartz flakes. 84

40 Area 2; distribution of Ramah chert flakes. 85

41 Area 2A: south lobe, lower level: distribution of Ramah chert flakes. 86

42 Area 2: distribution of patinated Ramah chert flakes. 86

43 Area 2 distribution of gray Mugford and black chert flakes. 87

44 Area 2 distribution of slate flakes. 89

45 Area 2A: correspondence analysis plot of flake raw materials by quadrat, coded by analytical model units. 92

46 Area 2A: correspondence analysis plot of tool classes by analytical model units. 92

47 Area 2: distribution of block cores by quadrat. 93

48 Area 2: distribution of bipolar cores by quadrat. 93

49 Area 2: distribution of utilized flakes by quadrat. ^ 94

50 Area 2: distribution of bifacial points. 95

51 Area 2: distribution of biface preforms. 96

52 Area 2: distribution of bifaces. 97

FIGURES ix

53 Area 2: distribution of flake points. 98

54 Area 2: distribution of endscrapers. 99

55 Area 2: distribution of slate tools. 100

56 Area 2: distribution of unmodified slate plates and blanks. 103

57 Area 2: distribution of ground slate flakes and ground tool fragments. 104

58 Area 2: distribution of miscellaneous tools. 105

59 Area 2A: twelve-cluster/c-means solution. 106

60 Area 2A: correspondence analysis plot of tool classes by fc-means cluster, based on the overall Area 2 nine-cluster solution. 107

61 Area 2; distribution of red ocher and bone fragments. 107

62 Area 2: size distribution of tools and quartz flakes. 108

63 Area 2: distribution of Ramah chert biface-thinning flakes. 109

64 Area 2A; dwelling module interpretation. Ill

65 Area 2A: rectangular structure interpretation. 112

66 Area 2B; features and total flake distribution. 123

67 Area 2B: five-cluster fc-means solution. 123

68 Area 2C: features and total flake distribution. 129

69 Area 2C: modified four-cluster fc-means solution. 130

70 Area 2C: dwelling interpretations. 135

71 Area 1: features and total flake distribution. 138

72 Area 1; distribution of quartz flakes. 141

73 Area 1: distribution of Ramah chert flakes. 141

74 Area 1: distribution of black chert and gray slate flakes. 142

75 Area 1: distribution of utilized flakes, bipolar cores, block cores, and bifaces. 142

76 Area 3: level 1 features. 143

77 Area 3: soil profile. 143

78 Area 3: overview. Feature 1 excavated. 144

79 Area 3: vertical bipod photo. Feature 1 excavated. 144

80 Area 3; Feature 1. 145

81 Area 3: Feature 1 vertical bipod photo. 145

82 Area 3: level 2 features. 146

83 Area 3: Feature 2. 146

84 Area 3: Feature 3. 148

85 Area 3; Feature 3 sectioned, showing rock cluster beneath the red ocher layer. 148

86 Area 3: distribution of quartz flakes. 150

87 Area 3: distribution of Ramah chert flakes. 152

88 Area 3; distribution of slate flakes. 153

89 Area 3: quadrat groupings used in the analyses. 154

90 Area 3: tool distribution and fc-means cluster analysis. 154

91 Area 3: distribution of utilized flakes. 154

92 Area 3: distribution of block cores. 154

93 Area 3: distribution of bipolar cores. 155

94 Area 3; distribution of slate tools. 155

95 Area 3: distribution of ground slate flakes. 155

96 Area 3: distribution of other tool classes. 155

97 Area 3: distribution of Ramah chert biface-thinning flakes. 155

98 Nukasusutok-5: stemmed bifacial points. 156

99 Nukasusutok-5: bifacial points and bifaces. 158

100 Nukasusutok-5; biface fragments and flake points. 158

101 Nukasusutok-5; bifaces and preforms. 161

102 Nukasusutok-5; bifaces and preforms. 161

103 Nukasusutok-5; endscrapers, flake knives, gravers, and linear flakes. 162

104 Nukasusutok-5; stemmed flakes and flake knives. 162

105 Nukasusutok-5; bipolar cores and disc core. 163

106 Nukasusutok-5; bipolar core analysis variables and attributes. 164

107 Nukasusutok-5; Area 2A bipolar core size distribution. 165

108 Nukasusutok-5; slate and schist tools. 166

109 Nukasusutok-5; ground slate tools. 1661 10 Nukasusutok-5; quartz biface and cores. 167

111 Nukasusutok-5; slate and schist implements. 167

112 Nukasusutok-5; slate plates and blanks. 170

113 Nukasusutok-5; schist tablets. 170

114 Nukasusutok-5; fragment of bone pendant, Area 2B. 171

115 Nukasusutok-5; Area 3 flaked implements. 171

116 Nukasusutok-5; Area 3 slate implements. 1741 1 7 Correspondence analysis plot of tool classes and Nukasusutok-5 subareas. 1 761 18 Stacked column graph of Nukasusutok-5 flake raw materials by subarea. 179119 Quartz flake size distribution at Nukasusutok-5. ~ 181

X

FIGURES

120 Ramah chert flake size distribution at Nukasusutok-5. 181

121 Fine-grained chert flake size distribution at Nukasusutok-5. 1811 22 Slate flake size distribution at Nukasusutok-5. 1 84

123 Nukasusutok-1 2: overview towards the southwest. 188

124 Nukasusutok-12; site map. 190

125 Nukasusutok-12: Structure 1. 191

126 Nukasusutok-1 2: Structure 1, view towards the north. 191

127 Nukasusutok-12: Structure 2. 192

128 Nukasusutok-1 2: Structure 2, view towards the southwest. 1931 29 Nukasusutok-1 2: Structure 2 tool distribution and fc-means cluster analysis. 1 93

130 Nukasusutok-1 2: Structure 2 flake distribution. 195

131 Nukasusutok-1 2: implements from Structure 2. 197

132 Nukasusutok l 2: soapstone vessel from Structure 2. 198

133 Nukasusutok l 2: soapstone vessel fragments from Structure 2. 198

134 Nukasusutok l 2: implements from Structures 3 and 4. 199

135 Nukasusutok-1 2: implements from test-pits, surface, and Structure 201

136 Nukasusutok l 2: implements from test-pits. 202

137 Nukasusutok l 2: Ramah chert flake size distribution. 2071 38 Nain region Dorset site Ramah chert flake size distributions by frequency, using Nagle's (1 984) categories. 2081 39 Nain region Dorset site Ramah chert flake size distributions by weight, using Nagle's (1 984) categories. 209140 Nain region Dorset site distribution. 2121 41 Kinship relations of households at the Nukasusutok settlement, winter 1 776-1 777. 222

142 Nukasusutok-8 site map. 226

143 Nukasusutok-8: overview towards the southwest, August 1 928. 2271 44 Nukasusutok-8: House 5 overview towards the southwest, August 1 928 227

145 Nukasusutok-8: House 5 excavation towards the west, August 1928 228

146 Nukasusutok-S: House 5, 1992 midden test pit collection. 229

147 Nukasusutok Island: probably Crave 2, August 1 928. 230

148

W.

D.

Strong

Nukasusutok

collection:

hunting and transportation implements.

231

149

W.

D.

Strong

Nukasusutok

collection:

hunting implements.

232

1 50

W.

D.

Strong

Nukasusutok

collection:

hunting, transportation, and household implements.

232

1 51

W.

D.

Strong

Nukasusutok

collection:

hunting and household implements.

233

1 52

W.

D.

Strong

Nukasusutok

collection:

hunting and household implements.

233

1 53

W.

D.

Strong

Nukasusutok

collection:

fishing and household implements.

234

1 54

W.

D.

Strong

Nukasusutok

collection:

wooden implements.

234

1 55

W.

D.

Strong

Nukasusutok

collection

wooden box component.

234

1 56

W.

D.

Strong

Nukasusutok

collection:

soapstone lamps.

235

1 57

W.

D.

Strong

Nukasusutok

collection:

soapstone vessel rim fragments.

235

1 58

W.

D.

Strong

Nukasusutok

collection.

copper/brass decorative items.

236

1 59

W.

D.

Strong

Nukasusutok

collection:

decorative items.

236

160

W.

D.

Strong

Nukasusutok

collection:

bone decorative items.

236

161

W.

D.

Strong

Nukasusutok

collection:

lithic implements.

237

162 A 1 773 drawing of Caubvick by Nathaniel Dance. 238

163 Webb Bay and inner Port Manvers Run with sites mentioned in the text. 244

164 Port Manvers Run-1, S-2/3: view towards the northwest. 246

165 Port Manvers Run-1, S-2/3: rock features. 247

166 Port Manvers Run-1, S-2/3: total flake distribution. 247

167 Port Manvers Run-1, S-2/3: tool distribution and /(-means clusters. 248

168 Port Manvers Run-1, S-2/3: tool distribution by quadrat. 248

169 Port Manvers Run-1, S-2/3: tool raw material distributions. 250

170 Port Manvers Run-1, S-2/3: flake raw material distributions. 251

171 Port Manvers Run-1, S-2/3: flake size distributions. 253

172 Port Manvers Run-1, S-2/3: tools. 254

173 Double Island Cove-1, Structure 1. 255

174 Double Island Cove-1, Structure 1: tool distribution. 256

175 Double Island Cove-1, Structure 1: flake distribution. 2561 76 Double Island Cove-1, Structure 1: flake distribution by quadrat. 257

177 Double Island Cove-1, Structure 2: tool distribution. 258

178 Double Island Cove-1, Structure 2: flake distribution. 2581 79 Tools from Double Island Cove, Sunset Point and Webb Point. 2591 80 Attu's Bight overview towards the southwest. 260

181 Attu's Bight site map. 260

182 Attu's Bight L-3/6: view towards the east. 262

183 Attu's Bight L-3/6: excavation with flake distribution. 2631 84 Attu's Bight L-3/6: excavation at the edge of the in situ deposit. 264

185 Attu's Bight L-3/6: profile. 264

186 Attu's Bight L-3/6: tool distribution. 266

FIGURES xi

187 Attu's Bight L-3/6: flake distribution. 266

188 Attu's Bight L-3/6: Ramah chert flake size distribution. 267

189 Attu's Bight L-3/6: distribution of Ramah chert biface-thinning flakes. 2681 90 Attu's Bight tools. 269191 Attu's Bight tools. 2691 92 Attu's Point overview towards the northeast. 274193 Attu's Point site map. 2751 94 Attu's Point L-1: rock feature and total flake distribution. 2761 95 Attu's Point L-1: overview towards the east. 276

196 Attu's Point L-1: tool distribution with /(-means clusters. 277

197 Attu's Point L-1: tool raw material distribution. 278

198 Attu's Point L-1: flake raw material distributions. 2791 99 Attu's Point L-1: flake raw materials by quadrat. 281

200 Attu's Point L-1 tools. 284

201 Attu's Point L-1 tools. 284

202 Attu's Point L-1 tools. 284

203 Attu's Point L-5: features and total flake distribution. 285

204 Attu's Point L-5: possible axial structure, view towards the southwest. 285

205 Attu's Point L-5: tool distribution and /c-means clusters. 286

206 Attu's Point L-5: no provenience tools by quadrat. 289

207 Attu's Point L-5: tool raw material distribution. 290

208 Attu's Point L-5: flake raw material distributions. 291

209 Attu's Point L-5: flake raw material distributions by quadrat. 293

210 Attu's Point L-5 tools. 29421 1 Attu's Pomt L-5 tools. 295

212 Attu's Point L-7: axial structure, view towards the northeast. 297

213 Attu's Point L-7: box-hearth with thermoliths. 297

214 Attu's Point L-7: box-hearth, thermoliths removed. 29721 5 Attu's Point L-7: axial structure and total flake distribution. 298216 Attu's Pomt L-7: tool distribution and fc-means clusters. 29921 7 Attu's Point L-7: tool raw material distribution. 300

218 Attu's Point L-7: flake raw material distributions. 301

219 Attu's Point L-7: flake raw material distributions by quadrat. . 303

220 Attu's Point L-7 tools. 304

221 Attu's Point L-9: axial structure. 305

222 Attu's Point L-9 tools. 306

223 Attu's Point surface collected tools. 306

224 Attu's Point surface collected tools. 307

225 Attu's Point surface collected tools. 308

226 Attu's Point Mugford chert flake size distribution. 313

227 Attu's Point: slate flake size distribution. 313

228 Distribution of Late Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorset settlement in Labrador: the macro-territorial model. 321

229 Distribution of Late Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorset settlement in the Nain region. 331

230 Calibrated radiocarbon date probability distributions for Late Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorset sites in the Nain region. 333

231 Distribution of Pre-Dorset sites in the Okak Region. 335

232 Distribution of Late Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorset sites in the Hebron Fjord, Sagiek Bay and Ramah Bay regions. 336

233 Pollen percentages for alder (AInus) and spruce (Picea) in the Nain region from 6800-2500 calB.P.. 339

234 CISP2 ice core bidecadal oxygen isotope (dl80) data from 5800- 2500 calB.P., with logarithmic smoothing. 339

xii

TABLES

tables

1 List of archaeological sites registered on Nukasusutok Island. 54

2 Nukasusutok-6 flake raw materials. 57

3 Nukasusutok-1 3 flake raw material frequencies. 58

4 Radiocarbon dates from Nukasusutok-5: Area 2 and main beach. 72

5 Area 2A flake raw material frequencies by model units. 88

6 Area 2A flake raw material weights by model units. 90

7 Area 2A tool classes by model units. 91

8 Area 2A tool raw material frequencies by model units. 101

9 Area 2A tool raw material weights by model units. 101

10 Area 2A tool classes, quadrats grouped by/(-means cluster. 102

11 Area 2A tool raw material frequencies by fe-means cluster. 1 02

12 Area 2A tool classes by hypothesized rectangular structure. 1141 3 Area 2A tool raw material frequencies and weights (in grams) by hypothesized rectangular structure. 1 1 514 Area 2A flake raw material frequencies and weights (in grams) by hypothesized rectangular structure. 1 161 5 Area 2A total lithic raw material weights (tools and flakes) by model units. 1 1 71 6 Summary of the quartz and Ramah chert reduction systems at Area 2A. 1 1 817 Area 2B tool classes by model units. 1211 8 Area 2B tool raw material frequencies by model units. 1 22

19 Area 2B tool classes by/(-means cluster. 122

20 Area 28 tool raw material frequencies by/(-means cluster. 124

21 Area 28 flake raw material frequencies by model units. 1 26

22 Area 28 total lithic raw material weights (tools and flakes). 1 27

23 Summary of the quartz and Ramah chert reduction systems at Area 28. 1 28

24 Area 2C tool classes by /(-means cluster and subarea. 1 31

25 Area 2C tool raw material frequencies and weights by cluster and subarea. 1 32

26 Area 2C flake raw material frequencies and weights by subarea. 1 33

27 Area 2C flake raw material frequencies by hearth feature. 1 33

28 Area 2C total lithic raw material weights (tools and flakes). 1 34

29 Summary of the quartz and Ramah chert reduction systems at Area 2C. 1 36

30 Area 1 flake raw materials by frequency and weight. 140

31 Area 1 tool class frequencies. 140

32 Area 3 flake raw material frequencies by feature. 147

33 Area 3 tool class frequencies by feature. 147

34 Area 3 tool raw material frequencies by feature. 149

35 Area 3 total lithic raw material weights (tools and flakes). 1 51

36 Summary of the quartz and Ramah chert reduction systems at Area 1 51

37 Radiocarbon dates from Area 3. 151

38 Inter-area percentage comparison of tool classes. 178

39 Inter-area percentage comparison of tool raw materials. 178

40 Inter-area percentage comparison of flake raw materials. 1 79

41 Variation In elements of quartz technology at Nukasusutok-5. 180

42 Variation in elements of Ramah chert technology at Nukasusutok-5. 1 82

43 Variation in elements of fine-grained chert technology at Nukasusutok-5. 1 82

44 Variation in elements of slate technology at Nukasusutok-5. 185

45 Nukasusutok-1 2: Structure 2 tool classes in relation to the bilateral axial feature model. 194

46 Nukasusutok-1 2: Structure 2 tool classes by front/back divisions. 194

47 Nukasusutok-1 2: Structure 2 tool classes by/(-means cluster. 195

48 Nukasusutok-1 2: Structure 2 tool and flake raw material frequencies. 196

49 Nukasusutok-1 2: Structure 2 tool and flake raw material weights. 196

50 Nukasusutok-1 2: Test pits 1-3 tool class frequencies. 200

51 Nukasusutok-1 2: Test pits 1-3 tool and flake raw materials by frequency. 201

52 Nukasusutok l 2; Test pits 1 -3 tool and flake raw materials by weight. 201

53 Comparison of Main region Dorset lithic assemblages. 206

TABLES xiii

54 Ramah chert tool flake ratios for Dorset sites In the Nam area. 207

55 Distribution of biface-thlnning flakes at Nukasusutok-1 2. 207

56 Radiocarbon dates from Nukasusutok l 2. 208

57 Demographic data for the Nukasusutok settlement from Moravian sources. 220

58 Fauna from the House 5 midden at Nukasusutok-8. 229

59 Hunting-fishing tools from the Strong collection. 231

60 Household tools from the Strong collection. 234

61 Decorative Items from the Strong collection. 237

62 Miscellaneous organic materials from the Strong collection. 239

63 Port Manvers Run-1 tool classes by /c-means cluster. 249

64 Port Manvers Run-1 tool raw material frequencies by /c-means cluster. 249

65 Port Manvers Run-l flake raw material frequencies. 252

66 Port Manvers Run-1 total llthic raw material weights (tools and flakes). 252

67 Double Island Cove-1, L-1, S-1: flake raw material frequencies. 257

68 Attu's Bight L 3/6 tool class frequencies. 265

69 Attu's Bight L-3/6 flake raw material frequencies. 265

70 Attu's Bight L-3/6 total llthic raw material weights (flakes and tools). 267

71 Attu's Point L-1: tool classes by/(-means cluster. 275

72 Attu's Point L-1: tool classes by bilateral position. 277

73 Attu's Point L-l tool classes by north-south (front-back) position. 277

74 Attu's Point L-1 tool raw material frequencies by bilateral position. 278

75 Attu's Point L-1: tool raw material frequencies by north-south (front- back) position. 280

76 Attu's Point L-1 tool raw material frequencies by /(-means cluster. 282

77 Attu's Point L-1. flake raw material frequencies by east-west bilateral position. 282

78 Attu's Point L-1: flake raw material frequencies by north-south (front-back) position. 283

79 Attu's Point L-1: total llthic raw material weights (tools and flakes). 283

80 Attu's Point L-5: tool classes by /(-means cluster. 287

81 Attu's Point L-5: tool classes by general spatial position. 288

82 Attu's Point L-5: tool raw material frequencies by general spatial position. 288

83 Attu's Point L-5 tool raw material frequencies by /(-means cluster. 289

84 Attu's Point L-5: flake raw material frequencies by analytical quadrant. 290

85 Attu's Point L-5: total llthic raw material weights (tools and flakes). 292

86 Attu's Point L-7: tool classes by /(-means cluster. .. 298

87 Attu's Point L-7: tool classes by structural position. 299

88 Attu's Point L-7: tool raw material frequencies by structural position. 300

89 Attu's Point L-7: flake raw material frequencies by structural position. 302

90 Attu's Point L-7 total lithic raw material weights (tools and flakes). 302

91 Attu's Point comparison of tool classes by excavated loci and other collections. 31 0

92 Attu's Point: comparison of tool raw material frequencies by excavated loci and other collections. 31 0

93 Attu's Point: comparison of flake raw material frequencies by excavated loci. 31 1

94 Attu's Point: comparison of total llthic raw material weights by excavated loci. 31 1

95 Radiocarbon dates for Pre-Dorset and Late Maritime Archaic sites in the Nain Region. 334

xiv

TABLES

Nain. July 1978. (Photo: B.Hood)

XV

// Map of Labrador with places mentioned in the text.

xvi

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

The Nain region is home to the currently northernmostpermanent settlement in Labrador (Figure 1). Althoughthe settlement itself was established in 1771 by theMoravian missionaries, occupation of the island-stud-ded coast extends back at least 7000 years. The regioncontains a rich archaeological record of Inuit, Pre-lnuit(Paleoeskimo), Innu and pre-contact Indian occupa-tions, as well as post-contact European activity.Concerted archaeological research began in the areaduring the early 1970s and it could probably be saidthat the region is now the most thoroughly investigat-ed portion of Labrador. Relatively little of this archaeo-logical research has been published to date other thanas preliminary reports, so the present volume is anattempt to provide more substantial documentation ofseveral localities pertaining to a variety of time periodsand cultural contexts.

The Goals of this Text

This book is entitled "Towards an Archaeology of theNain Region" and not "The Archaeology of the NainRegion" because it is not intended to be a syntheticculture-historical work. Its primary purpose is to bringtogether the results of several years of research in twoportions of the Nain area: Nukasusutok Island andWebb Bay/Port Manvers Run. Since most of the archae-ological data from the Nain region have been collectedby others, it is to them that the task of synthesisbelongs. The goals of this monograph are both broad-er and narrower than a culture-historical account.

Broader, because the text endeavors to articulate someof the archaeological material with theoretical andmethodological issues of wider significance. Narrower,because detailed descriptive reports are presented ona limited range of material that will constitute primarydocumentation for use in a future integration. Thiscase study approach has the consequence that certaincultural periods are omitted (Intermediate and LatePre-Contact Indian). Another consequence is that thechapter sequencing is not by chronological or culturalperiod but by geographical sub-region (NukasusutokIsland, Webb Bay/Port Manvers Run).

The theoretical theme that runs throughout thebook is the social structuration of space. By this ismeant the view that space is not a passive adaptivestage, but an affordance that is actively constructedthrough social practice, becoming a meaningful land-scape imbued with social and ideological significance.This socially constructed affordance acts back uponthe practice of human agents, presenting them with anarray of constraints and opportunities for action andplays a generative role in the formation of individualand social identities. Material ecological properties andsocial action are thus enfolded in each other (for relat-ed but not necessarily isomorphic views see Giddens1979, 1984; Hood 1988; Ingold 1996, 2000; Tilley1 994). In this volume the structuration of space is dis-cussed on two scales: the spatial configuration of indi-vidual settlements and the organization of regionaland supra-regional landscapes.

INTRODUCTION

1

As far as the spatial organization of individual set-tlements is concerned, the focus is the role ofdwellings in the structuration of social life; dwellingsas material components of social practice. More specif-ically, Maritime Archaic and Paleoeskimo dwellings areconsidered here. Previous discussions of the MaritimeArchaic have drawn somewhat divergent social infer-ences from dwelling structures (Fitzhugh 1981, 1984,1985a; Hood 1993, 1995), but the methodologicalbasis for these inferences has never been spelled outexplicitly. There have been discussions of methodolo-gies for analyzing Paleoeskimo dwellings (e.g., Dekin1976; Jensen 1996; McChee 1979; Stapert andJohanson 1996), but in many other cases spatial distri-butions are illustrated but not analyzed. Consequently,the main concern in Chapter 3 will be to formulate astrategy to connect some of our interpretive conven-tions with the data by means of fairly explicit analyti-cal arguments. Some would call this middle-range the-ory (Binford 1980), but here it is simply considered asmethodological strategy. An explicit discussion ofmethodology is necessary because "interpretivearchaeology" (which is linked with some of the viewsmentioned above) has often presented narratives thatlack adequate justification of their claims to have rec-ognized a meaningful pattern in the archaeologicalrecord. Such interpretations constitute weak assertionsor advocacy statements rather than analytical argu-ments and are thus subject to accusations that theypresent a "past as wished for" (Renfrew 1 989:36). Theyleap to interpret cultural context, but often fail toengage the archaeological record as an archaeologicalphenomenon.

The methodological strategy outlined in Chapter 3is applied to some, but not all of the material dis-cussed herein. It is most systematically applied inanalyses of the two sites with the best data bases: anEarly-Middle Maritime Archaic site, Nukasusutok-5(Chapters 5, 6 and 7), and a Pre-Dorset site, Attu'sPoint (Chapter 1 3). More limited in scope are the analy-ses of an Early/Middle Dorset locality, Nukasusutok 1 2

(Chapter 10) and the Pre-Dorset site Port Manvers Run-1 (Chapter 12). Other chapters are more descriptive incharacter, providing brief overviews of the smaller orless well-investigated sites on Nukasusutok Island(Chapter 4) and in the Webb Bay Port-Manvers Run area(Chapter 12).

The discussion of regional landscape organizationis taken up primarily in Chapter 14, which considersthe problem of Pre-Dorset/Maritime Archaic socialboundary relations. This chapter is also a reflectionupon how a specific problem in subarctic archaeologyresonates with implications for the broader debatesbetween the competing archaeological ontologies ofhumans as adaptive beings in nature versus humans ascultural beings constructing their own worlds of signif-icance. The problem of working in the area of tensionbetween these "paradigms" is highlighted. Regionaland supra-regional spatial relations are also brieflytouched upon in Chapter 1 1, which outlines data con-cerning the 1 S*-*^ and early 1 9*^*^ century Inuit occupa-tion of Nukasusutok Island. The primary goal of thechapter is to present an overview of collections madein 1 928 by William Duncan Strong and relate them tothe ethnohistorically documented Inuit settlement. Inthe process, some fascinating yet highly fragmentaryglimpses can be had of Inuit life during a time ofmarked changes in settlement and society during thecontact period. These changes played out on both thelocal and supra-regional spatial scales, and were linkedwith the global expansion of the European capitalistWorld System.

The remainder of this introductory chapter pro-vides a background to the descriptive and analyticalcomponents to follow. First up is a brief overview ofarchaeological research history in northern Labradorthat focuses on what is most relevant for contextualiz-ing the issues dealt with in the present volume. Theaim is to show how the present work grew out of theexisting tradition and how some of the questions han-dled here were formulated within this tradition. Thisoverview is followed by a short outline of north-central

2

CHAPTER 1

Labrador culture-history to provide the reader with aframework into which the empirical fragments of thisvolume can be inserted. Thereafter, Chapter 2describes the environmental context of the Nainregion.

A Brief History of Archaeological Research inthe Nain Region and Adjacent Areas

The first professional archaeological fieldwork in theNain region was undertaken by William Duncan Strongin conjunction with the Rawson-MacMillan SubarcticExpedition of 1927-28. Strong conducted ethnograph-ic research among the Davis Inlet and Barren GroundInnu (Naskapi) (Leacock and Rothschild 1994;VanStone 1985) and undertook archaeological surveysalong the central coast between Hopedale and Nain.Three archaeological sites near Hopedale produceddistinctive artifacts that led Strong to postulate theexistence of an "Old Stone Culture" for Labrador(Strong 1930). He concluded that this "Old StoneCulture" was an early Indian complex from whichEskimo culture developed. In the course of his workStrong also investigated prehistoric and historic Inultsites, including those on Nukasusutok Island, but thismaterial was never published except for osteologlcalmaterial taken from graves (Stewart 1939). In 1933and 1 934, Junius B. Bird (1 945) investigated early con-tact period Inult houses in the Hopedale area. Manyyears later, ethnohistorian J. Garth Taylor (1966) visit-ed the Nukasusutok settlement as part of his survey of18'^^ century Labrador Inult settlements in the Nainand Okak regions-

Until the late 1960s there existed only a sketchyoutline of Labrador prehistory based on Elmer Harp's(1963) work in the Strait of Belle Isle, in which hedefined the "Boreal Archaic." William Fitzhugh'sresearch In the Hamilton Inlet region between 1968and 1 972 (Fitzhugh 1972, 1975, 1976, 1978) provid-ed the first culture-history for central Labrador.Fitzhugh also conducted surveys at Thalia Point northof Nain in 1 971 and 1 973, which revealed the first evi-

dence for Pre-Dorset In the Nain region (Fitzhugh1 976:1 03). Between 1 967-1 969, James Tuck excavat-ed the important cemetery at Port au Choix,Newfoundland, which led him to define the MaritimeArchaic Tradition (Tuck 1971, 1976a). Tuck thenundertook a project at Sagiek Bay in northern Labradorfrom 1969-71, an important result of which was evi-dence for the temporal and geographical overlap ofMaritime Archaic and Pre-Dorset. Tuck (1 975:1 95-1 96)speculated on the possibility of technologicalexchanges between the two cultures.

From 1 973 to 1 975 the scale of Fitzhugh's effortsexpanded considerably. In 1973 Fitzhugh (1973) con-ducted a survey of the central coast from HamiltonInlet to Nain. The Nain area was the center of surveysand excavations from 1974-1976, punctuated by theexcavation of a Maritime Archaic cemetery at RattlersBight In Hamilton Inlet in 1 975 and additional surveysof the central coast (Fitzhugh 1976). Related toFitzhugh's work was Richard Jordan's investigation ofcontact period Inult houses at Hamilton Inlet in 1973and 1 975 (R. Jordan 1974, 1978), which focused onsocio-economic changes from the 1 7^^ to 1 9^'^ cen-turies. Jordan's work provided an archaeological con-text for J. Garth Taylor's (1974) ethnohistoric researchon the 18*^*^ century communal house period.Additionally, Steven Cox conducted surveys and exca-vations In the Okak region In 1974 and 1 975. Cox's(1 977) work continued the theme of settlement patternanalysis begun by Fitzhugh at Hamilton Inlet and madeimportant contributions to Maritime Archaic, Pre-Dorset and Dorset culture-history.

Elsewhere, in 1973 and 1974 Robert McGhee andJames Tuck (1975) built upon Harp's earlier surveysalong the Strait of Belle Isle and pushed the occupationhistory of the region back to at least 8500 B.P. (Renouf1977). Their work also provided evidence of earlyMaritime Archaic mortuary ceremonialism at 7500 B.P.(McGhee and Tuck 1 975: Tuck and McGhee 1 975; Tuck1975). From 1973 to 1977, Gilles Samson followed upGeoffrey Conrad's initial reconnaissance at Indian

INTRODUCTION

3

House Lake in the Quebec-Labrador interior with fur-ther surveys, excavations and paleoenvironmentalresearch. Although settlement seems to have beensporadic until the Innu occupation of the historic peri-od, Samson (1978) discovered several sites attributa-ble to the Maritime Archaic Tradition.

By the late 1 970s, Smithsonian fieldwork had pro-duced a solid outline of central and north-central coastculture-history (e.g., Cox 1978; Fitzhugh 1977,1978a,b; R.Jordan 1978; Nagle 1978). In 1977 and1978 the Smithsonian Torngat Archaeological Projectextended research northwards along the TorngatMountain coast all the way to Killinek and the ButtonIslands (Fitzhugh 1980). Major concentrations ofMaritime Archaic and Pre-Dorset settlement were iden-tified in the more southerly section of the project areanear Hebron Fiord. It was on the 1978 season of theTorngat project that the author was initiated intoLabrador archaeology, acquiring a particular taste forthe Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorset. The authorreturned to Labrador in 1979 to undertake a smallscale excavation on a Maritime Archaic site in the Nainarea, which was continued in 1980 (Hood 1981).

In 1980 Fitzhugh began the first of several sea-sons of fieldwork devoted primarily to further study ofthe Maritime Archaic. An important focus of this workwas the development of Maritime Archaic dwellingstructures from small single-family boulder-pits tomulti-family longhouses (Fitzhugh 1981, 1984, 1985a,1985b, 1986). The question of Maritime Archaic/Pre-Dorset cultural boundaries was also explored(Fitzhugh 1 984). During the 1 980s a number of otherSmithsonian-related researchers were active inLabrador. Stephen Loring undertook surveys of theinner bays and islands of the Davis Inlet and Nainregions, focussing on late pre-contact Innu archaeolo-gy (Loring 1983, 1985, 1989, 1992), while SusanKaplan continued her research on historic LabradorInuit settlement and socio-economic change, whichincluded investigations of a Thule component onIglosiatik Island southeast of Nain (Kaplan 1983).

Galium Thomson conducted several years of surveysand excavations at Sagiek Bay in the Torngat region(Thomson 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1986, 1989),uncovering further evidence of Maritime Archaic andPre-Dorset occupation, as well as data pertaining toother cultures and periods, particularly Late Dorset.Cox (1 988) investigated an important Pre-Dorset localeat Nuasornak Island in the Okak region.

Compared with earlier periods, during the late1 980s and early 1 990s northern Labrador archaeologywas relatively quiescent. Kaplan continued with inves-tigations of historic Inuit occupation in the Nain andOkak regions, and Loring conducted excavations ofcontact period Inuit material at the Nain Moravian mis-sion and in the Torngats (Loring 1 998) as well as work-ing with the Innu at interior locations. The authorundertook small scale investigations in the Nain areafrom 1992-1994, which constitute the basis for someof the chapters in this volume.

The nature of Labrador archaeology changed dra-matically in 1995 with the first phase of environmentalimpact studies associated with the Voisey's Bay nickelfind. An intensive survey of the mining concession areabetween Voisey's Bay and Anaktalak Bay was undertak-en in 1996 (Hood and Baikie 1998a; Labreche et al.1997) and exploratory drilling sites all over the Nainarea and in other parts of Labrador were investigatedby contract archaeologists. Mitigation-related field-work has been sporadic in the Nain area in recentyears, but Loring has continued with fieldwork direct-ed towards pre-contact and Innu sites in the interior(Loring 2001) and historic Inuit material in theMakkovik region, while Kaplan has continued her workwith Inuit occupation at Okak. In 1997 the authorundertook survey work in the Hebron and NapartokBay regions aimed at supplementing data on MaritimeArchaic/Pre-Dorset social boundaries (Hood 1998a).

The research tradition outlined here has empha-sized a number of themes that provide a context forthe discussions in this volume. Of primary importanceis Fitzhugh's (1984, 1985a) work on the Maritime

4

CHAPTER 1

Archaic, including dwelling site organization and socialinferences from temporal changes in dwelling struc-tures, mortuary ceremonialism and Ramah chert pro-curement and exchange. The spatial analyses of theEarly-Middle Maritime Archaic site Nukasusutok-5 pre-sented in Chapter 6 are formulated in light of thesediscussions of social organization. A second theme inthe research tradition is Fitzhugh's (1984) and Tuck's(1975) interpretations of Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorset social boundary relationships, which reflectsthe concern for Indian/lnuit contacts that has been aconstant leitmotif since the genesis of discourse onnorthern archaeology and anthropology (Fitzhugh1987; Hood 1998b). The discussion of MaritimeArchaic/Pre-Dorset boundary relations in Chapter 14 isan elaboration on that established theme.

Another primary structuring element in Labradorarchaeology has been the focus on cultural adapta-tions, as seen through settlement patterns and thelense of Steward's (1955) cultural ecology (Fitzhugh1972) and biogeographic theory (Fitzhugh 1997).During the early- to mid-1970s a series of hypotheseswas proposed which related changes in Indian andPaleoeskimo/lnuit population distributions to environ-mental change (e.g., Fitzhugh 1972, 1977). Althoughaccumulating research eventually suggested the postu-lated links between culture change and environmentalchange were too simplistic (Fitzhugh and Lamb 1985),much of northern archaeology continues to pursue arather reductionist ecological program (Hood 1998b).Consequently, one of the strands woven into this vol-ume is a desire to place greater emphasis on internalsocial process and agency, while at the same time sit-uating social strategies within the natural world. Thus,a portion of Chapter 1 4 uses the Pre-Dorset/ MaritimeArchaic boundary issue to reflect upon the possibilitiesof an ecology of social practice.

The next section is an overview of northernLabrador culture-history that provides a framework forpositioning the data and interpretations presented inthe following chapters. There has been no systematic

updated overview of Labrador culture-history since aseries of papers published in 1978 {ArcticAnthropology) and 1980 (Arctic), so that 2 5 year oldframework must still be used as a point of reference.But since the goal of this volume is primarily analysisand interpretation rather than revamping the culture-history, this basic framework is adequate for the taskat hand.

Outline of Central and Northern LabradorCulture-History

Figure 2 presents an outline of central and northernLabrador culture-history. Following the tradition withsuch charts, there is a basic division between Innu/pre-contact Indian and Inuit/Paleoeskimo cultures as wellas a distinction between the central coast (HamiltonInlet) and north coast sequences. The textual overviewis weighted towards the north coast and some of theproblems discussed in this volume. It is divided intoseparate Innu/pre-contact Indian and Inuit/Pre-lnuit("Eskimo") sequences.

Innu/Pre-Contact Indian Sequence

Maritime Archaic

Whether considered as late Paleo-lndian or EarlyArchaic, populations ancestral to the Maritime Archaicprobably colonized southern Labrador by ca. 8500B.P.. Their assemblages are marked by triangularpoints of quartz and quartzite, small quartz scrapersand bipolar cores (McGhee and Tuck 1975; Renouf1977). The archaeological record of the Labrador sideof the Strait of Belle Isle shows a subsequent continu-ous development through the Middle and Late Archaic,as seen in a shift from nipple-based points to formswith well-defined stems (McChee and Tuck 1 975). Thedistinctive mortuary ceremonialism that is one of thedefining characteristics of the Maritime Archaic firstappears at the L'Anse Amour burial mound, dated ca.7500 B.P. (McGhee and Tuck 1 975). By 7500-7000 B.P.,Early Maritime Archaic populations were present onthe central coast of Labrador at Hamilton Inlet

INTRODUCTION

5

BP

Hamilton Inlet

North Coast

Interior

Coast

Innu

Inuit

1000 —

2000 -

3000 -

4000

5000

6000

7000 -

c

(0

c

TO

T5

E

C

Point Revenge Complex

Northwest RiverPhase

David MichelinComplex

Road Component

Charles Complex

Brinex Complex

Little LakeComponent

Daniel RattleComplex

- 1000

Late

2000

Groswater

SaundersComplex

- 3000

Rattler's Bight Phase

Pre-Dorset

o

'03

szo

<

E

CD

Black IslandComplex

Sandy CoveComplex

Nukasusutok-5

NaksakComplex

Hound Pond-4

BP

4000

— 5000

- 6000

7000

2/ Culture-history chart for central and northern Labrador.

6

CHAPTER 1

(Fitzhugh 1978a:69) and in the Nain region atBallybrack-10, where two burial mounds resemblingthose at L'Anse Amour were excavated (Fitzhugh1978a:82, 86-87). Ballybrack Mound-2 was dated7065±70 B.P..

The Early to Middle Maritime Archaic in the Nainand Okak regions was grouped within a vaguelydefined Naksak Complex (Fitzhugh 1978a:72) whichextended from 7000-5000 B.P.. The earliest compo-nents contain nipple-based points, lanceolate bi-point-ed bifaces, triangular points and side-notched bifacesof Ramah chert, quartz and quartzite, endscrapers ofMugford chert, a ground slate component of celts,adzes and gouges, with occasional ulus and projectilepoints, and a high frequency of bipolar cores {piecesescjuillees). Lithic raw materials are dominated byquartz, although this is mostly used for flake produc-tion through bipolar percussion, but there are alsovarying quantities of Ramah chert, Mugford cherts,slate and quartzite (Fitzhugh 1978a:72). Sites of thepartly overlapping Sandy Cove Complex (6000-4500B.P.) at Hamilton Inlet exhibit similarities in stemmedpoints and in the predominance of quartz debitageand bipolar cores, but they lack endscrapers. Moderatefrequencies of Ramah chert in the Nain area sites indi-cate regular excursions to the chert sources at RamahBay 300 km to the north, but the paucity of Ramahchert at Hamilton Inlet suggests that supply lines weremostly restricted to the north at this time.

A raised beach sequence at Aillik, near Makkovik,in combination with several other localities, producedevidence of temporal changes in the form of MaritimeArchaic dwelling structures (Fitzhugh 1984). Prior to6000 B.P., dwellings consisted of small boulder pit-houses, 3.0-3.5 m in diameter, and rectangular surfacetent rings partitioned into two to five segments by rockdividers. Fitzhugh (2002:7) reports a radiocarbon dateof 6870±1 80 B.P. for a 1 0 m long, four segment struc-ture at Aillik, and a date of 6400±1 1 0 B.P. from an 8 mlong, five segment structure from the same beachlevel. During the course of the sixth millennium B.P.

there was a development towards larger rectangularstructures 9-16 m long divided into three or four seg-ments (Fitzhugh 1 984, 1 985a). The pit-houses and rec-tangular structures may represent spring and fall sites(Fitzhugh 1 985a:88), but the settlement pattern of theEarly-Middle Maritime Archaic is by no means clear.The general model has been one of outer coastal set-tlement from spring to fall and inner bay settlement infall and winter (Fitzhugh 1 978a;83-84), but the limitedwork in the inner bays and near interior has not pro-duced evidence for probable winter sites, althoughnew Maritime Archaic localities have been identified(Labreche et al. 1997; Loring 2001).

The period between 5000-4200 B.P. is perhaps themost poorly known part of the northern LabradorMaritime Archaic sequence. Components dated to thistime have been identified in the Nain and Okak regions(Cox 1 977:1 84-1 94; Fitzhugh 1 978a:77), with the gen-eral impression that they exhibit stylistic developmenttowards later Rattlers Bight Phase tool forms. AtHamilton Inlet there is an intrusion of southernLabrador-affiliated Maritime Archaic material between4500-4200 B.P.— the Black Island Complex (Fitzhugh1975, 1 978a:69-70)— marked by side-notched projec-tile points and rhyolitic chert raw materials. Linear dis-tributions of hearths at Okak-2 and Black lsland-2 sug-gest the use of longhouse tent dwellings ranging from30-50 m long (Fitzhugh 1981:17-18).

The Late Maritime Archaic Rattlers Bight Phase(4200-3500 B.P.) is the most thoroughly investigatedpart of the Maritime Archaic time sequence, mainlythrough excavations of large habitation sites atHamilton Inlet (Fitzhugh 1 972, 1975, 1 978a) and atNulliak Cove north of Hebron Fjord (Fitzhugh 1981,1984, 1985a). At Rattlers Bight in Hamilton Inlet asmall cemetery consisting of nine red ocher burialshad grave goods that included chunks and tools ofRamah chert, soapstone implements, ground slatetools, mica sheets and copper. Differences in the dis-tribution of grave goods between the burials ledFitzhugh (1978a:85, 2002) to suggest some degree of

INTRODUCTION

7

status differentiation. At Nulliak Cove, two of fourboulder-constructed burial mounds were excavated.Mound 1 contained ca. 90 artifacts in a red ocher-linedpit, including Ramah chert points and bifaces, slatecelts and mica sheets, while Mound 2 contained fewergrave goods: a Ramah chert point, a copper pendant,mica and a walrus tusk (Fitzhugh 1981:12, 2002).From the same period, the Port au Choix cemetery onthe west coast of Newfoundland contained the remainsof 100 individuals (Tuck 1976). During this phase theLabrador flaked stone technology was almost totallycomposed of Ramah chert. The occurrence of Ramahchert in contemporary sites along the U.S. east coast,as well as the presence in Labrador Maritime Archaicsites of non-local materials such as soapstone, micaand copper, indicates the operation of widespreadexchange systems.

The apparent increase in the size of MaritimeArchaic dwellings noted after 5000 B.P. reached itspeak in the Rattlers Bight Phase, with longhouse fea-tures ranging in size from 15-100 m long. In mostcases these have been inferred from linear distribu-tions of hearths and lithic materials representing theremains of surface tent structures, but in one exempla-ry case at Aillik (Makkovik) a 28 m long structure divid-ed into seven internal segments was excavated into acobble beach (Fitzhugh 1981, 1984, 1985a). If themarked segments and hearth-centered lithic distribu-tions can be interpreted as individual family livingfloors, then these longhouses may have housed 50-100 individuals (Fitzhugh 1984:20). At Nulliak Cove,north of Hebron Fjord, there are traces of 27 suchstructures, suggesting the site was a repeatedly usedstaging area for expeditions to the Ramah chert quar-ries (Fitzhugh 1 985b:49-50). Seen as a whole, the evi-dence for large co-residential groups, mortuary dis-tinctions and exchange systems has suggested someform of social "complexity" had developed during theLate Maritime Archaic, although it is by no means clearhow that complexity should be characterized (Fitzhugh1981, 1985a, 2002, 2006; Hood 1993, 1995).

The disappearance of the northern LabradorMaritime Archaic from the archaeological record after3500 B.P. remains one of the most vexing problems inLabrador prehistory. This occurred after a several hun-dred year co-existence with the Pre-DorsetPaleoeskimo people, who colonized Labrador ca. 4000B.P.. About the time the Maritime Archaic disappearedanother Indian sequence began: a series ofIntermediate Indian complexes.

Intermediate Indians

The Intermediate Indian period of Labrador began ca.3500 B.P. and continued until 1500 B.P. at HamiltonInlet, but only until 2800 B.P. on the north-centralcoast (Fitzhugh 1 972; Nagle 1 978). The Hamilton Inletsequence is marked by a discontinuous series of sixarchaeological units. Most of these assemblages aredominated by interior cherts and quartzites which,together with implement styles, suggest affiliationwith interior-based cultural traditions. On the north-central coast another archaeological unit has beendefined: the Saunders Complex (3500-2800 B.P.). Thiscomplex has stylistic similarities with the Brinex andCharles Complexes at Hamilton Inlet, but contains con-siderable quantities of chert from the Cape Mugfordregion north of Okak Bay. Sites consist of cobblehearths and lithic scatters and occur mostly in innerbay and inner island contexts. Traces of the SaundersComplex have been found as far north as Hebron Fjord(Hood 1 998a; Nagle 1 978). This coastal activity opensup the possibilities for interactions with Late Pre-Dorset peoples. After the disappearance of theSaunders Complex there is, as yet, no archaeologicalevidence for Indian occupation of the north-centralcoast until the Late Pre-Contact Period.

Late Pre-Contact Indians

The Late Pre-Contact Indian occupation of central andnorthern Labrador has been divided into two archaeo-logical units. The Daniel Rattle Complex (1800-1000B.P.) differs from the earlier Intermediate Indian com-

8

CHAPTER 1

plexes in its near exclusive use of Ramah chert forstone tools. Its settlement pattern is broadly similar tothe preceding Saunders Complex, with most sites situ-ated in inner bay and inner island locations, but thereare also sites on exposed headlands suggestive ofgreater use of marine resources. No sites have beenfound north of the Nain area. Traces of large tentstructures resembling the ethnographically document-ed Innu shaputuan have been identified; these weremulti-family longhouses that could be used for ritualpurposes. Given the contemporary presence of MiddleDorset occupation in the Nain region and the rest ofnorthern Labrador, the heavy use of Ramah chert byDaniel Rattle groups raises questions concerning therole of Dorset peoples in chert acquisition (Loring1992:329-342).

The Point Revenge Complex (1 000-400 B.P.) devel-oped out of the Daniel Rattle Complex and must repre-sent an ancestral Innu population. Settlement sites arefound as far north as Nain, while trace occurrences ofPoint Revenge material are found as far north as SagiekBay. Settlement remains include a large tent ring(Fitzhugh 1978b), hearths and concentrations ofcrushed calcined bone. Like Daniel Rattle, PointRevenge sites are also marked by near-exclusive use ofRamah chert, so questions of cultural interaction withLate Dorset and Thule populations are pertinent(Loring 1992:343-408).

Inuit/Pre-lnuit Sequence

Pre-Dorset

The Pre-Dorset colonization of northern Labrador ca.4000 B.P. (Fitzhugh (2002:142, 145; 2006) marks thefirst arrival of Paleoeskimo people in northernLabrador. They brought with them an Arctic Small ToolTradition technology composed of microblades, burinsand harpoon delivery systems that differed radicallyfrom their Maritime Archaic contemporaries. Theirchoice of lithic materials was heavily weighted towardsthe fine-grained cherts found in the Cape Mugfordregion north of Okak, although varying amounts of

Ramah chert and slate were also employed. Early Pre-Dorset materials are mostly found in northernLabrador as far south as the Nain area; the southern-most site is situated at Windy Tickle north of Hopedale(Fitzhugh 1977:21). Late Pre-Dorset sites (3500-2800B.P.) are relatively few, but this may be partly a visibil-ity problem resulting from limited typological changeover time and few radiocarbon dates (Cox 1978,1988). By 3000-2800 B.P. there are clear indicationsthat Pre-Dorset began developing in situ into what istermed the Croswater Phase.

Pre-Dorset settlement patterns are assumed to besimilar to those of the Maritime Archaic, involvingspring-fall occupation of outer coastal areas and fall-winter use of the inner bay areas. But as with theMaritime Archaic there are no convincing candidatesfor inner bay winter sites. Compared with the LateMaritime Archaic multi-family longhouse settlements,Pre-Dorset sites are small, consisting of 1-3 tentdwellings. In some cases Pre-Dorset sites consist onlyof lithic scatters, in other cases traces of a hearth ortent ring may be present. Several well-preserved axialstructures with box-hearths and heating rocks havebeen identified.

Pre-Dorset and Maritime Archaic populations over-lapped between 4000-3500 B.P.. The social boundaryrelationship between the two cultures is one of theimportant questions of Labrador archaeology and maybe an significant factor in the eventual disappearanceof the Maritime Archaic. Similar boundary questionsmight be raised regarding Pre-Dorset and theIntermediate Indian Saunders Complex.

Croswater Phase

By 2800 B.P. the stylistic changes in Late Pre-Dorsetare sufficient to mark the emergence of the CroswaterPhase. Microblades increase in frequency, distinctiveside-notched flat-based harpoon endblades appear, asdoes an array of side-notched bifaces, while burins arenow side-notched and facially ground. Lithic materialsconsist of a combination of radiolarian cherts from the

INTRODUCTION

9

Newfoundland west coast and Ramah chert. Groswatersettlement is concentrated in Newfoundland, southernLabrador and the central Labrador coast north toPostville. Relatively few Groswater localities have beenregistered on the north coast of Labrador. Settlementpatterns are characterized as similar to Pre-Dorset,with spring-fall occupation of the outer coast and fall-winter sites in the inner bays. In this case, however,there is at least one good candidate for an inner baywinter site, at Postville on Kaipokok Bay (Loring andCox 1986). Groswater dwellings consist of slab pave-ments with box-hearths (Cox 1978; Fitzhugh 1972;Loring and Cox 1986). Labrador Groswater has beendated as late as 2200 B.P..

Dorset

About 2500 B.P., populations similar to central ArcticEarly Dorset colonized northern Labrador, moving asfar south as the Nain-Okak regions. Early Dorset dif-fered substantially from Groswater, with whom theyoverlapped for a few hundred years. The Early Dorset(2500-2000 B.P.) tool assemblage included tip-flutedharpoon endblades, nephrite burin-like tools, soap-stone vessels and near-exclusive use of Ramah chertfor flaked tools. They also utilized semi-subterraneanwinter houses (Cox 1978). Relatively few Early Dorsetsites have been registered; the major localities arelocated at Okak and Seven Islands Bay in the northernTorngat Mountain region (Fitzhugh 1 980). It is not cer-tain whether Early Dorset developed locally into theMiddle Dorset phase (2000-1400 B.P.), but the largenumber of Middle Dorset sites constitute the mostextensive Dorset occupation of the Labrador coast.Traces between Nain and Hamilton Inlet are limited,but several sites are known along the coast south ofHamilton Inlet (Stopp 1 997). This was also a period ofmajor Dorset activity on the island of Newfoundland(Renouf 1 993). Middle Dorset settlement patterns wereanchored at winter semi-subterranean house sites,often in outer island locations within several kilome-ters of the landfast ice-edge. Some of these sites seem

to have been based on fall-early winter sealing, withmid-winter to early spring movement to camps closerto the ice-edge, while others contain significant com-ponents of walrus that suggest occupation in mid-win-ter and spring (Cox and Spiess 1980). Cox and Spiess(1980) suggested that Middle Dorset lacked breathinghole sealing techniques. Spring-fall settlement, associ-ated with tent ring dwellings, was spread over outerand inner coastal islands in the Nain and Okak areas.The degree to which the inner bays and fjords wereused seems to vary regionally, although this may be anartifact of survey coverage. Middle Dorset sites are vir-tually absent from the inner bays of the Nain regionand are sparse on the inner islands. At Okak sites arealso lacking in the inner bays but they are common onthe inner islands. There is little evidence of Dorsetactivity in the inner reaches of Sagiek Bay (Thomson1986), but sod houses are known from inner fjordlocations at Nachvak and Hebron (Cox and Spiess1980; Fitzhugh 1980; Hood 1998a). Analysis of thedistribution patterns of Ramah chert, soapstone, andNewfoundland cherts indicates the operation ofexchange networks and population movement alongthe Labrador coast (Nagle 1984).

Late Dorset (1400-800 B.P.) occupation ofLabrador was less extensive than during the MiddleDorset Period, being limited to the Nain region andnorthwards. There were shifts in tool types and settle-ment characteristics that raise questions about cultur-al continuity with Middle Dorset. Semi-subterraneanhouses were shallower and lacked middens, suggest-ing use limited to fall and early winter, with mid-winterto spring use of snow houses (Cox 1978; Fitzhugh1980). The presence of Ramah chert-using Late Pre-Contact Indian groups along the central coast and inthe Nain-Okak areas during both the Middle and LateDorset periods means that questions of social bound-aries and interaction need to be considered.

10

CHAPTER 1

Thule/lnuit

The earliest dates attributed to the Thule colonizationof Labrador range between 800-600 B.P. (AD 1000-1 400; Fitzhugh 1 994), but the tendency of Thule to re-occupy Late Dorset house sites raises problems of dat-ing context. At present it seems best to regard the ear-liest dates as uncertain and the Thule arrival inLabrador as dating sometime after AD 1250-1300.Given the dating problems it is uncertain whether earlyThule peoples would have encountered Late Dorsetpopulations in northern Labrador. The Thule culturebrought to Labrador a very different organizationalsystem than that found in Dorset, marked by bowheadwhale hunting and the expanded transport possibili-ties of dog sleds and large boats (umiaks). During theearliest period of Thule/lnuit occupation (AD 1 300-1 600), their winter settlements were marked by roundhouses constructed of stone, wood, whalebone andsod, with entrance passages, cold traps and rear sleep-ing platforms. Sometimes houses shared a commonentrance passage. Snow houses were also used duringthe winter and in the spring, and tent dwellings andstone-walled shelters from spring to fall. Lack of bonepreservation in the middens limits the range of infer-ences that can be drawn concerning subsistence-set-tlement patterns, but sea mammal exploitation wasprobably central. Tools of organic materials are alsopoorly preserved, but the lithic material is marked bydrilled slate harpoon endblades, ulus, nephrite tools,and soapstone vessels (Kaplan 1983:216-230). EarlyContact Period Thule is represented in the Nain regionby sod houses at the lglosiatik-1 site, some with tracesof metal, that apparently date to the early 16'^'^ centu-ry (Fitzhugh 1994:258; Kaplan 1983:216, 455-462).

R. Jordan (1977, 1978) and Jordan and Kaplan(1980) maintained that the 17"^*^ century Inuit settle-ment in Hamilton Inlet represented the southernmostpermanent Inuit occupation and that Inuit activity insouthern Labrador during the 1 6*^^ -1 8'^'^ centuries waslimited to seasonal trading with Europeans and theraiding of their establishments. But documentary infor-

mation and archaeological data suggest the Inuit pres-ence in southern Labrador was a more substantialyear-round occupation that began in the mid-1 500s,concomitant with expanding European fishing andwhaling (Basque, French, English, Portugese andSpanish) and lasted until the mid-1 700s, when theincreasing scale of European activity may have led to acontraction of Inuit occupancy towards Hamilton Inlet(Auger 1 991; Martijn and Clermont 1 980; Stopp 2002).The 1 7^^ century Inuit settlement of the north-centralcoast was marked by houses similar to Thule formsand the continued use of lithic tools, except atHamilton Inlet where slate and nephrite were replacedby metal. European goods, possibly Basque and Dutch,were common at Hamilton Inlet and Hopedale, butgenerally rare further north (Kaplan 1 983:230-235).

During the 18*^*^ century a series of changesoccurred, with a shift towards larger multi-family com-munal houses in northern Labrador and increasingreplacement of traditional material culture withEuropean goods. These goods were obtained fromFrench traders at Chateau Bay and Hamilton Inlet andthen later from English traders in the Cape Charlesregion and the Moravian missionary centers that wereestablished in north-central Labrador in the years after1771. The multi-family households were sometimesled by "big-man" traders, middlemen in the baleentrade with the Europeans (R. Jordan 1978; Jordan andKaplan 1980; Kaplan 1983, 1985; Taylor 1974).Christianization of most of the north-central coastInuit occurred by the second decade of the 1 9*^*^ centu-ry, which resulted in a seasonal centralization of settle-ment at the missions and a shift to single-family hous-ing. But non-Christian Inuit continued to dominatenorthernmost Labrador until the gradual establish-ment of more northerly missions in 1830 and there-after (Loring 1 998).

INTRODUCTION

Environment of tne Nain Reeion

Labrador is a land of sharp contrasts. Its coast is analmost 1 200 km long ecotone in which arctic and sub-arctic environments are juxtaposed. The cold south-ward flowing Labrador Current carries pack ice alongthe coast and contributes to the formation of extensivelandfast ice during the winter. A narrow coastal strip oftundra vegetation extends all the way from Killinek inthe north to the Strait of Belle Isle in the south. In con-trast, the vast interior is covered with boreal forest,bogs and innumerable lakes. The present northernlimit of trees is located at Napartok Bay, 1 30 km northof Nain (Figure 1; Elliott and Short 1 979).

Paralleling this environmental contrast is a cultur-al juxtaposition. Broadly speaking, during the post-contact period, Inuit people have been associated pri-marily with the coastal tundra zone, although theyhave used the interior seasonally. Innu ("Naskapi") peo-ple have focused their land use on the subarctic interi-or and the inner bays and islands of the coastal zone.The shifting relationship between these ecological andcultural boundaries is a central theme in Labradorarchaeology.

This chapter begins with a geographical overviewof the Nain region, then moves on to outline itsbedrock and Quaternary geology. After a brief synop-sis of paleoenvironmental changes evident in pollencore data, a summary of historic land-use in the Nainregion is presented. This is followed by more specificdescriptions of two areas; Nukasusutok Island andWebb Bay/Port Manvers Run.

OVERVIEW OF THE NAIN REGION

The town of Nain is presently the northernmost perma-nent community in Labrador. The surrounding coastalregion (Figure 3) is an archipelago of over two hundredislands that range in size from the smallest of skerriesto the massive bulk of 140 km long South AulatsivikIsland. The higher elevations on these islands mostlyrange from 250-500 m, although Mt. Thoresby at thenorth end of South Aulatsivik Island rises to ca. 900 m.Passages between the islands vary from wide expans-es of deep water to narrow, shoal, tidal "rattles." Theregion can be categorized into three major ecologicalzones: outer islands, inner islands and bays, and theinterior plateau. The outer island fringe is composedof numerous windswept islands with predominantlytundra vegetation. The inner island belt consists ofseveral large and numerous small islands which bearscrub birch and willow vegetation and stands of blackspruce in sheltered areas. The spruce-forested innerbays cut into the edge of the interior plateau and sev-eral river valleys extend inland from the bays, provid-ing transportation routes into the interior. The mostimportant of these are the Fraser River, west of Nain,and the Kogaluk River {Emish-shipu is the Innutoponym) to the southwest of Nain in the Voisey's Bayregion. Most of the interior plateau ranges in elevationfrom 250-350 m and has a predominantly tundra veg-etation. The Kiglapait Mountains constitute a borderwith the Okak region to the north; these peaks rangeover 800 m.

ENVIRONMNENT

13

|?i..-1995 Canadian Space Agency1996 Agence spatiale canadienne'

4/ RADARSAT synthetic aperture radar satellite photo of the Main district. TakenMarch 20, 1996. Open water areas in black; gray line marks the edge of thelandfast ice (sina): white arrow indicates Nukasusutok Island. Photo supplied by theCanadian Ice Service, © Canadian Space Agency

Climatically, the north coast of Labrador is affect-ed by both continental and maritime air masses. Duringthe summer westerly winds may bring warm dry weath-er from the interior; during the winter they are usuallythe purveyors of cold and predominantly clear condi-tions. Easterly winds bring cold weather in summer, rel-atively warm conditions in winter and carry most of theprecipitation in both seasons (Tanner 1 944:302-308).The January temperature at Hopedale (the closest long-term meteorological station to Nain) averages -16.4 Cand the August average is 10.6 C. Total precipitationamounts to 822 mm annually and the average wintersnowfall is 445 cm (Environment Canada 2002).

Tanner (1944:289) des-cribed summers on theLabrador coast as "character-ized by exceedingly unstableweather" because of the con-stant shift between warm conti-nental and cold maritime condi-tions. Although this was certain-ly the case during the 1979fieldwork, during the 1990sthere have been extended peri-ods of warm dry conditions.Late in August and intoSeptember northeasterly galesoccur frequently. Snow maybegin to fall in mid-September.

One of the most importantenvironmental factors forhumans along the Labradorcoast is ice distribution. Thereare two different types of ice:pack ice and landfast ice. Packice drifts southward along theLabrador Current. The positionof the pack ice is dependent onwind conditions; westerlies dis-perse the ice, pushing it out tosea, but easterlies push itagainst the coastline and the landfast ice. Pack ice gen-erally disappears by early to mid-July, although withconsistent onshore winds it can persist into August.Besides being a navigational hazard, pack ice is impor-tant because seals, walrus and polar bears usually fol-low its movements.

Landfast ice is attached to the landmass of thebays and islands and extends seaward after freeze-up.In Nain the average freeze-up occurs by December 10,while an early freeze-up could occur in late November.Ice that is safe for human travel by dog sled or snow-mobile may extend 40 to 50 km east from Nain,depending on the presence of islands which facilitate

14

CHAPTER 2

anchoring. At the outer edge of the landfast ice theremay be open water, known as the sina, in which seamammals may be hunted from the ice edge or withkayaks. Frequently, however, the pack ice may drift upagainst the landfast ice and eliminate these open waterareas. The position of the sina varies annually andmonthly; Figure 4 is a RADARSAT synthetic apertureradar satellite photo that shows the contact zonebetween the landfast and pack ice on March 20, 1996.Strong currents in tidal "rattles" maintain polynyas,open areas within the landfast ice. In the Main areasuch regular open water areas can be found near theeastern ends of Strathcona and Harmony Runs, the"Second Rattle" on Port Manvers Run, near Tabor Islandand the narrows at Tikkoatokak Bay. More variableopenings occur in other areas. The satellite photoshows that the area between Nukasusutok Island,Humby's Island and Iglosiatik Island had relatively thinIce in March. The ice in this area tends to thin outquickly in the spring sun and develop early openingsbecause of ocean swells. Break-up of the landfast icegenerally occurs in mid-June, but pack ice can blocknavigation well after this date. In both 1 992 and 1 993it was almost August before the first coastal freightboat could make its way up the coast to Nain.

Bedrock Geology of the Nain Region

The earliest rocks of the northern Labrador coast arethe gneisses of the Archean Nain Province (> 2.5 Ca).In the Nain region, these outcrop primarily in a bandbetween Okak and Webb Bay. Otherwise, most of therocks that make up the Nain archipelago are part ofthe Middle Proterozoic Nain Plutonic Suite (1.6-1.0 Ca),which consists mostly of anorthosite, troctolite, dioriteand granite (Ryan 1990; Ryan et al. 1995). Thisbedrock geology does not provide a great deal of rawmaterial that would be sought after by stone knappers.Vein quartz is abundant throughout the region andwas used frequently in the Early-Middle periods of theMaritime Archaic. A particularly large quartz veinoccurs on one of the Red Islands, east of Paul Island. A

prehistorically quarried quartz crystal outcrop, possi-bly used by Pre-Dorset, is located on "No Name Island"just east of Nukasusutok Island (Fitzhugh 1 981:30).

Aside from those mentioned above, virtually allthe lithic materials required for prehistoric technologyhad to be acquired from outside the Nain region.Ramah chert, used extensively by the MaritimeArchaic, Dorset and Pre-lnnu peoples, is derived fromthe Ramah Croup, which outcrops between Ramah Bayand Nachvak Fiord, ca. 300 km north of Nain (Cramly1978; Lazenby 1980). Mugford chert, used extensivelyby Pre-Dorset, but also by Early/Middle MaritimeArchaic and Intermediate Indian peoples, is found inthe Mugford Croup, 1 50 km north of Nain betweenOkak and Napartok Bay (Cramly 1978; Lazenby 1980).Slates were used for ground tools by the MaritimeArchaic, the Thule/lnuit and occasionally by Dorsetpeoples. Specific slate sources have not been identi-fied, but it is likely that many slates were derived fromthe Mugford Croup.

Soapstone sources in central and northernLabrador have been documented from an archaeologi-cal perspective by Nagle (1 984) and from an economicgeology perspective by Meyer and Montague (1993,1994, 1995). No soapstone sources are currentlyknown in the Nain area. The place name SoapstoneTickle, between the Red Islands, hints at a possiblesource, but the location is not known to local carvers.Otherwise, the nearest sources of soapstone are either100 km north of Nain in the Okak region or 80 km tothe south at Freestone Harbour near Utshimassits(Davis Inlet).

Paleoenvironmental Change

The post-glacial marine emergence chronology of theNain area is based largely on radiocarbon datedarchaeological sites on raised beaches (Fitzhugh 1977,Clark and Fitzhugh 1990, 1992). The oldest radiocar-bon date in the area is 7800±130 B.P. (reservoir cor-rected 7760±65 B.P.) on a geological sample of marineshells from 36 m on South Aulatsivik Island (Johnson

ENVIRONMNENT

15

1 985:75; Clark and Fitzhugh 1990:301). The earliestarchaeological radiocarbon date is 7065±70 B.P. fromthe Early Maritime Archaic Ballybrack-1 0 site, locatedat 41 m on South Aulatsivik Island (Fitzhugh 1978:85;Clark and Fitzhugh 1990:301). When these dates andelevations are linked with later dates from archaeolog-ical sites as well as a marine limit determination of71 m, the estimated uplift curve suggests a date of ca.8500 B.P. for the marine limit and the deglaciation ofthe outer coast of the Nain archipelago (Clark andFitzhugh 1990:302).

There have been suggestions that uplift rates dif-fer between the outer coast and the inner bays.According to Clark and Fitzhugh (1992:200) forHamilton Inlet and Johnson (1 985:74) for the TorngatMountain region, the inner bay marine limit is youngerand lower. In the Nain area, Johnson (1969:1 10) iden-tified the marine limit at Webb Bay as lying at 41 m,substantially lower than the 71 m determined ca. 22km to the east on South Aulatsivik Island. More recentinvestigations along Reid Brook between inner Voisey'sBay and inner Anaktalak Bay— south and 1 5 km westof Johnson's research area— place the marine limit at93±2 m and provide a radiocarbon date of 7580±70B.P. (7485±45 B.P., reservoir corrected) for marineshell at 50 m (Bell 1997). Johnson's marine limit musttherefore be incorrect and the proposed differences inouter/inner coast uplift regimes are contradicted bythe new data from Voisey's Bay.

Figure 5 depicts the relative sea level curve pre-sented by Clark and Fitzhugh (1990) together withBell's (1 997) suggested curve for Voisey's Bay. The lat-ter should be treated with caution since it is a simpleexponential projection based on the local marine limit,the single radiocarbon date and undated marine ter-race elevations. Nonetheless, the Voisey's Bay curvesuggests greater uplift in the inland area, which wouldbe expected from an ice sheet that was thicker inlandand thinning towards the coast. The archaeological

100

01 23456789 10

BP (1000)

5/ Relative sea level curves for Nain and inner Voisey's Bay(after Clark and Fitzhugh 1990 and Bell 1997). Sitesmarked: Nukasusutok-5, Area 2 (N5A2), Nukasusutok-5,Area 3 (N5A3). Attu's Bight (AB), Attu's Point (AP) andNukasusutok 12 (N12).

Study area at Webb Bay probably lies somewherebetween these uplift profiles. Some of the archaeolog-ical sites discussed in the text are marked on the dia-gram; their positioning will be discussed later.

During the 1970s, interest in the relationshipbetween climate change and culture change (e.g.,Fitzhugh 1972, 1977a) was pursued through the col-lection of pollen data from several locations in north-ern and central Labrador. As part of this program, onecore was taken from Nain Pond (Short 1978), but itproved problematic because of reversed datings in thestratigraphic sequence. Similarities with cores taken inthe Okak area, however, permitted reasonable extrap-olations. Cores were also taken in 1939 by Wenner(1947), but these are of limited utility since they pre-date the use of radiocarbon dating. Generally, thepollen data indicate the area was deglaciated by10,500 B.P. and that by 9000 B.P. the ice front stood

cf. Tanner's (1 944:245) determination of the marine limit at 83 m on Sandy Island, 20 km east of South Aulatsivik Island.

16

CHAPTER 2

on the interior plateau, at least 1 00 km from the coast.The post-glacial period was marked by tundra vegeta-tion until a transition to shrub tundra with a strongbirch and alder component ca. 6700-6500 B.P.. After4500 B.P., an open spruce woodland was present.Climatic cooling is indicated after 3500 B.P. (Short1978:32).

Initial efforts at dendrochronology in the Nainarea began in the early 1970s, but the informationonly extended back to 1 769 (H.E. Wright, InternationalDendrochronologicai Data Base, National Oceanic andAtmospheric Administration [NOAA] 2003). Additionaldata are currently being collected, but the work is stillat a preliminary stage. The other source of climate-related information is the oxygen isotope data fromthe Greenland ice cores. These data provide muchhigher chronological resolution than the pollen cores,but their high frequency variations can be difficult tointerpret and attempts to correlate them with coarselydated archaeological entities are problematic. InChapter 14, ice core and pollen data are combined todiscuss environmental changes relevant to under-standing shifts in Maritime Archaic settlement and thesocial boundary problems subsequent to Pre-Dorsetcolonization.

Recent Seasonal Resource Use in the NainRegion

Brice-Bennett (1977) outlines the seasonal varia-tions in Nain region fauna and the concomitant pat-terning of human activities during the 20^'^ century.The following discussion is based on her account aswell as Taylor (1974), with supplemental informationderived from local informants and personal observa-tion. The coastal resources are discussed first, fol-lowed by inner bay/interior species.

In early spring Canada geese and various migrato-ry duck species return north and are hunted in early tomid-May. Later in the spring and the early summer,eggs are collected from duck and gull nesting areas.After break-up in mid-June, the migratory harp seal

moves north from its whelpmg grounds offNewfoundland following schools of capelin. Largenumbers can be netted or shot as they enter the baystraveling in herds. Although most of the harps summeroff west Greenland they can occasionally be found inLabrador waters during the summer. The ringed seal ispresent year round in the Nain area, although ecologi-cal studies by Boles et al. (1980:54) suggest that dur-ing the summer some may migrate from the centralcoast to locations north of Okak. Harbor and grey sealshaul out on seaward islands in the spring and break-upis said to be a good time for hunting bearded seals.During the open water season seals are most frequent-ly encountered in the outer island areas, but manymove up the bays with high tide.

Fishing was the major summer activity in the Nainarea until the recent downturn in fish stocks. Arcticchar begin their seaward runs from the rivers in earlyJune and spend the summer among the islands untilmid-August, when they return upriver to spawn.Salmon are fished in late July and August and cod inAugust and September. Minke and white whales areseen occasionally. Bowhead whales once frequentedthe Labrador coast, although they were rarely huntedby 18'^'^ century Inuit in the Nain area, possiblybecause poor bathymetric conditions reduced the like-lihood of their entering the bays (Taylor 1 988:1 25).

In the fall, Canada geese are pursued beginningthe last week of August. Their main southward move-ment occurs in mid-September and few remain afterOctober 25. Ducks and various sea birds are alsoexploited. In September, ringed, young bearded, greyand harbour seals move into the bays to feed. Brice-Bennett (1977:144) notes that the beginning of theharp seal southern migration varies from lateSeptember or October to late November or December.The later the commencement of the migration themore likely it is that the harps will stay seaward toavoid the already frozen coastal areas. Late andearly 1 9'^'^ century Inuit settlements tended to be locat-ed in good locations for fall harp sealing (Taylor

ENVIRONMNENT

17

1974:51) and numerous references in the MoravianPeriodical Accounts make clear the importance of thefall seal hunt for storing up supplies for the winter.

When ice formation begins in the bays, most ofthe seals that had previously been feeding there shiftseaward. Those that are trapped in the bays afterfreeze-up are hunted basking on the ice, through theirbreathing holes or in patches of open water. Duringthe winter, ringed seals are found in open water at thesina and at breathing holes. March is the worst monthfor sealing because pack ice jams against the landfastice and eliminates the leads of open water. ComeApril, ringed seals may be encountered basking on theice beside their breathing holes or at the sima.

Walrus are rare today in the Nain region, but theyformerly appeared at the sina in February and March.Polar bears move south with the pack ice, inhabitingthe sina and coastal headlands from March until May.If the pack ice lingers until later in the summer, bothpolar bears and walrus may be found occasionally nearthe outer islands, although the bears sometimes wan-der as far up the bays as Tikkoatokak.

Caribou is the main resource exploited by humansin the inner bays and on the interior plateau. Althoughthey may be hunted at any time of the year, their hidesare best for clothing in September and October. Brice-Bennett (1 977:1 58-1 59) notes the winter core areas forinterior caribou herds, the nearest concentrations toNain being in the Kiglapait Mountains, near KingurutikLake and between Tasisuak Lake and Anaktalik Brook.The geographical range of caribou varies over time.Prior to the mid-1960s, caribou primarily frequentedthe interior plateau, requiring lengthy hunting tripsinland (Brice-Bennett 1 977:1 55). For example, in 1 780Moravian missionary William Turner accompanied Inuitcaribou hunters on two trips up the Fraser River valleyand onto the plateau, up to 80 km inland from Nain(Taylor 1 969). At this time, prior to the Inuit accessingfirearms, the Inuit brought kayaks inland on their latesummer hunt (August-September) and travelled withdog sleds on a winter hunt (February). Meat might be

cached for emergency use later in the winter. In morerecent years, large caribou herds have moved outtowards the coast, crossing over the sea ice to theouter islands. Most of these animals return inlandbefore break-up, but some are trapped on the islandsfor the summer. Caribou are also encountered sporad-ically in the inner bays between spring and fall.

Other animal species found in the interior or alongthe inner bays include: black bear, fox, wolf, arctichare, wolverine, otter, mink, muskrat and lynx. Blackbears, hare and fox can also be found on some of thelarger coastal islands. During the winter, wolves maymove over the sea ice to the islands in pursuit of cari-bou. The economically significant terrestrial birds arerock and spruce ptarmigan, which today are hunted inApril/May when there is a heavy snow cover and it isstill possible to travel over the sea ice.

Nukasusutok Island

Nukasusutok Island (NaKasetjutok in the currentorthography) is located about 30 km southeast ofNain. According to Wheeler (1953:62-63), the island'sInuktitut name means "the place where the brothersquarreled." That name may be illuminated by ethnohis-toric information suggesting that during the 1

gth

cen-tury brothers rarely shared households because ofconflicts over authority within multi-family communalhouses (Taylor 1 974:82).

The island (Figures 3, 16) is approximately 10 kmin length (east-west). It is indented on the north andthe south by two bays; the southern bay is commonlyknown as Wyatt Harbour. According to geologist E. P.Wheeler II (cited in Morse 1 971:94), Commander A.B.N. Wyatt of the British Navy survey ship Challenger (seeWyatt 1 934) attested to the fine anchoring qualities ofthese embayments by maintaining— doubtless with adegree of exaggeration— that the entire British Navycould be accommodated here. Less expansive, Morse(1971:95) noted that Wyatt Harbour is among thefinest on the coast of Labrador. These bays effectivelydivide the island at its mid-point into two somewhat

18

CHAPTER 2

physiographically different portions. The western endof Nukasusutok is 3 km in width, contains the highestpoint on the island (298 m) and is generally ruggedand mountainous. The eastern end is a thin northeasttrending arm that ranges from 0.3 to 1.3 km in width.This extremity is less rugged than the western tip ofthe island, has more flat low-lying areas, and eleva-tions do not exceed ca. 152 m. At both ends of theisland most of the shoreline plunges precipitouslydown to the sea.

Geologically, Nukasusutok Island is part of theMiddle Proterozoic Nain Plutonic Suite and is underlainby gneiss, anorthosites, intrusive troctolites, dioritesand monzonites (Davies 1974; Ryan 1990; Ryan et al.1995). A combination of faulting, intrusions andweathering has produced a topography of roundedhills punctuated in places by parallel-walled "passes."The only lithic material on the island that was of pos-sible utility to prehistoric peoples is vein quartz, whichoutcrops in several places on the island.

The vegetation of Nukasusutok is primarily that ofa tundra community with plant species such as lichen,willow, dwarf birch, alder, Labrador tea, crowberry,blueberry, cranberry, cloudberry and various grasses.Although the exposed eastern arm of the island isstrictly a tundra environment, certain well shelteredareas on the western end maintain substantial grovesof black spruce. Spruce trees at the head of WyattHarbour have attained heights in the neighborhood of3.0 to 4.5 m.

The raison d'etre of any human occupation ofNukasusutok would be exploitation of the sea mam-mals, aquatic birds and fish found within the island'scatchment area. Good spring sealing may be had to thesoutheast between Satok and Humby's Island. Duringthe summer, seals are common in the "Bridges" pas-sage to the west, off the east side of Kikkertavak Islandand among the small islands immediately to the eastof Nukasusutok. Numerous aquatic birds may be hadin the area during the open water season: black andeider ducks, teals, scoters, black guillemots, loons and

gulls. The small islands to the east of Nukasusutok area particularly good area for these waterfowl. Geese areseasonal visitors and may be encountered in the larg-er ponds on Nukasusutok. Ptarmigan also occur there.Arctic char, tom cod and occasionally salmon may becaught in the waters surrounding Nukasusutok. Minkewhales sometimes move into Wyatt Harbour to feed.

In contrast to the diverse and abundant marinefauna, Nukasusutok exhibits a paucity of terrestrialgame. The arctic hare is a resident of the barren hillsand several Inuit stone traps testify to the presence offox. Caribou are known to frequent the island on rareoccasions (such as 5-6 animals in 1992), crossing overthe sea ice during the winter and becoming strandedafter break-up. Several black bears were resident at thewestern end of the island in 1992.

Webb Bay/Port Manvers Run

Webb Bay is located 2 5 km north of the town of Nain(Figures 3 and 1 59). It is named after the settler fami-ly Webb, that maintains cabins at the head of the bay,but it is also known by the Inuktitut name Udjuktok,place of bearded seals (Wheeler 1953:94-95).Extending 1 5 km east-west by 3-7 km wide, Webb Bayis separated from the outer coast by South AulatsivikIsland, the largest island in the Nain archipelago.Access by boat is either from the south through the"First Rattle" at the tip of the Itilialuk Peninsula, or fromthe north via Port Manvers Run. The latter is a fjord-likepassage that swings around the western side of SouthAulatsivik and enters the sea at Thalia Point(Tikigdtsuk). The Run is significant as a transportationroute because it constitutes an "inner passage" thatcan be used by boat travelers to avoid the exposedouter coast to the east of South Aulatsivik Island.During the winter, hunters can travel northwards toOkak by snowmobile or dogsled, either by going to thehead of Webb Bay and following the Webb Brook Valleyinto Tasiuyak Bay, or by moving north up Port ManversRun and then crossing the plateau behind the KiglapaitMountains and thence down into Tasiuyak.

ENVIRONMNENT

19

As far as game resources are concerned, Webb Bayis considered to be a "core area" for hunting ringedseals (Brice-Bennett 1 977:1 25), particularly in thespring. During the summer seals tend to be scarce, butringed and harbor seals may be shot occasionally, par-ticularly off the point at the southern entrance to PortManvers Run. The most important location for sealingalong Port Manvers Run is the "Second Rattle," a nar-rowing of the Run which has such a strong tidal currentthat it remains an ice free polynya throughout the win-ter. This is also a "core area" for harbor seals (Brice-Bennett 1977:125). The narrow "tickle" between IglooIsland and the north shore of Webb Bay sometimesdoes not freeze over until February, providing extend-ed open water sealing possibilities, and it may be agood sealing location in spring and fall.

The aforementioned winter travel routes can beused to access either the Kiglapait Mountain caribouherd to the north, or the Kinguritik herd to the west.Caribou may frequent the Webb Bay/Port Manvers areathroughout the year, although they can be hard to findduring the summer when they tend to be up the streamvalleys and at relatively high elevations. In mid-April1994 a small caribou herd was present in the interiorvalleys of South Aulatsivik Island. In late April tracksindicated a recent westward movement of this herdacross Port Manvers Run and back towards the interior,presumably a shift towards spring calving areas.

Black bears are also very common in the region,inhabiting forested areas near streams and wanderingup to fairly high elevations on the mountains. Polarbears move through Port Manvers Run during the win-ter and may be found there occasionally in the sum-mer, especially in the northern portion from theSecond Rattle to Thalia Point. Wolves and arctic harealso occur in the area, as well as porcupine and otter.

Webb Bay Is a good location for wildfowl in thespring and fall, particularly geese and ducks (black andharlequin). Webb Brook at the head of the bay is animportant salmon and char spawning stream (Brice-Bennett 1 977:133), but summer fishing can be variable

In the bay. In 1992-94 the summer fishing was poor,while in early summer 2002 there was good char fish-ing near the southern entrance to Port Manvers Run.

The bedrock at the western end of Webb Bay isArchean gneiss, while most of the remainder of theWebb Bay/Port Manvers Run area consists ofanorthosites of the Middle Proterozolc Main PlutonicSuite. At the north end of the Run, extending northtowards Okak, is the Kiglapait layered intrusion, a gab-broic body also dating to the Middle Proterozolc (Ryan1 990; Ryan et al. 1 995). The only rock type of use toprehistoric peoples would have been vein quartz,which outcrops sporadically throughout the area.

Scattered observations concerning the glacialgeology of the Webb Bay/Port Manvers Run regionwere made by Vaino Tanner (1 944) and his associates,but the only detailed study is that of Peter Johnson(1969). Johnson studied the extensive glacio-fluvialand glaclo-marlne sand and gravel terraces on thenorth side of Webb Bay and Identified six phases intheir formation. Early phases Involved the wasting ofIce into separate units centered on Webb Bay andAttu's Brook, then the development of a series of ice-dammed lakes and kame terraces at progressivelylower elevations with runoff towards the east. A largemarginal lake then formed from ice meltwater andrunoff from the deglaciated highlands, contributing tosubglaclal drainage down Port Manvers Run. Accordingto Johnson, the Ice then withdrew sufficiently such thatthe eustatically rising sea cut a terrace at 41 m, whichhe considered to be the local marine limit. As notedpreviously, however, more recent data from Voisey'sBay (Bell 1997) suggest Johnson's 41 m marine limit Isincorrect. If we situate Webb Bay between the Voisey'sBay and Nain uplift curves shown in Figure 5, then aterrace cut at 40 m would date ca. 7000 B.P.

20

CHAPTER 2

Scenes from a bygone era: trapboats in Nam Harbour, 1978. (Photo: B. Hood)

ENVIRONMNENT

"Wet-Site excavation," Nukasusutok-5, Area 2C, 1980, with Doug Sutton and Morten Meldgaard (right). (Photo: B. Hood)

CHAPTER 3

eorij and Methodin the Analtjsis of Social Space

One of the central themes of this text is the analysis ofsocial space. In this chapter the theme is addressed atthe scale of site structure and individual features. Firstup is a general discussion of the status of spatial analy-sis in archaeology, which focuses on some of the maintrends relevant to the set of problems outlined here.Current interpretations of Maritime Archaic social rela-tions and dwelling space are then outlined and theirexplicit or implicit theoretical and methodologicalapproaches are assessed. Given these considerations,a methodological strategy for the analysis of MaritimeArchaic dwelling spaces is presented. A similar treat-ment of Paleoeskimo material follows.

Spatial Analysis in Archaeology

Spatial analysis of archaeological sites became animportant theme in the late 1 960s as part of the NewArchaeology's program of finding appropriate meth-ods for addressing conceptual problems. Much of theinitial impetus was related to studies of functional vari-ation within and between sites, which involved identi-fying functionally distinct tool kits. Simple quantitativetechniques based on grid counts and point data wereborrowed from geography and ecology, such as near-est neighbor analysis and tool type correlation studies(e.g., Hodder and Orton 1976). It became evident,however, that archaeological data were not a directreflection of behavior and that the attempt to identifytool kits through correlation studies was problematic(Speth and Johnson 1976). Recognizing the complex

relationship between what Schiffer (1972) termed thearchaeological and systemic contexts, attention turnedto documenting the formation processes of the archae-ological record. Much of this involved ethnoarchaeo-logical studies of site structure (e.g., Yellen 1977;Binford 1 978, 1 983), which sought to identify "transla-tion rules" for inferring systemic context from archae-ological context. At the same time, a more variedrange of quantitative methods was developed for rec-ognizing patterns in complex spatial data, such as k-means cluster analysis, unconstrained clustering, cor-respondence analysis etc. (e.g., Blankholm 1991; Carr1984; Hietala 1984; Kintigh and Ammerman 1982).Subsequent work investigated site structure in termsof formation history, considering specific problemssuch as the effects of site maintenance behavior onpatterning (Binford 1983, 1987; O'Connell 1987). Asnoted by Wandsnider (1 996), monitoring such process-es may require dropping traditional analytical entitiessuch as artifact types in favor of novel units of analy-sis that are more relevant to formation processes, suchas size-sorting indices employed as indicators of sitemaintenance behavior (Wandsnider 1996:353-359), orrefitting studies used to reveal the micro-behavioriallevel of site structure (Cziesia 1 989, 1 990).

Whatever the methodological sophistication ofspatial analysis, the central problem is the inferentialprocess of connecting the observable archaeologicalcontext with the unobservable past cultural system.Ethnoarchaeological studies have been crucial for

THEORY AND METHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

23

"Me.n'6" Out^side:- He/\r.th Model-

1 O 1 2 3-45

6/ Binford's external/internal hearth models. (6a) externalhearth model (from Binford 1983:153).

6b/ internal hearth model. Palanga's house (from Binford

1983:177). Reproduced by permission.

understanding the relationship between archaeologicaltraces of behavior and the organizational variablesgenerating those traces (Binford 1987). The most fre-quently cited ethnoarchaeological work on hunter-gatherer site structure is that of Binford (1978a, b,1983, 1987). From the late 1970s through the 1980sBinford focused on human body mechanics as a univer-

sal constraint that would produce consistent spatialpatterns. The most well known example is the so-called "hearth-centered" model (Binford 1978b, 1983).According to Binford, the positioning of individualsaround an outdoor hearth results in a characteristicpattern of a "drop zone" containing small items in thevicinity of the hearth and the seated individuals and a"toss zone" in front of the hearth and behind thehearth-users, where larger items are discarded (Figure6a). Hearths inside dwelling structures do not exhibitthis pattern since they are subjected to regular mainte-nance procedures of gathering debris and dumping itoutside the dwelling (Figure 6b). The methods used fordeveloping and presenting these models were largelyqualitative and visual, with the goal of defining gener-al spatial patterns that could be regarded as behavioralconfigurations. Nonetheless, Binford (1981:286)emphasized that spatial data should be collected at asdetailed a level as possible, since we do not yet knowenough about spatial structures to justify coarser-grained recording.

Binford used the hearth-centered model to providean alternative interpretation of the French Paleolithicsite Pincevent. According to Binford (1983:147-148),Leroi-Courhan and Brezillion (1972) imposed certainunevaluated assumptions when they concluded thatthe spatial patterning of debris associated with hearthsindicated the presence of several tent structures.Instead, Binford (1 983:158-159) suggested the pat-terns derived from a rotation of seating positionsaround outdoor hearths. Debate continues as to howthe spatial organization of Pincevent and other UpperPaleolithic sites should be interpreted (e.g., Audouze1 987; Carr 1 991; Enloe et al. 1 994; Julien et al. 1 987;Koetje 1987, 1994; Simek 1984). Meanwhile, someresearchers attempted to develop methodologicaltools for the analysis of hearth-centered distributions(Stapert 1989), while others discussed additional siteformation considerations that complicate Binford'shearth-centered model (e.g., O'Connell 1987;Stevenson 1991).

24

CHAPTER 3

One of the problems with Binford's studies is thatthey mostly attribute spatial patterning in sites to "etic"behavioral factors such as body mechanics or practical"maintenance" strategies that determine disposal deci-sions. Although processualists eventually paid moreattention to social factors such as the role of sharing,kinship and cooperative labor in the spacing ofdw/ellings (e.g., Binford 1991; Cargett and Hayden1 991; Whitelaw 1 991, 1 994), there was no concern forthe symbolic dimension of site structure. Symbolicmeaning was taken up in Hodder's (1982, 1987) eth-noarchaeological research in east Africa, whichexplored the structuring effect of social relations, suchas gender, and the symbolic aspects of discard relatedto concepts of dirt and purity (see D. Gordon [1980]for an earlier eastern subarctic example). In subse-quent post-processual studies, dwelling structureswere seen as both the medium and outcome of socialstructuration processes, simultaneously channelingthe physical movements of individuals and serving assymbolic metaphors encoding aspects of ideology(e.g., Hodder 1990:44-70; Parker-Pearson andRichards 1994; Yates 1989). Recent research takes aphenomenological rather than structuralist approachto constructed space, theorizing how "the body" sub-jectively experiences movement through dwellings andother aspects of the inhabited environment (Tilley1994, 1999:40-49).

The upshot of this discussion is that there are twomain methodological approaches to spatial analysis(although these are not mutually exclusive). The firstapproach is model-centered (Carr 1991). This general-ly involves linking the observed archaeological contextwith an ethnoarchaeological model that providesinsight into the unobserved past behavioral context.The model employed could be either an "etic" behav-ioral model or an "emic" socio-ideological model. Thequestion of evaluating a model's correspondence withthe spatial data is a central problem. There is a con-stant danger that model-centered approaches willassume what they set out to prove, and that fitting the

model to the data will result in an uncritical accommo-dation argument (Binford 1981:284-285) in which themodel becomes an unevaluated interpretative conven-tion or a rhetorical device used to construct a past-as-wished for. From the neo-positivist perspective,although data are recognized as constructed through atheoretical lens it is believed that independent middle-range methods can be applied to provide a measure ofgoodness of fit (Bmford 1981:21-30, 1982). Thehermeneutic perspective, on the other hand, seesmethod as inseparable from theory, such that evaluat-ing goodness of fit is a negotiation process marked byfluidity and a lack of firm foundations for determiningthe plausibility of arguments. While data can in somesense "confront" theory, emphasis is placed onenhancing interpretive coherence and reducing incon-sistencies (Hodder 1999:39, 60-62). Nonetheless,there seems to be agreement that some kinds ofmethodological strategies are necessary to providechallenges to interpretative models and to preventarguments from becoming self-serving tautologies.These strategies may involve contrasting argumentsdeveloped from different paradigmatic positions,applying different types of methods (quantitative andqualitative) with different assumptions to the samedata set, and considering several different types ofcontextual information and different scales of analysis(e.g., Binford 1987:503; Blankholm 1991; Carr 1991;Hodder 1999:130-131). In this process, quantitativeanalysis can be used as a pattern recognition exerciseaimed at exposing possible anomalies between modelsand data, a tool for resisting premature accommoda-tions. Such flexible methodological strategies might beconsidered part of a critical realist epistemology (Sayer1 992, 2000).

The other approach to spatial analysis can betermed empirical pattern recognition. Instead of tak-ing its point of departure in a conceptual model, thisapproach uses exploratory quantitative methods toidentify statistically meaningful associations in spatialdata. These patterns may then be interpreted post hoc

THEORY AND METHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

25

woodcutting

conical I I ri .

scaffold

slioreline

tent 1

Recent Innu springcamp, Labrador

(a)

Aduck wingshung on tree

tent 2

square scaffold

lil and hearth

hearth

Recent Innusummer tent

B stove

debris concentration 1 m scale

(b)

7/ Recent Innu camp structure, (a) Innu spring camp, Labrador, (b) schematic diagram of a recent Innu summer tent fea-ture, Labrador.

in relation to a model. The assumption is that statisti-cal techniques can provide results that are independ-ent of model premises, such that unanticipated pat-terns might be recognized (Carr 1 991:226). While thisproperty has some virtue, the important objection isthat no statistical tool provides guidelines as to howthe resulting patterns should be interpreted in termsof behavior. So, while a technique may provide ameans of revealing patterning that is inherent in thedata itself rather than an artifact of model conventions,the interpretations of the patterning are ultimatelymodel dependent. There is also the danger that theelegance of a technique, such as the popular /c-meanscluster analysis (Kintigh and Ammerman 1982; Simek1984), may promote its use as a cookbook solution.

This general discussion has implications for themethodology used in the spatial analysis of habitationareas undertaken in this text. The methodologicalstrategy employed here involves the recursive use ofmodels and empirical pattern recognition studies.Theory is used to frame models of Maritime Archaicand Paleoeskimo dwelling space, while the methodsserve two roles: (1) evaluating the goodness of fitbetween models and data— their degree of accommo-dation or "coherence," and (2) as exploratory tools forpartitioning complex data sets so as to expose unan-ticipated aspects of variation— anomalies between

models and data that could require re-evaluation of themodel assumptions. Methodological discussions forthe Maritime Archaic and Paleoeskimo cases are pre-sented separately, since each cultural context presentsits own specific problems of analysis.

The Maritime Archaic: Longhouse Models andSpatial Muddles

During the 1970s, excavations at Maritime Archaichabitation sites in central and northern Labrador failedto identify distinct traces of dwelling structures.Hearths were sometimes arranged in a linear fashionalong raised beach terraces (e.g.. Rattlers Bight andBlack Island Cove, Fitzhugh 1975, 1978a; Okak-2, Cox1 977), but these and other features (Hood 1 981) weregenerally interpreted as the remains of individual fam-ily tent structures. Although the Maritime Archaicseemed "different" from the historically known Innu,the viewing lense for perceiving and interpreting thesespatial patterns was traditional subarctic ethnography.This ethnographic model generated assumptions ofnuclear family organizational units with modest tentstructures as dwellings. For example, modern Innuspring-summer camps leave remains such as thosesketched in Figure 7. Individual tents may be spaced atvarying distances, dependent on both terrain andsocial relationships, and may be associated with exter-

26

CHAPTER 3

8/ Innu summer tent site, 1980. Small stakes mark stove location, door immediately to the right. Exterior midden betweentent site and scaffold. Photo: W. Fitzhugh.

nal features such as hearths, wooden scaffolds, skin-stretching frames, wood chopping areas and the sym-bolic placement of animal bones in adjacent trees.Dwelling remains may consist of small, single familytent floors with a central stove, along with trash distri-butions centered on the doorway and exterior areaimmediately outside the tent (Figures 7 and 8). Largertents are also used, however.

During the 1978 season of the SmithsonianInstitution's Torngat Archaeological Project, probableMaritime Archaic rectangular structures were notedbriefly at Aillik, near Makkovik on the central coast,while several linear structures up to 100 m long andassociated with Late Maritime Archaic artifacts wereidentified at Nulliak Cove, north of Hebron Fjord(Fitzhugh 1980). The break-through came in 1980,when Smithsonian investigations at Aillik revealed theclearly defined remains of a "longhouse" embedded ina cobble beach. The feature measured in at 28 m long,4 m wide, and was segmented into seven compart-

ments with raised rock dividers. It was associated withseveral external conical cache pits (Figures 9 and 10).The longhouse was actually the latest in a sequence ofstructures that began on a higher and earlier raisedbeach. There appeared to be an "evolutionary" devel-opment over time from small, single-family pit-housesand rectangular structures towards progressively larg-er segmented rectangular structures, culminating inthe longhouse. (Fitzhugh 2006).

This remarkably clear longhouse and thesequence of earlier structures became a paradigm orinterpretative model that could be used to make senseof the previously excavated hearth rows, the linear fea-tures at Nulliak Cove and other ambiguous spatial dis-tributions. The "longhouse model" revolutionizedMaritime Archaic archaeology, revealing how theethnographically derived expectations had hinderedrecognition of the pattern. The model made visiblewhat was previously hidden and helped make senseout of spatial muddles. We cannot do without it.

THEORY AND METHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

27

0°0qO (3

% ° °oo« Ooo" 0 /

CACHE PITS o \

TROUGH °° °Oo

"o"" O ^? 0 =00 o° =^ ^ o °°

oOoO

METERS ° °°l AILLIK-2 °°oo°

9/ Maritime Archaic longlnouse, Aillik-2 (after Fitzhugh 1984 33).

Nonetheless, the model also poses certain dangerswhen applied as a handy template to data that are con-siderably more ambiguous than the "classic" feature atAillik. At the descriptive or pattern recognition level,accurate delineation of dwelling size and configurationcould be compromised by naive application of thelonghouse template. There may be a temptation tointerpret any linear distribution as a longhouse, partic-ularly distributions encountered on surveys and notsubjected to substantive analysis. Such pattern recog-nition errors snowball on the inferential level when cor-relations of structure size and social composition arebased on faulty description. Consequently, we have theingredients for potentially deceptive accommodationarguments in which the longhouse model becomes ataken-for-granted interpretative convention. So, whendealing with ambiguous spatial data we have to bal-ance carefully between using the longhouse model asa necessary guide to pattern recognition and employ-ing methodological strategies to prevent unjustifiedreproduction of the model and to expose unanticipat-ed patterning.

The Functional and Social Dimensions ofMaritime Archaic Dwellings

There appear to be at least three different forms ofMaritime Archaic dwellings: (1) small pit-houses of ca.

3.0-3.5 m in diameter (either circular or oval double-room features, Fitzhugh 2006), (2) rectangular surfacestructures, and (3) "longhouses." The latter may beeither surface structures or slightly excavated into cob-ble beaches. The current chronology, based on a com-bination of radiocarbon dating and elevation abovesea-level, has pit-houses predating 6000 B.P..Rectangular surface structures are also found prior to6000 B.P.; these measure ca. 8-1 2 m in length and arepartitioned into two to five segments by rock dividers(Fitzhugh 1984, 1985a, 1985b:62, 1986:56, 2006).Between 6000-5500 B.P., rectangular surface struc-tures at Aillik and in the Nain area range from 9-16 mlong and contain two to four internal segments(Fitzhugh 1984:10, 13). A three-segment structure atAillik West-1 is dated 5210±270 B.P. (Fitzhugh1984:8). Between 5000-4200 B.P., a 30-40 m line ofhearths at Okak-2 (Cox 1 977:1 84-1 85) has been inter-preted as a longhouse (Fitzhugh 1981:18), while atBlack lsland-2, in Hamilton Inlet, 12 evenly spacedhearths suggest a 50 m long structure with 1 2-1 3 seg-ments (Fitzhugh 1975:122-125, 1981:17, 1984:13).Longhouse development reached its peak during theRattlers Bight Phase (4200-3500 B.P.), with a 70 m lin-ear arrangement of hearths at Rattlers Bight inHamilton Inlet, 27 surface longhouses ranging inlength from 15-100 m at Nulliak Cove near Hebron,

28

CHAPTER 3

and the classic 28 m long seven segment semi-subter-ranean structure at Aillik (Fitzhugh 1981:18, 1984,1986:56, 1 985a:88-89). The time of appearance of thefirst longhouses is unclear, but likely occurs between

5000 4500 B.P.. One possible conclusion to be drawnfrom this sequence is that longhouses developed by"accretion" (Fitzhugh, personal communication).Beginning with the basal units of single compartment

THEORY AND IVIETHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

29

pit-houses and two segment rectangular dwellings,additional compartments were simply added on in ageometric progression, as clones of the basal units.

The question, however, is what constitutes a"longhouse" ? What is the archaeological signature ofsuch a feature and how does it differ from a "rectangu-lar structure" and a linear arrangement of completelyindependent tents or outdoor hearths? First of all,"rectangular structure" seems to designate surfacefeatures that exhibit tent-ring-like rock borders andinternal stone segment dividers. The term "longhouse"is ambiguous since it denotes a feature that is alsorectangular, but longer— with an unspecifiedminimum length threshold— and which may or maynot display the aforementioned architectural featuresof rectangular structures. Additionally, the term long-house may be a misleading metaphor since it denotescertain ethnographically well-known dwellings (e.g.,Iroquoian) that are not applicable to the Labrador case.Rather than being continuous architectural construc-tions. Maritime Archaic longhouses probably consistedof a linear series of linked individual tents. In the caseof the 28 m long structure at Aillik there is clearly anarchitectural unity defined by its semi-subterraneanexcavation into a cobble beach, but this may simplyhave been the foundation for several closely packedtent dwellings. In cases that lack obvious architecturalcomponents, such as the surface features at Nulliak,the longhouse is an inference based on several lines ofevidence, not all of which may be present or of equalquality in a given case: a linear series of regularlyspaced hearths, a bounded linear distribution of lithicmaterial (3.5-4.0 m wide), segment divider rocks andtraces of wall border rocks.

It is impossible to be more precise about thenature of the spatial patterning associated with rectan-gular structures and longhouses because no detaileddistribution maps have been published. Partial plans oflonghouses from Nulliak Cove and Rattlers Bight(Fitzhugh 1981: Figures 7 and 10, 1985a:96-97) indi-cate fairly regularly spaced (3-4 m) clusters of charcoal

and fire-cracked rock (not always mutually associated)running down the center of the structures (Figure 1 1 a).In some cases, though, charcoal concentrations alsooccur close to the presumed walls. Tool and debitagedistributions are described as being hearth-centered(Fitzhugh 1981:17-18, 1985a:98, 1985b:49), but thedetails of this spatial configuration are not specified. Aschematic diagram of a longhouse from Nulliak Coveshows lithic distributions that are not always associat-ed with possible hearths (Figure lib; Fitzhugh1985a:97). Some of the lithic concentrations are spa-tially independent, but most of them are joined alongone side of the structure, suggesting an overlappingarc configuration or "ribbons" connecting separateconcentrations. These examples should at least raisesome questions as to how we might distinguish long-houses from lines of independent tents or outdoorhearths.

In sum, our knowledge of Maritime Archaicdwelling structures is constrained by ill-defined termsand piecemeal information. The term "longhouse" orig-inated as an ad hoc category (Barsalou 1 983) formulat-ed to make sense of linear spatial distributions.Although useful for that initial purpose, the categoryneeds to evolve further because considerable ambigu-ity results from its status as a conceptual combinationin which archaeological attributes are mapped ontoanalog models from other contexts. It should also bepointed out that in addition to pit-houses, rectangularstructures and longhouses, there are other types ofMaritime Archaic features on the landscape that mightbe dwelling-related, such as isolated rock pavements(Fitzhugh 1978: Figure 14 illustrates one from BigIsland, Sagiek Bay; the author has observed similar fea-tures on Uigortiek Island in the Nain region). Reducingambiguity and error in our inferences will require asystematic study of Maritime Archaic features that doc-uments their range of variation and provides firmer cri-teria for distinguishing dwelling types with and with-out traces of architecture.

30

CHAPTER 3

/ // Maritime Archaic ionglnouses from Nullial< Cove-1. (a) Structure 15, (b) Structure 1 1 (after Fitziiugin 1985a 97; repro-duced by permission, Arctic Anthropology, University of Wisconsin Press).

If we restrict ourselves to the established dwellingfeatures, the question is: to what extent are these dif-ferent types or sizes of structures part of an evolution-ary development over time versus functional or sea-sonal variants? In the pre-6000 B.P. period, the coexis-tence of pit-houses and rectangular surface structuressuggests they may be seasonal variants, with pit-hous-es used in colder periods (Fitzhugh 1 985a:89). If thatwas the case, however, the outer coast locations of thepit-houses do not correspond well with the postulatedinterior-maritime settlement pattern, in which fall-win-ter settlement is posited for the inner bays or nearinterior (Fitzhugh 1978:83-84). However, pit-housesmight have been used on the coast in the colder springor fall periods while exploiting migrating harp sealherds, and rectangular structures during the summer.Alternatively, the lack of pit-houses after 6000 B.P.might be explained by a shift of winter settlement fromthe outer coast to the near-interior (Fitzhugh1985a:88). Questions could also be raised concerningthe contrast between the virtually semi-subterraneanlonghouse feature at Aillik and the surface longhousesat Nulliak Cove. Is this a seasonal difference, or is theAillik feature merely a situational variant used on rockycobble beaches?

We have very little information concerning howMaritime Archaic dwellings were constructed. Fewdetails have been published, aside from hints of post-holes at the Aillik longhouse (Fitzhugh 1984:33). Theassumption is that the rectangular surface structureswere tent dwellings and that the longhouses representa series of individual tent structures placed adjacent toeach other. The pit-houses and longhouses excavatedinto cobble beaches may also have been roofed in thismanner; there is no evidence that they were coveredwith sod.

Estimates of the duration of dwelling occupationsis problematic in the absence of preserved bone mate-rial. Fitzhugh (1985a:98) suggests the Nulliak Covelonghouses were used for short periods of days orweeks on the basis of low rates of debris accumulationinside the structures and the absence of middens. Thisshort occupation is related to Nulliak Cove's role as arepeatedly-used staging area for trips to the RamahBay chert sources, part of an "expeditionary" model ofchert procurement involving pronounced long-distanceseasonal mobility (Fitzhugh 1985b:50). On the otherhand, longhouses used as seasonal base camps withina local settlement system may have been occupiedlonger, resulting in greater accumulation as seen inthe "sheet midden" deposits at Rattlers Bight (Fitzhugh

THEORY AND METHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

31

1981:18, 1985b;49). Consequently, we might expectseasonal, functional, and geographical differences inthe nature of longhouses and their duration of occupa-tion. In the absence of bone material these differencesmight be reflected in the types of features and lithicassemblages present, the ratio of primary versus sec-ondary refuse (Schiffer 1987:58-72) and the degree towhich peripheral areas of the sites exhibit build-ups ofexternal activity areas (Binford 1983:190). Of course,these variables are complicated by other factors suchas group size and composition and culturally codifieddisposal practices.

The social significance of longhouses has beendiscussed from somewhat different directions.Although reliance on subarctic Innu ethnography as ananalogy source led to difficulties in recognizing thelonghouse pattern in the first place, Fitzhugh (1981,1984, 1985a) turns to this analogy again when inter-preting social space in longhouses, but it should beemphasized that he has not presented a full andexplicit account of his position. He characterizesMaritime Archaic society in line with ethnographicinterpretations of subarctic Algonkian society as egali-tarian, with emphasis on individual families and thepersonal autonomy of individuals (Fitzhugh1 985a:l 04-1 05). Nonetheless, when seen in terms ofthe temporal development from small pit-houses tolonghouses, there appears to have been an increase inco-residential group size over time, from single familyunits (or small groups of two or three families, if clus-ters of two or three pit-houses indicate contemporaryuse), towards large multi-family co-residential long-houses consisting of 50-100 individuals (Fitzhugh1 984:20). Additionally, variation in mortuary treatmentmay indicate some degree of status distinction inMaritime Archaic society (Fitzhugh 1 978:85, 1 981:32).

A consequence of this social model is that whenanalyzing architecturally distinct Maritime Archaicdwelling features, Fitzhugh emphasizes the signifi-cance of the individual segments or compartments ofthe structures, which he considers to be individual

family living floors. In the case of the more ambigu-ous linear distributions of hearths and iithics, heviews hearth-centered distributions as indicative ofindividual family living floors (Fitzhugh 1984:18,1985a:98). The individual family floor areas can bethought of as structural "modules" (Binford1 983:1 47). A pit-house then consists of a single suchmodule while a longhouse is a linear accretion ofmultiple modules. In earlier published papers,Fitzhugh (1984:8-9, 1985a:96) argued that the regu-lar spacing of hearths and debris distributions relat-ed to longhouse segments is strongly repetitive, indi-cating the dwelling compartments were used simulta-neously. More recently, however, Fitzhugh (2006:12-13) suggests that perhaps not all longhousemodules were contemporary. The central segmentsof longhouses tend to have greater accumulations ofdebris than the peripheral segments, suggestive oflonger occupation. Dwellings may have been organ-ized around a stable central unit, with additional seg-ments being added or subtracted on an "accordion"basis in relation to the arrival and departure of fami-lies. In this reading, the overall configuration of alonghouse is largely determined by repetitive"microscale" patterns at the module level.

Modular organization plays a conceptual andmethodological role in how spatial patterning indwellings is linked to possible social distinctions inMaritime Archaic societies. Fitzhugh (1985a:98)views Maritime Archaic social organization as "gener-ally egalitarian" because the contents of longhousesegments are repetitive in terms of household activi-ties and material culture. Nonetheless, there are indi-cations that some artifact production and discard,particularly that involving Ramah chert, slate andsoapstone, may be concentrated in particular parts ofa longhouse. The possibility that these segmentswere communal work areas is dismissed, since thecontent and configuration of these areas is similar tothe other segments. In any event, the implication isthat relative social equality/distinction might be

32

CHAPTER 3

investigated through the degree of module redundan-cy or variability (Fitzhugh 1 984:1 1).

Modular organization is one analytical frameworkwe can use in analyzing Maritime Archaic dwellingsbut, as indicated, it is also linked to ethnographicallyderived premises about individual family-focusedsocial organization as well as the assumption that theoverall configuration of a longhouse results fromrepeated replication of microscale processes at themodular level. As an alternative, the continuous linearpattern may be generated by macroscale processeswhich unite several modular units into a spatial logicpartly determined by the meaning of the dwelling as awhole. This unifying spatial logic may be social andideological rather than simply a functional conse-quence of dwelling geometry— the cloning of individ-ual family modules. Structural linearity may be anorganizational principle in which the practical orderingof domestic space in the course of daily life is a vehi-cle for actively structuring social relations, as well asbeing a symbolic representation of those relations.

The unifying linear principle could indicate anemphasis on connected space, a merging of privateand public space that expresses a corporate sociallogic rather than a logic of familial segmentation.Elsewhere, the author suggested that;

The spatial logic of the longhouse, consistingof an extremely contrived linear ordering ofindividual social units, conveyed a tensionwithin Maritime Archaic society between theautonomy of individual household units andthe collective organization of emergent cor-porate groups. Maritime Archaic seasonalmobility might have entailed tendenciestowards group fission, flexible autonomoussocial units and temporary settlements.Household autonomy was spatially encodedin the segmentation of longhouses into multi-ple compartments representing individualhousehold floors. These individual social

modules were incorporated into a larger col-lective unit by the overall structure of thedwelling. The longhouse structure physicallycreated a corporate unit and gave that unit atemporary (seasonal) material existencethrough the organization of domestic space.Furthermore, the longhouse helped establishan ideological fiction of collectivity in a socialworld which otherwise tended towards sea-sonal fragmentation. I suggest that this pat-tern signifies the emergence of situationalrather than permanent corporate principlesand expresses flux in Maritime Archaic com-plexity processes (Hood 1995:95).

The methodological consequence of such a socialmodel is that spatial analysis must be multiscalar. Atthe microscale level the focus is on patterning withinindividual modules. At the mesoscale level the patternsthat cross-cut or unite modules are considered. At themacroscale, patterns at the level of the dwelling as awhole are investigated.

One of the main practical problems in developingaccurate descriptions of Maritime Archaic dwellingstructures is delimiting them in size. This is particular-ly the case for ambiguous linear distributions withoutclear architectural demarcation. Longhouse interpreta-tion may be complicated by overlapping between non-contemporary structures and the resulting palimpsestaccumulations. Without systematic radiocarbon datingof hearths, combined with refitting studies, we have nofirm grounds for assuming that longhouse segmentsconstitute a contemporaneous unity. This methodolog-ical problem has broader interpretative significance inthat lacking good control over segment contemporane-ity we have no grounds for accurate dwelling size esti-mates, thus no grounds for inferring the demographicand social composition of a settlement or for postulat-ing symbolic order and meaning.

The foregoing discussion focused on identifiabledwelling structures, but it is obviously not the case

THEORY AND METHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

33

that all patterns at Maritime Archaic sites are the con-sequence of activities conducted within the confines ofdwellings. To avoid unwarranted accommodation argu-ments we need alternative models for identifying dis-tribution patterns unrelated to dwelling structures.Binford's (1 983:1 56-1 59;165-1 70) well-known distinc-tion between patterns connected with indoor and out-door hearths and his discussion of "extensive" activityareas is one point of departure.

Expanding the View: Other ArchaeologicalContexts

Longhouses are an unusual dwelling form amongethnographically known hunter-gatherers. NorthAmerican subarctic ethnography contains examples oflarge communal structures (see below), but none ofthese had linear dimensions approaching those of LateMaritime Archaic dwellings and there is little documen-tation of their spatial patterning. Otherwise, longhous-es are better represented in the ethnography of seden-tary agricultural societies such as the Iroquoians. Sincethe latter analogy is problematic for northern hunter-gatherers, it may be useful to take a comparativearchaeological view and consider the spatial patterningassociated with longhouse-like features in the easternsubarctic, arctic and elsewhere. What spatial patternsresult when people are enclosed in linear structures?This will hardly be comprehensive, but will attempt todevelop a sense of the variability in spatial patterning.

Beginning close to Labrador, an interesting exam-ple is Seguin's (1995) work on sites dating 700-1000B.P. in the James Bay region of northern Quebec.Seguin applied Binford's hearth-centered model andCree ethnography to the interpretation of hearth-cen-tered distributions lacking evidence of structuralremains. Archaeologically, she distinguished betweenexternal hearths, small structures with single centralhearths and longhouses with two or multiple hearths.Her brief consideration of the ethnographic materialsuggested there are regional variations among Creegroups in the positioning of activities and persons vis

a vis hearths. In the Mistassini area, men's andwomen's activities are conducted on the same side ofthe hearth, while in the Chisasibi area they are con-ducted on opposite sides. The longhouse structureposited for site GdFc-2 (Figure 12a; Seguin 1995:44)consisted of four hearths placed in a ca. 9 m long line,spaced at ca. 1 m intervals; lithic concentrations werefound on opposite sides of two hearths and on oneside of the other two. Seguin interpreted this distribu-tion as a ca. 1 3 m long, 5.5 m wide longhouse, withthe lithic concentrations representing activities con-ducted between the hearths and the dwelling walls.

In contrast, Loring (1 992:245, 250-260) describeda probable longhouse (shaputuan) dated 1800-1500B.P. at Daniel Rattle-1, Area IV, near Davis Inlet on theLabrador coast. There was no trace of walls; the fea-ture consisted of a 4.5 m long, 1.0 m wide, raised lin-ear hearth with two smaller cobble hearths slightly dis-tant at both ends. The central hearth was tightlypacked with calcined bone fragments, bone ash, ther-mally-altered Ramah chert flakes and heat-shatteredbiface fragments, and fire-cracked rocks. Lithic toolsand flakes occurred in a major concentration extend-ing 3.5 m outwards on one of the long sides of thehearth feature, with a two diffuse clusters on the oppo-site side and minor concentrations associated with thesmall end-hearths.

Returning to Quebec, at site CbFd-9 (Figure 12b)Seguin (1995:43) identified two features (B and E) asexternal hearths, although the excavated area was toosmall to identify possible drop/toss zones. Six otherhearths (A, C, D, F-H) were placed in a 30 m long line,spaced at intervals of 4.4 to 6.6 m. Lithic remainswere concentrated within 1.0 to 1.5 m of the hearthcenters, in five cases on opposite sides of the hearths,in one case as two clusters on the same side. Eachhearth is interpreted as the focus of a separate tentstructure, but little justification is given for this conclu-sion. Hearths C, D and F are closely positioned and arealigned on the same axis, hearths C and H lie slightlyapart from the first group and are aligned on a slight-

34

CHAPTER 3

12/ Pre-contact Recent Indian dwelling features, (a) longhouse, CdFc-2, Riviere Laforge, Quebec (after Seguin 1995:44).(b) individual tent structures, CbFd-D, Riviere Laforge, Quebec (after Seguin 1995:43). (c) tent dwelling, Kamarsuk Area II,Labrador (after Loring 1992:266, 270). Figures a and b reproduced by permission, I'Association des archeologues du Quebec.

ly different axis, and hearth A is out of alignment withthe C-D-F group. It is unclear why the C-D-F and C-Hgroups could not be considered longhouses; the onlydifference appears to be that their lithic concentrationsare oriented towards what would be the middle of alonghouse rather than lying between the hearths andthe walls. This would seem to be a weak criterion giventhe ethnographic observations on variability in theplacement of activities around hearths. Indeed, withFitzhugh's longhouse model in mind, one might evenconsider the possibility of a larger structure, given arefit between hearth areas A and F. Nonetheless,Seguin's material is very relevant to the MaritimeArchaic longhouse discussion, since it provides someconcrete archaeological examples of alternatives inspatial patterning and it attempts to apply an ethnoar-chaeologically-derived behavioral model.

Seguin's individual structure interpretation can becompared with Loring's (1992:266-276) discussion ofa Late Prehistoric dwelling from Kamarsuk Area II,north of Davis Inlet, Labrador (Figure 1 2c). The featurewas a slightly semi-subterranean oval tent structure,4 by 5 m in size, with a raised central cobble hearth.The hearth contained calcined bone fragments andthermally altered Ramah chert. There was a pro-nounced concentration of debitage on one side of thehearth, but relatively little on the opposite side, sug-

gesting the latter was used as a sleeping area. A sec-ond concentration of Ramah chert debitage at one endof the structure and extending outside suggested adoorway midden. This spatial pattern is broadly simi-lar to that identified by Seguin and bears a strongresemblance to Binford's "archetype" model for hearth-centered patterns expected in enclosed and main-tained spaces (i.e., Palanga's House, Figure 6b).

A distinctly different pattern was found at the latePoint Revenge Complex Winter Cove-4 site (ca. 500B.P.) in Hamilton Inlet, Labrador (Fitzhugh 1 978b). Thisfeature was a 4 by 8 m oval tent ring with a single cen-tral internal hearth and nine external hearths. Some ofthe external hearths were almost superimposed by thetent ring such that, in contrast to Fitzhugh's interpre-tation, they may represent earlier activity. Very littlelithic material was found inside the tent ring; only asmall concentration adjacent to the well-constructedhearth and along the southeastern wall of the feature.This seems consistent with Binford's inside-hearthmodel. Most of the lithics were concentrated aroundthe external hearths, which were less substantial cob-blestone clusters. The tools and flakes mostly lay adja-cent to the hearths (akin to drop zones), but in onecase there was a wide scatter of debitage extendingout at least 3 m from a hearth, evidently a "non-main-tained" zone. Fitzhugh (1 978b:l 58-1 59) suggested the

THEORY AND METHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

35

structure represents a warm weather occupation by amulti-family group.

Returning to the spatial structure of longhouses,another archaeological case of such features can befound in Late Dorset Paleoeskimo society (ca. 500-1 000/1 200 AD). These features range from 1 0 to 45 min length, 5-7 m wide, and sometimes incorporatestone walls up to 1 meter in height. The central corri-dors may lack distinctive hearths, although there maybe traces of a central "passage" with rock construc-tions and burned fat. The walls sometimes containsmall niches with traces of burned fat and possibledomestic activities. In some cases, lines of externalhearths and caches run parallel to the structures(Appelt and Cullov 1998:148-149, 1999;24-35;Damkjar 2000; McChee 1971; Plumet 1985;Schledermann 1 990:202-251). Investigators agree thatthese structures represent the communal ritual activi-ties of multi-family groups, probably conducted duringthe summer, but they disagree on whether the struc-tures were roofed tent dwellings or whether the wallswere merely symbolic. Plumet (1985:228-229, 366-367, 371) argues that the spatial logic was of individ-ual family floor spaces along the walls, with a linearcentral communal area that was a symbolic spatialtransformation of the axial structure principle used insmaller Dorset sod-house dwellings.

Perhaps the clearest example of longhouse spatialpatterning is found in a 15.5 m long feature at theDavid site in northwest Greenland (Appelt and Cullov1999:36-40; Figure 13a), where a series of separatelithic concentrations were closely linked to a centralpassage feature. Some of the concentrations lay adja-cent to stone-slab pits of unknown function. Four ofthese clusters were regularly spaced along the eastside of the passage (ca. 7 m between center points);the clusters were all somewhat oval and of broadlysimilar dimensions (4-6 m long, 3-4 m wide). On thewest side of the passage were two linear distributionsof similar dimensions (5-6 m long, 2 m wide) and asmall flake concentration at one end of the passage.

There were also four small clusters of tools lying out-side the main concentrations. Thus, there were slightdifferences in depositional patterns on either side ofthe passage such that the configuration was somewhatasymmetric. The eastern wall contained traces of atleast six regularly spaced (1.5 m) slabs with burned fatsuggestive of hearth areas. It may be significant thatthe largest debris concentrations occurred on this sideof the structure.

Schledermann's (1 990:209-21 1, 239, 245) spatialdistribution data from Ellesmere Island exhibit gener-ally similar tendencies. At the Longhouse site, partialexcavation of a 45 m long feature suggested a patternof paired lithic/bone clusters on opposite sides of thecentral area. The clusters were of similar size (mostly2.0 by 1.0-1.5 m) and fairly evenly spaced along eachside (mostly 2.0-2.5 m between their center points).Although there were sporadic traces of charcoal andburned bone there were no distinct hearths. The pat-tern in the 14.5 m long structure at the Cove site sug-gests seven clusters of variable dimensions on eachside of the passage. The clusters along the southernhalf of the structure seem semi-regularly spaced (1.5-2.7 m between center points) and have higher finddensities than those on the northern side of the struc-ture. Although those on the northern side are also reg-ularly spaced (1.5 m between center points), they arearranged in two groups separated by 4.5 m of low den-sity: four at the western end of the structure, two atthe eastern end. Again, there is a hint of slight asym-metry in cluster placement and deposition, as at theDavid site feature.

A slightly different pattern was found in LateDorset House B at the UNC-1 1 site in the Ungavaregion (Plumet 1985:105-134, 209-231, hors texte 9and 1 0). The feature was ca. 36 m long and 5 m wide(Figure 13b). The central axis of the structure had aslightly raised ridge containing stone-lined boxes andpits with traces of burned fat and red ocher. In the wallarea there were several niches consisting of flat slabsand burned fat that were spaced at 2-3 m intervals. A

36

CHAPTER 3

schematic summary indicates the lithic distributionwas primarily concentrated in the southern end of thestructure. Debris occurred along the walls as near-con-tinuous distributions, with hints of separate but over-lapping clusters spaced about two meters apart, evi-dently associated with the wall niches. Seven smallerclusters (mostly 1.5-2.0 m in diameter) occurred clos-er to the center, adjacent to the box and pit features.

The spatial patterning in these structures is rea-sonably consistent, with small, relatively discrete,sometimes regularly spaced, debris clusters alongboth sides of the central axis of the features. Theseclusters are associated with rock constructions andtraces of burning. Possible hearth niches in the walls atthe David site and UNC-1 1 seem to be associated withlarger and denser debris accumulations. Hence,although we lack evidence for "classic" hearth-centereddistributions there are strong indications that the dis-tributions are feature-related, probably tocooking/heating/ illumination areas with oil lamps. Aslight exception to the pattern of relatively discretedebris clusters is UNC-1 1, where there was greateraccumulation of material adjacent to the walls andoverlap between niche-related distributions. It shouldbe kept in mind, however, that although these feature-centered distributions seem similar to those associat-ed with domestic hearths, the spatial organization ofLate Dorset longhouses was likely structured by spe-cial ritual practices.

A final archaeological example comes from fartherafield: the well-known, although not well understood,"longhouse" structures from the Russian UpperPaleolithic site Kostenki (Crigor'ev 1967; Klein1969:114-117, 170-177). The three structuresdescribed by Klein had similar features: lines of 9-10hearths, mostly spaced ca. 1.5-2.0 m apart.Distributions of the associated artifactual materialssuggested one dwelling 35 m in length by 1 0-1 5 m inwidth, a second 35 m in length by 5 m in width, and athird 23 m in length by 5 m in width. Cache pits withmammoth bone and smaller circular structures that

might have been house-pits were also present. Thesefeatures, and the complex sites of which they are apart, present similar analytical problems, and thensome, to the Maritime Archaic longhouses that lackclear architectural features. Crigor'ev (1993:58-59)notes that delineation of the dwelling boundaries isarbitrary line-drawing through density distributions,but the lithic distributions from Kostenki I, Horizon 1(Crigor'ev 1 967:345; Klem 1 969:1 1 7) at least providea sense of the spatial structure at the site (Figure 1 3c).Taking into account that some excavation units weredestroyed, the most dense flake concentrations werelocated primarily within a 1 -3 m distance of the centralhearths, although towards the southern end of the pro-posed dwelling the debitage extended up to 4 metersdistant. The concentrations were all on the easternside of the dwelling, with the exception of two smallclusters on western side of the hearth line. The south-ern portion of the dwelling had a near continuous dis-tribution of flakes paralleling four of the hearths andthere may have been a separate concentration in themiddle near two hearths, as well as a separate concen-tration paralleling the three northernmost hearths. If,for the sake of argument, we accept Crigor'ev'sdwelling boundary, it would appear that the longhousedwelling was surrounded by storage pits and theremight have been some external lithic reduction ordumping of waste from inside the dwelling.

It is interesting to compare the spatial patterns ofthe archaeological longhouses described above. Thereare obvious parallels between Seguin's northernQuebec longhouse, the Late Dorset structures and theKostenki situation— clusters of debris on either side ofcentral hearths (or central "features" in the case of LateDorset)— although the Kostenki pattern is one of lessdiscrete clusters with much more overlap betweenwhat may or may not have been individual hearth-cen-tered distributions. The more continuous distributionsat Kostenki are similar to the wall-related concentra-tions in the Ungava Late Dorset longhouse. Each ofthese cases varies somewhat in the position of relative-

THEORY AND METHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

37

I'-

David SiteThule District

^ stone wall

0 hearth

j I lithic concentration

^2 tool outlier

— 2m scale

(a)

UNG-11Ungava Bay

J house wall

0 hearth

Q rock feature

1 lithic concentration— 2m scale

(b)

0'

o

0

(!)(£]

(c)

Kostenki IRussia

inferred wall^ hearth[~~] lithic concentration 2m scale

/5/ /.afe Dorset and Russian Upper Paleolithic longhouses. (a) Late Dorset longhouse, David site, Thule district, Greenland(after Appelt et al. 1999 36-40). (b) Late Dorset longhouse, UNC I 1, Ungava, Quebec (after Plumet 1985: hors texte 9, 10);reproduced by permission of author), (c) Upper Paleolithic longhouse, Kostenki I, Russia (after Crigor'iev 1967:345: repro-duced by permission. Current Anthropology, University of Chicago Press).

ly empty or maintained space: in the Quebec Late Pre-Contact case it is near the walls, in the Late Dorsetlonghouses it may occur in the center, near the walls,or at one end of the structures, while at Kostenki itconsists of most of one entire side of the structure.In sum, these archaeological examples exhibit similarmicro-scale patterns involving feature-centered distri-butions that probably result from commonalities inbody mechanics. But they also suggest that feature-centered distributions were organized into macro-levelconfigurations through different kinds of social prac-tices or cultural logics. In the case of Maritime Archaiclonghouses we might anticipate that micro-level fea-ture-centered distributions will be similar to those inthe behavioral models, but that their integration intothe dwelling as a whole will be culturally idiosyncratic.We should now briefly consider some ethnographicexamples that illustrate the mutual structuring of spa-tial practice and cultural logic.

Ethnography: Social Space and Meaning

The preceding discussion of archaeological spatialpatterning identified some micro-level behavioral con-sistencies, but the interpretive scope of these observa-tions is limited: "We are left with a bunch of pieces,but cannot explain why they are assembled the waythey are" (Whitelaw 1994:219). The integration of

micro-patterns into macro-configurations is structuredby differing social and cultural logics that were hintedat but not illuminated in the preceding discussion. Thebehavioral dimensions of dwelling space will now berelated to social and ideological aspects of spatialorganization using ethnographic analogies, beginningwith social organization linkages then shifting towardsthe symbolic.

The strongly behavioral ethnoarchaeological stud-ies of spatial patterns have been supplemented bygreater attention to the role of social organization incommunity patterning. To a great extent this hasfocused on the degree to which dwelling proximity insettlement layouts correlates with social relationshipssuch as kinship, sharing and labor cooperation (e.g.,Binford 1991; Gargett and Hayden 1991; Whitelaw1991; Yellen 1977). Whitelaw's (1991) cross-culturalstudy of hunter-gatherer community space concludedthat there are clear linkages between spatial and socialproximity, and that increases in social scale result inmore organization or patterning of community struc-ture. In situations involving cooperation in labour orresource sharing, close spacing of habitations facili-tates interaction, but also the monitoring of behaviorand possessions (Whitelaw 1991:168), which playsinto the regulation of cooperation and sharing.Whitelaw (1 991:1 65) notes that linear spatial arrange-

38

CHAPTER 3

merits are primarily found in arctic and subarcticregions; strangely, he relates this to dispersal of socialunits along shorelines and claims that "...because lin-ear arrangements allow only one or two neighbors,they do not particularly emphasize the coherence of agroup." Such a conclusion is thin, to say the least, andit seems absurd to suggest that linear arrangementssuch as Maritime Archaic longhouses contribute littleto group coherence. Although cross-cultural general-izations can point to general patterns to be investigat-ed, they are not very context sensitive and in a casesuch as hunter-gatherer longhouses, which are veryrare in the ethnographic record, they completely failus. It is necessary, therefore, to explore specific con-textual studies in order to arrive at a more dynamicview of spatial patterning.

Archaeological treatment of the meaningfuldimensions of space has built on the seminal work ofBourdieu (1979) and Levi-Strauss (1963) on dwellingorganization, combined with Ciddens' (1984) struc-turation theory, the work of diverse human geogra-phers and influences from phenomenology. At the riskof oversimplifying, the common thread is that space isorganized in accordance with symbolic principles, butspatial meanings are invoked, reproduced or changedthrough human practice (Parker Pearson and Richards1994:5). Meaningful space is constructed throughsocial action and, in turn, that construction acts backupon social action: meaning-laden space is both aproduct and precedent of agency. This holds for thesmall scale of dwelling sites as well as for large scalelandscapes (Tilley 1994). The following is a nice sum-mary statement of this view, as applied to the organi-zation of housing space:

The house and the body are intimately linked.The house is an extension of the person; likean extra skin, carapace or second layer ofclothes, it serves as much to reveal and dis-play as it does to hide and protect. House,body and mind are in continuous interaction,

the physical structure, furnishing, social con-ventions and mental images of the house atonce enabling, moulding, informing and con-straining the activities and ideas which unfoldwithin its bounds. A ready-made environmentis fashioned by a previous generation andlived in long before it becomes an object ofthought, the house is a prime agent of social-ization (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995:2).

A focus on the interplay of mind, architecture andaction leads to consideration of the metaphorical roleplayed by housing as a material representation of socialstructure and ideology, either as a mirror or transforma-tion. Seen from the structuralist tradition, componentsof houses can represent social divisions and hierar-chies, while the dwelling as a whole can give the appear-ance of unity to opposing principles (Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995:8, 12) or encode cosmological metaphors.As emphasized above, however, these are not staticabstract structures but codes and materials that areproduced and reproduced through daily practice.

An example of this perspective is Yates' (1989)structuralist analysis of social space in Sami tents.Gender was structured by divisions into male (back)and female (front) space, while the generations (par-ents and young children, versus older children) weredistinguished laterally. In both cases the central hearthserved as the fulcrum of the spatial differentiation.These socio-spatial divisions were paralleled by con-ceptual divisions based on Sami cosmology, such thata series of binary oppositions were played out withinthe horizontal dwelling space: male/female,back/front, north/south, winter/summer, sacred/pro-fane, clean/unclean, death/life, hunting/milking, hunt-ing blood/menstrual blood. The hearth was the crucialcenter that mediated these oppositions. Furthermore,the vertical space of the tent was divided into levelsassociated with divisions of the heavens, with differentspiritual personages associated with each level.Consequently, the tent was a locus in which gender

THEORY AND IV1ETH0D IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

39

and other structures were produced and reproduced indaily practices.

Siberian Nenets tent interiors and camp lay-outsare also structured by gender divisions and rules formovement (Golovnev and Osherenko 1999:32-39;Haakanson 2000:82-89). Tent doors normally faceeast. Within the tent the central hearth is the anchorpoint for an invisible symbolic siyangi line that extendswestwards across the floor and continues outside thetent in the opposite direction from the entrance.Movement of all people within the tent is restricted tothe front and sides of the hearth because it is not per-mitted to cross the siyangi line behind the hearth.Outside the tent, adult women are not permitted tocross the siyangi line when they are within sight of thecamp. This means that women cannot move behindthe tents and must instead depart and return from thefront entrances by following the same path. Women'swork areas are therefore in front of the tents. Althoughthe movement of adult men is restricted within the tentit is not restricted outside; the men's work area isbehind the tent where the siyangi line projects west-wards. These symbolic orientation and movement reg-ulation principles have consequences for the lay-out ofmulti-tent camps (Figure 14). The tents must be set upin a line along a north-south axis in order to maintainthe principle that women cannot cross the multiplesiyangi lines that extend from the western (back) sidesof the dwellings (Haakanson 2000:219). The spacingbetween the tents is related to the nature and close-ness of personal relationships (Haakanson 2000:221).It is interesting to compare this rule-structured lineari-ty of individual dwellings with the linear organizationof Maritime Archaic longhouses.

Tanner (1979:73-107) discusses the symbolicdimensions of space among the Mistassini Cree. Formuch of the year the Cree use single-family tentdwellings. When they are used at winter aggregationsites, Tanner (1979:83) notes they are arranged in aline. He suggests that a location on one end of the linewill be chosen by the hunting group leader. Single-fam-

ily dwellings display a consistent pattern of internalorganization. A central hearth is placed back from thedoorway and a living area is positioned at the back ofthe dwelling behind the hearth and opposite the door.Each individual has their own place at the rear of thedwelling, while the front of the dwelling is communalspace. The tent space is also divided by gender, withone side associated with women, the other with men.Within the gender divisions there are further spatialpositionings in relation to marital status and age.Household items and foods are also ordered in relationto the gender division. The meat of large animals(moose, caribou, bear) is stored on the male side,while that of smaller animals (beaver, etc.) is stored onthe women's side and each gender attends to the prop-er ritual treatment and disposal of the bones.

This basic pattern recurs when the Cree move towinter communal dwellings, which are shared by sev-eral families. Divisions of male and female space aremaintained, with the proviso that adjacent familiescannot place members of the same gender adjacent toeach other. The hunting party leader selects a positionnear the doorway. Tanner (1979:86-87) notes that"...the move to a communal dwelling brings about aminimal alteration in the use of domestic space by theindividual commensal group, and the relative autono-my of each group is preserved." This is consistent withFitzhugh's (1985a) interpretations of Maritime Archaiclonghouses. It should be noted, however, that unlikeother frequently cited ethnographic cases (e.g.,Bourdieu 1970; Carsten and Hugh-Jones 1995; Yates1989), the organization of Cree interior space is notstructured by geographic or cosmological symbolism(Tanner 1 979:87).

The eastern subarctic ethnographic record con-tains sporadic references to large dwellings that couldbe called "longhouses." Among the Labrador Innu andthe Quebec Cree a large multi-hearth tent (Innu:shaputuan) was associated with the makushan cari-bou feast (Henriksen 1 973:35-39; Tanner 1979:162-1 69, 1 80). Among the Ojibway, bark longhouses were

40

CHAPTER 3

women's path

East

corral

women's path

siyangi line

siyangi line

siyangi line

siyangi line

siyangi line

firewood

• hearth

□ women's work areaI I sled

men's work area

14/ Spatial organization of a Nenets summer camp (after i-laal<anson 2000:87; reproduced by permission of autlnor).

used by the Midewiwin ritual societies (Landes1968:133; Steinbring 1 981:252). An Interesting (butnot very well documented) example of symbolic spa-tial structures in the eastern subarctic is depicted inan eighteenth century painting by Major George Setonof a ritual feature constructed by the Cree (illustratedin McGhee 1996:176). The feature is an enclosureconstructed of tightly-packed, shoulder-high branchesembedded In the ground; judging by the size of theCree figures, it must have been at least 25 m long and5 m wide. At each end of the feature Is an openingframed by arched tree branches while the central por-tion of the interior contains one or two hearths, awooden post embedded upright in the ground andthree presumably dead animals. The Cree (approxi-mately 55 people are depicted within and around thefeature) are mostly seated along the Interior walls.

The feature seems to be a ritual transformation of ashaputuan structure.

The foregoing discussion points to several dimen-sions of variation beyond the strictly behavioral thatmay contribute to spatial patterning in dwellings. Theproblem for many will be: so what? These social andIdeological dimensions are so culturally specific thatthey cannot be Inferred reliably from archaeologicaldata. But although signifying practices cannot beinferred reliably, they are obviously an importantsource of spatial structure that cannot be ignored. Wecan at least engage In contextual studies of spatialpatterning that are open to such Interpretive issues.With all the foregoing considerations in mind,methodological strategies for exploring differentdimensions of spatial patterning In Maritime Archaicand Paleoesklmo sites will now be drafted.

THEORY AND METHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

41

Methodological Strategy for the SpatialAnalysis of Maritime Archaic Sites

As emphasized above, a multi-scalar approach isrequired if we are to link social interpretations withpatterning in Maritime Archaic dwellings. Three levelsare discussed: micro-, meso- and macro-scales. In eachcase model-based interpretation and pattern recogni-tion studies are played off against each other. Theoperation of site formation processes must also beconsidered.

Inside vs Outside Patterns

The first step in analyzing ambiguous distributionslacking clear architectural features is to distinguishbetween patterns likely to have been produced withindwelling structures versus those indicative of outdooractivities. According to Binford (1983:156-158, 176-184), distributions characteristic of dwelling interiorsmay exhibit the following characteristics: the outerborder of the distribution is sharply constrained(indicative of a tent wall), hearths are carefully con-structed to avoid uncontrolled burning and dispersalof ash and coals, no drop-toss zones are associatedwith hearths due to repeated maintenance activity, andoutdoor dumps may accumulate as a consequence ofmaintenance procedures (Figure 6b). Maintenanceactivities may result in size-sorting of artifactualremains with a tendency towards smaller items remain-ing inside dwellings and larger items being transferredto external dumps (O'Connell 1987). While these sug-gestions seem to be a reasonable baseline, there aredifferent ways of organizing internal space and thedegree of maintenance activity may vary with thelength of occupation.

Outdoor activities may be less spatially boundedthan indoor activities: indeed some activities are con-ducted outdoors because of a need for unconstrainedspace or because the activities would be too messy ordisruptive to be conducted within a dwelling (Binford1983:170). Binford's (1978, 1983:153-156) model ofactivities conducted around outdoor hearths postu-

lates the presence of distinct depositional zones relat-ed to the features (Figure 6a). Drop zones should occurin an arc close to the hearths and contain small itemsthat fell beside the hearth-users. On the opposite sideof the hearth might be a forward toss zone where larg-er objects were thrown, while behind the hearth-usersis a backward toss zone for larger items. The generalconfiguration thus includes a size-sorting of objects.Additionally, the outer edge of the hearth-centered dis-tribution will exhibit a gradual fall-off rather than clearbounding. Broadly similar patterns may be associatedwith other features related to "extensive" activity areas,such as butchering locales and cooking pits (Binford1 983:1 65-1 70). Another characteristic of outside dis-tributions may be a relative lack of maintenance activ-ity, which may result in mostly primary rather than sec-ondary refuse. Nonetheless, a variety of formationprocesses may contribute to the "smearing" of thesepatterns, resulting in considerable ambiguity(Stevenson 1 991).

Micro-scale Analysis

Initially, micro-scale analysis is directed towards theidentification of relatively discrete behavioral unitsdefined empirically through pattern recognition stud-ies involving tool and debitage distributions and theirrelationships with features. Identification may involvevisual inspection of point plots and density contours,or the use of quantitative techniques such as /c-meanscluster analysis and correspondence analysis. The con-tents of /(-means clusters can be compared using con-tingency table analysis. The distribution patternsshould be interpreted in terms of their status as pri-mary/secondary refuse and be related to bodymechanics and daily practices. These micro-scale pat-terns can then be coordinated to identify possiblebehavioral modules, at which point the ethnoarchaeo-logical models for feature-centered distributions canbe applied. These behavioral modules then becomesocial-analytical units for defining possible family floorspaces or longhouse segments.

42

CHAPTER 3

Meso-scale Analysis

Meso-scale analysis is directed towards phenomenawhich link modules together, both behaviorally andsocially. Continuous linear distributions of primaryrefuse are probably the best indicators of supra-mod-ule behavioral patterning, since they are most lil<ely tobe the product of in situ social action. Cross-moduledistributions of secondary refuse would be moreambiguous, as secondary refuse is indicative of main-tenance behavior rather than in situ social action. Forexample, continuous distributions of small-sized deb-itage might be a better meso-scale indicator than fire-cracked rock, since the latter is more likely to be sec-ondary refuse. Cross-module links might also be iden-tified through refitting analyses or more general tech-nological organization studies aimed at mapping thestaging of lithic reduction in different parts of adwelling. Other characteristics, such as rock construc-tions and even the orientation of empty spaces, mayalso play a role in identifying meso-scale patterning.

Macro-scale Analysis

Macro-scale analysis is concerned with the overall formof the dwelling: how its structural logic channels prac-tice, its role as both a material precedent for and prod-uct of social action, and how the dwelling form mayrepresent conceptual structures. These questions maybe addressed qualitatively by identifying patterns ofsymmetry, order, repetition and relationships betweencommunal and private space. Quantitatively, the focusis on comparing the contents of individual modules toidentify patterns of repetition or variability that may berelated to social similarities or differences. These pat-terns can be assessed using simple contingency tablecomparisons of module content, or in the case of larg-er structures, correspondence analysis.

Although these three analytical levels have beenpresented in a sequence from micro-analysis to macro-analysis, this does not imply that one must begin withthe former and end with the latter. Indeed, as will beshown in Chapter 6, it may be useful to begin with an

assessment of overall structural patterns at the macro-level before turning to micro-level analysis.Consequently, the analytical process requires a multi-scalar circularity that might be considered "hermeneu-tic" (Hodder 1999).

Formation Processes

The analytical strategy discussed above would beincomplete without discussion of relevant site forma-tion processes. To some extent these will be specific toindividual localities, but several general observationscan be made. Natural formation processes are the bestunderstood. The properties of the sediment matrix inwhich the cultural material is deposited is a major fac-tor complicating spatial relationships. The MaritimeArchaic selection of sandy beaches raises problemsbecause sand is an unstable surface subject to defla-tion and redeposition. Such instability may result inconsiderable vertical movement, possibly size-sortingof artifacts, and the destruction of certain features.Stable gravel surfaces may present fewer problems,but on cobble beaches there may be a pronouncedtrickle-down effect of smaller objects between therocks. Horizontal movement related to occupationactivity is more likely to "smear" distributions in sanddeposits than in gravel or cobble sediments. Aeolianprocesses in sandy sediments may also displace arti-facts horizontally. Other natural formation processesof relevance to the study area include tree-falls andfrost action, both of which may cause vertical and hor-izontal shifts in artifacts and obliterate features.

As far as cultural formation processes are con-cerned, most ethnoarchaeological research hasfocused on the implications of site maintenance forgenerating different patterns of primary and secondaryrefuse accumulation. Maintenance behavior is expect-ed within dwellings, but the degree of implementationmay vary with the length of occupation. Preventivemaintenance (Binford 1 983:1 77) would involve period-ic clearing of primary refuse from dwelling floors anddeposition of the waste outside or in less-used por-

THEORY AND METHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

43

tions of the dwelling. This behavior may be recogniza-ble in dump formation and size-sorting of artifactualmaterial (Binford 1983:177; O'Connell 1987).However, refuse disposal patterns may also be affect-ed by symbolic rules for the preferential deposition ofcertain items. At frequently re-occupied sites, such asthe tombolo beaches used during the Early-MiddleMaritime Archaic, there is a high likelihood ofpalimpsest deposits. Additionally, there might berepeated cannibalization of earlier dwelling structuresfor construction materials, although this might be dif-ficult to identify in ambiguous spatial distributions.

Paleoeskimos: Axial Features and BilateralOrganization

A large collection of papers in the journal Etudes/Inuit/Studies (LeBlanc and Nagy 2003) provides a goodoverview of the range of variation in Paleoeskimoarchitecture. Paleoeskimo dwellings consisted of fourprinciple types: (1) tent structures, often associatedwith central hearths, which occur in both Early and LatePaleoeskimo contexts, (2) semi-subterranean houses,found only in Dorset, (3) longhouses, also found onlyin Dorset (although Susan Rowley mentions a three-roomed "longhouse-like" Pre-Dorset feature^ cited inRamsden and Murray 1995:106; also Rowley andRowley 1997:274), and 4) snowhouses, for whicharchaeological traces are absent or enigmatic. Thepresent discussion is oriented primarily towards tentstructures, since these are the focus of the analyses tofollow, but semi-subterranean features are mentionedto the extent that they display features in commonwith the tent dwellings. Longhouses were discussedpreviously in the Maritime Archaic section.

Early Paleoeskimo tent dwellings display a varietyof morphological characteristics. They may beephemeral, consisting of little more than a cluster ofrocks and associated lithics and bone, but in othercases they are more distinct features consisting of abox-hearth with or without a surrounding tent ring.The most discussed dwelling form is the mid-passage

or axial feature, which is best known from the HighArctic, Greenland, Labrador and Ungava. These fea-tures consist of a central box-hearth, sometimespacked with cooking/heating stones, from which dou-ble lines of rock dividers extend outwards to separatea structure into two halves. They may or may notinclude an encompassing tent ring (e.g.. Figure 1 5a).In Greenland there are also finds of what have beentermed "platform dwellings," consisting of box-hearthsassociated with rock pavements (Olsen 1 998). Thesestructural variations have been treated largely in termsof seasonal differences, with some researchers arguingthat the more substantial features with hearths andtent rings represent winter dwellings while the moreephemeral features indicate summer dwellings or win-ter snowhouses (Cox 1978:98; Maxwell 1985:98; cf.,Savelle 1984). Analyzing Pre-Dorset structures fromPrince of Wales Island, Ramsden and Murray (1995)suggested that faunal associations imply the oppositeinference: substantial features were used during thesummer while ephemeral features represent winterdwellings. Knuth (1 967:43) concluded from his work innorthern Greenland that it was impossible to distin-guish summer/winter dwellings; the housing traditionwas by nature insubstantial and highly transportable.A recent integration of Knuth's data underlines the dif-ficulties of seasonal interpretation (Gronnow andJensen 2003:337).

Less attention has been paid to Dorset tentdwellings. In some cases these also incorporate anaxial feature principle, sometimes with slab pavementsand soapstone vessel support rocks, and they may ormay not be encompassed by tent rings (e.g., R.Jordan1980:611; Lemoine et al. 2003; Sutherland 2003;Chapter 9 in this volume). Such features were presum-ably used from spring to fall.

Detailed studies of the spatial patterning associat-ed with Paleoeskimo structures have been limited.Researchers often publish floor plans of structureswith their associated artifacts, but these are generallypresented as site documentation, with little attention

44

CHAPTER 3

15/ Early Paleoeskimo axial features, (a) Peary Land, North Greenland (after Knuth 1967 plate 7; reproduced by permissionof EHESS/CNRS), (b) bilateral model analytical subdivisions.

to behavioral or social analysis. The first attempt toaddress spatial analysis problems was that of Dekin(1976), who used simple quantitative methods in whathe termed "elliptical analysis" to explore spatial pat-terning at the Pre-Dorset Closure site on south BaffinIsland. Dekin addressed several questions: (1) the gen-eral nature of the locality (dwelling, outdoor), (2) thenature of the dwelling (tent, snow house, etc.), (3) theshape and configuration of the tent, (4) the entrancelocation, and (5) internal activity organization. Thesequestions were constructed with the help of generalethnographic expectations and then presented ashypotheses to be tested. His method consisted of con-structing two ellipses around the distribution, one rep-resenting the hypothesized outer edge of a tent, theother a possible internal tent skirt. The ellipses werethen divided into four quadrants that were used asanalytical units for the exploration of internal activityvariation. Dekin suggested the internal spatial patternmight indicate a division of labor by sex. He conclud-ed that the ellipse-quadrant principle, which began asan analytical technique, fit well enough with the Pre-Dorset data that it could be used as a general modelfor Pre-Dorset activity partitioning.

Although valuable as a first attempt at explicitspatial analysis, the method is highly model depend-ent. The use of four quadrants as analytical units israther coarse-grained, since each quadrant consists ofa ca. 4 m^ block. Consequently, more subtle patternson a smaller scale are overlooked and distributionsthat overlap quadrants risk analytical amputation. Withthese simple quantitative comparisons one would notexpect to be able to "see" much variation other thanthat anticipated by the model. More fine-grained pat-tern recognition techniques might permit a fullerexploration of the spatial structure and they would beless model dependent.

Besides Dekin's effort, perhaps the most explicitattempt to develop a methodology for the analysis ofPaleoeskimo structures is that of Stapert andJohansen's (1996) application of "ring and sector"analysis and refitting to the early Dorset siteIkkarlussuup Tima in Disko Bay, Greenland. The siteconsisted of two tent rings and what was interpretedas a sod house. Ring and sector analysis was firstdeveloped for analysing hearth-centered distributionson European Upper Paleolithic sites. The techniqueplots histograms of item frequencies within concen-

THEORY AND METHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

45

trie rings at various intervals (50 cm seemed optimal)extending out from hearth features. The method waslinked explicitly with Binford's hearth-centered mod-els in that outdoor hearths were expected to produceunimodal ring distributions of debris reflective ofgradual fall-off, while debris distributions associatedwith hearths inside dwellings would produce multi-modal distributions reflective of wall effects. Therings could also be divided into horizontal sectors todetect variations in object frequencies that mightdepart from the "wall effect" and thereby indicatedwelling entrances. While innovative, the techniquetends to assume what it sets out to prove— it is verymodel dependent. Since it is based on quadratcounts, such coarse resolution may hamper criticalevaluation of model expectations. Furthermore,inconsistencies between the ring and sector analysisand the refitting results in the study were down-played as an "optical illusion" resulting from the useof different data types (Stapert and Johansen1996:64-65). One might conclude, however, thatrefitting provided more robust results.

Following on the heels of Dekin's analysis wasMcChee's (1979:52-55) discussion of the spatialorganization of Independence I dwelling features atthe Cold site on Devon Island. McChee divided thesefeatures into quadrants, with the central point on ahearth or presumed hearth area, thus creatingfront/back and left/right analytical units. Combiningthe artifactual material from several features at thesite, he used a chi-square test to conclude that, over-all, there were no significant differences betweenfront/back, but that there were significant differ-ences between left/right. He attributed the lateral dif-ferences to men's tool kits (right side: burins, burinspalls, hunting weapons) vs women's tool kits (leftside: microblades, needles). McChee (1 979:255)extended this inference by suggesting that non-dwelling sites ("camps" and "work stations") whichtend to have high percentages of possibly male toolsmay indicate primarily male activities.

A serious methodological problem with McChee'sanalysis is that he lumped the material from severaldifferent dwelling features into a single contingencytable in order to avoid small sample size problems.This procedure masks the scope of variation to thedegree that the meaningfulness of the lumped samplemust be questioned. Another problem is McChee's useof the same coarse quadrat technique as Dekin, whichrenders the analysis insensitive to finer-grained spatialpatterning, some of which is clearly evident in the Coldsite floor plans. Finally, the assumptions regardinggender specific tools are problematic, although theyare useful for drawing out possible dimensions ofsocial variation.

Jensen's (1994, 1996) discussion of Paleoeskimosites in the Skjoldungen District of southeastCreenland presented a spatial analysis of a Dorsetlocality that also considered site formation factorssuch as distinctions between primary and secondaryrefuse. Lithic raw materials proved to be particularlyuseful for the analysis, since each raw material typeseemed to have its own depositional history Oensen1996:156). Different types of raw materials tended tobe found on either side of the axial feature, whichJensen suggested may indicate a division of space bygender. Analysis of the circulation and deposition oflithic raw materials was developed further byDesrosiers and Rahmani (2003), who used the chameoperatoire method to link lithic reduction sequences tospatial patterning at a Middle Dorset site in Nunavik,northern Quebec .

A recent unpublished thesis by Mikalsen (2001)focused on spatial analysis of two Saqqaq sites fromDisko Bay, west Creenland. One locality consisted of asingle tent ring structure while the other contained fivefeatures: one distinct axial feature, a "platform" struc-ture, two hearths and a possible cache. The analysisemployed two approaches: simple cross-tabulationswere used to evaluate bilateral left/right, front/backpatterning, while /c-means cluster analysis was used tosearch for other aspects of patterning. There was a

46

CHAPTER 3

tendency for burins, points and knives to be depositedseparately from microblades and scrapers, althoughthe distinction was not strictly bilateral. This patternwas interpreted as indicating functional and possiblygender differences in the use of space. At one of thesites, flakes of chalcedony and crystal quartz seemedto have more restricted spatial distributions than thepredominant killiaq. The cluster analyses seemed mostuseful for Identifying specific activity or depositionalareas, while the cross-tabulations based on the bilater-al model revealed patterns in the raw material distribu-tion that were not so evident in the cluster analyses.

While many researchers view the apparent bilater-al structure of Paleoeskimo axial feature dwellings asreflecting a division of labor and space by gender, oth-ers have suggested the dualism may indicate a parti-tioning of space between two co-residential families.This is unlikely for most Early Paleoeskimo structures.On the one hand, they seem too small for two families.On the other hand, two families arranged on oppositesides of a mid-passage should result in functionallyredundant tool assemblages on each side, but in somecases there are functional differences in tools thatdepart from these expectations and seem more consis-tent with a gender interpretation (Jensen 1996). Theco-residential family hypothesis seems more appropri-ate for Dorset; Harp (1 976:1 32) suggested that Dorsetsemi-subterranean dwellings housed joint householdunits. A Late Dorset structure at Okak-3 in Labradorwas rather large (7-8 m by 6 m) and had an axial fea-ture with three hearths (Cox 1 978: 111); the large floorarea and multiple hearths are suggestive of a jointhousehold. Some Labrador Dorset tent rings are large(6 by 3.25 m) and bisected by a central rock alignment,leading R. Jordan (1980:612) to propose they wereused by two families. It seems beyond doubt that LateDorset longhouses were used by multiple households,although the precise nature of that use is unclear.

The possible symbolic meanings of the axial fea-ture have also been considered. Knuth (1983:8-12)observed that Pearyland Independence I and

Independence II axial features were oriented consis-tently towards water. He noted that the two halves ofthe dwelling structures bisected by an axial featurecould be referred to by Creenlandic terms as: avangna,("the side on your right when you sit in the tent facingthe water") and kujatd, the left side. A consistent con-ceptual division was implied, but the point was notdeveloped further. Knuth simply suggested that: "Thehearth passage of the Independence culture seems tobe a kind of universal furniture unit serving as lamp,heating installation, cooking stove, kitchen cupboard,firewood box, and clothes chest" (Knuth 1983:12;Jensen [1 996:1 56] makes a similar observation).

Plumet (1 989:323-324) developed the idea of theaxial feature and bilateral symmetry as a central con-ceptual theme in Paleoeskimo dwelling organizationfor over 3000 years. He suggested a metaphor of theaxial feature as the "backbone" of the dwelling, unit-ing a family group within individual structures. With aspatial transformation of the small tent axial principleinto the central axis of the Dorset longhouse, a seriesof individual family floor areas were united into a bandunit. Furthermore, Plumet drew a comparison with thedepictions of bilateral symmetry in Dorset art, in whichanimal anatomy is often depicted in "x-ray" style interms of a backbone with ribs extending outwards.Following Knuth (1967a:48, 1967b:199), Plumet com-pared the axial concept with the Sami fireplace andtent structure, and their symbolic associations. Thus,through the back door (so to speak), we come to therelevance of Yates' (1989) structuralist interpretationof the Sami tent as an analogy for the analysis ofPaleoeskimo axial structures.

Odgaard (2001:164, 2003:369-370) associatedthe axial feature with circumpolar shamanistic ideas ofthe hearth as a gateway to other worlds, such asmythological "clan rivers." She also suggested thathearths and axial features were physical markers thatsocialized the arctic landscape and served as conduitsfor cultural memory, symbolically relating humangroups to the land.

THEORY AND METHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

47

A final suggestion for possible symbolic meaningof the axial feature originated from a photographshown at a 1999 Arctic archaeology meeting inCopenhagen. The photo, taken by Knud Rasmussen insouthern Greenland, showed a child's play-model of akayak made from rocks. There was a prominent centralbox made of flat slabs, representing the cockpit, whilerocks extended outwards in opposite directions toindicate the bow and stern. The construction bore aninteresting resemblance to an axial feature.

Methodological Strategy for the Analysis ofPaleoeskimo Spatial Patterns

Most of the Paleoeskimo analyses undertakenherein will be conducted at the micro-scale level sincethe volume deals with probable tent dwellings ratherthan semi-subterranean houses or longhouses.Individual dwellings can probably be considered asbehavioral modules, but if some structures containedjoint families on opposite sides of an axial feature theopposed floor areas might be considered as individualbehavioral modules. The kinds of patterns discussedon the multi-modular macro-scale for the MaritimeArchaic longhouse— symmetry, repetition etc.— willthus be treated on the single module level for most ofthe Paleoeskimo structures. The discussion here willbe somewhat briefer than for the Maritime Archaic,since some of the general observations made for thatcase apply here as well.

The model-based analysis takes its point of depar-ture in a theme discussed repeatedly by researchers:bilateral organization centered on the hearth and axialfeature. To what extent can patterns in tool types andraw materials on either side of and within the axial fea-ture be indicative of joint family composition, genderdifferences or symbolic organization? Two familiesinhabiting different sides of the same dwelling mayproduce redundant deposits of tool types on each sideof an axial feature, at least insofar as they are engagedin similar productive and maintenance activities.Division of the bilateral dwelling space by gender may

produce different and complementary distributions oftool types on either side of an axial feature. One mightassume, following McGhee (1979) that tool types suchas burins, burin spalls and hunting weapons could beassociated with men's activities, while women's activi-ties could be represented by microblades and scrap-ers. Linkages of particular lithic tools with gender is,unfortunately, rather problematic (cf., Gero 1991), butthe interpretation might be more robust if a consistentpattern was repeated across multiple dwelling struc-tures. Expectations for symbolic patterning are diffi-cult to specify in advance, except insofar as the previ-ously mentioned social and gender structuring ofdwellings is embedded in the symbolic practices ofdaily life. One possibility is consistent bilateral pattern-ing in the deposition of lithic raw material types. Whilethis might simply reflect the practicalities of position-ing reduction activities, repeated patterns of spatialcontrasts in raw material types across many dwellingscould be attributable to the symbolic meaningsattached to different materials.

Methodologically, the bilateral model can beexplored using simple contingency tables. The analyt-ical units for dwelling space can be categorized as theaxial feature and two lateral sides, or front and backzones (Figure 1 5b). An important limitation on suchanalyses is that tool frequencies are often so low thatsignificance tests are impractical, thus conclusionsremain impressionistic and highly vulnerable to sam-pling error. Reliance on the bilateral model limits inter-pretive scope, however, by locking us into precon-ceived analytical units. The broad spatial divisionsused may not be sensitive to smaller scale patternswhich may be significant for understanding behavioraland formational questions. Site plans often exhibitsmall clusters of tools and debitage that might repre-sent discrete depositional and behavioral processes.These clusters must be understood at the microscalelevel and then integrated into the modular analysis.Lithic clusters could be considered using the hearth-centered model, but the presence of an axial feature

48

CHAPTER 3

may inhibit free rotation of bodies around the hearth,resulting in a distinctly bilateral distribution patternrather than the expected arc-like distribution. Also, wesometimes assume that distinct hearths and axial fea-tures were used inside dwellings, but this need nothave been the case where tent anchoring rocks areabsent. Thus the inside-outside hearth questionshould be addressed in those cases where structuralevidence is lacking.

The behavioral-formationa! agenda requires differ-ent analytical tools than the bilateral model approach;pattern recognition techniques that are less dependenton preconceived analytical units. As was the case forthe Maritime Archaic strategy, /(-means cluster analysiscan be used as a model-independent pattern recogni-tion technique for tool distributions. Because it is notparticularly constrained by sample size, the methodseems fairly well suited for Paleoeskimo sites, whichtypically consist of relatively small numbers of toolsspread over fairly compact areas. Clustering tech-niques will be employed to recognize micro-level itemgroupings that may be useful for identifying behaviorsuch as discrete drop or dump zones. The contents ofthe resulting clusters can then be compared using con-tingency table analysis. Point-plotted tools and deb-itage will be used to consider distribution boundaryquestions related to the inside-outside hearth problem(i.e., the wall effect). Additionally, point-plotted deb-itage will be used directly to analyze spatial variationin lithic raw materials, as well as to identify the appro-priate quadrat groupings for contingency table analy-sis of raw materials. Where possible, tool refits can beused to point to behavioral connections within andoutside of dwelling structures. The use of size-sortingto distinguish primary/secondary refuse is of minimalutility for Paleoeskimo material given the consistentlysmall size of the tools and debitage.

Formation Processes

Most of the formation processes discussed for theMaritime Archaic are also relevant for Pre-Dorset. A

slight contrast is the tendency for Pre-Dorset sites tobe located on gravel beaches rather than sand. Thesemore stable surfaces might be characterized by lesshorizontal smearing and less likelihood of palimpsestdeposits caused by deflation and redeposition.Dwelling structure cannibalization and recycling ofconstruction materials is to some extent recognizablefrom disturbance of the expected patterns of formal-ized box-hearths and axial features that are sometimespresent on Pre-Dorset sites.

Notes on the Quantitative Methods

Given that a wide array of quantitative techniques isreadily available for spatial analysis, a few wordsshould be said regarding the choice of techniquesused here. Besides the obvious requirement that thetechniques should provide information on patterningrelevant to the models being evaluated, the techniquesmust be appropriate to the data collection format. Atthe Maritime Archaic site Nukasusutok-5, much of theprovenience data for two abundant tool classes, uti-lized flakes and bipolar cores, is limited to quadrat fre-quencies. This situation necessitates reliance onquadrat-based analytical methods. Another require-ment—partly self-imposed rather than conceptuallygrounded—was that the techniques should be method-ologically transparent and empirically rich. That is,they should be relatively simple mathematically andeasy for most readers to grasp, involve minimal statis-tical transformation of the data and provide a descrip-tion of the patterning that would enhance the empiri-cal detail rather than cloak it with mathematicalabstraction. The two main techniques used here meetthese demands: /c-means cluster analysis and contin-gency table analysis. A third technique, multivariatecorrespondence analysis, is less easy to grasp mathe-matically, but as a data reduction technique it providesgraphic output that can be useful for understandingthe underlying dimensions of variation in complexdata sets. A fourth technique involving a size-sortingindex is more problematic and is used experimentally.

THEORY AND METHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

49

/<-means cluster analysis (Kintigh and Ammerman1 982) is employed frequently for the analysis of pointdistributions. The technique uses measured distances(Euclidean) between item types to define circular clus-ters of cultural material. The clusters are formed bysubdividing the total data set such that intra-clustervariance is minimized while inter-cluster distance ismaximized using the sum squared error (SSE). Clustercentroids indicate the mean x and y values of the itemsassigned to the cluster. There is a degree of subjectiv-ity in determining how many clusters constitute thebest statistical solution. Inflection points on graphicplots of the %SSE plotted against the number of clus-ters provide some "objective" indication of the numberof clusters in the best solution. Ultimately, however, itis our understanding of site context, which is embed-ded in our model-related preconceptions, that screensthe possible solutions and guides the final decision. Animportant shortcoming is that /c-means has the built-inrequirement of circular clusters. Refuse distributionsare, of course, rather more irregular in shape, but thetechnique appears to provide fairly robust results(Blankholm 1 991:75). Since /(-means analysis does notinclude a statistical technique for comparing the con-tents of the clusters, this function is fulfilled by contin-gency tables.

Correspondence analysis (Greenacre 1993) is amultivariate data reduction technique used for identi-fying patterning in categorical data, in this case thecontents of site quadrats. It is based on a chi-squaredistance measure applied to a table of units (quadrats)and variables (tool types, flake raw materials, etc.) andcan be regarded as: "...a method for decomposing theoverall Chi-square statistic...by identifying a smallnumber of dimensions in which the deviations fromthe expected values can be represented" (StatSoft Inc.2002). In practice this involves projection of perpendi-cular axes through the observed frequency profilessuch that deviations from the expected profiles areexpressed as geometric distances. Each axis accountsfor a different part of the total variation. In a robust

solution the first two axes should explain most of thevariation. The most important output is a bivariate plotof units and variables in which their distances from theorigin express their deviations from their expectedprofiles. Units positioned closely in the plot share sim-ilar relative frequencies of variables. But the physicaldistances between unit and variable points in the plotscannot be interpreted directly because of the way sta-tistical distances are computed; units can be comparedwith units and variables with variables, but their spac-ing relative to each other cannot be given a simplegeometric reading. A general principle, however, isthat each axis of the plot orders the points from oneend to the other such that points at opposite ends ofan axis display contrasting properties. Correspon-dence analysis is well-suited for quadrat-distributeddata as long as item frequencies are sufficient relativeto the number of units and variables, but only theMaritime Archaic site Nukasusutok-5 had a largeenough sample and excavated area to justify applica-tion of the technique and then only to a limited degree.

In many situations simple contingency tablecomparisons of grouped quadrats are sufficient toreveal important dimensions of spatial patterns. Thisis perhaps the simplest, most methodologically trans-parent and empirically descriptive analytical tech-nique in the existing arsenal. Its main drawback isthat it requires cutting spatial distributions into cate-gories and assumptions must be made as to whichcategories are relevant or justifiable. In the analysesto follow, spatial categories are defined in terms ofmodel-derived units, by model-independent /(-meansclustering results and occasionally by visual assess-ment of the distributions. Where item frequencieswarrant, the chi-square significance test is used tocheck for non-random relationships. Where item fre-quencies are so high that chi-square inevitably wouldproduce a statistically significant result, as in thecase of debitage frequencies from the MaritimeArchaic site Nukasusutok-5, the test is omitted andthe observed and expected frequencies are compared

50

CHAPTER 3

Inuit fish camp at Comfort Cove, Snyder Bay. (Photo: W. Fitzhugh 1983)

to identify which table cells deviate most fromexpected values.

Given the role of size-sorting patterns in the siteformation studies outlined above, Wandsnider(1 996:353-354) formulated a size-sorting index (SSI)that can be used to monitor spatial variations in objectsize. The SSI summarizes the representation of smalland large items in a quadrat, with high negative valuesindicating a dominance of large items, high positivevalues a dominance of small items, and values near 0indicating a mixture of sizes. There are some obviousdrawbacks to this index. First, the cut-off point forsmall versus large items is subjective. Second, theindex does not make much sense for the Pre-Dorsetlithic assemblages since they are composed almostentirely of rather small items. Even in assemblageswith somewhat wider size-ranges a limited number ofitems in the large category can be overwhelmed by"noise" from an abundant small category. Third, the

utility of the index may be limited by the total numberof items used. Debitage assemblages might provideenough material for meaningful spatial comparisons,but in assemblages with few tools the index might behighly susceptible to random effects and it may be dif-ficult to compare widely distributed excavation unitswith low item frequencies. Given all these considera-tions, the index was only applied to the large quartzdebitage assemblage from the Maritime Archaic siteNukasusutok-5.

Conclusion: Behavioral Space and SignifyingPractices

IVlost of the discussion to be presented in other chap-ters of this volume is couched in terms of identifyingthe behavioral dimensions that might account forobserved spatial patterns. Some of these behavioraldimensions involve the unintended consequences ofbody mechanics while others involve intentional

THEORY AND METHOD IN THE ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL SPACE

51

actions related to site maintenance considerations.These are dimensions for which ethnoarchaeologicalmiddle-range theory building has provided a reason-ably robust interpretive framework. The approaches tothe social dimensions of space that were outlined pre-viously mostly fit within the structuralist tradition inwhich pre-existing cultural schemas are construed asgenerating material culture patterns. This is a culturalconstructionist position in which a frame of meaning isimposed on practice and on nature. Meaning is notstrictly pre-programmed, however, it is activatedthrough practice. Practice draws upon cognitiveschemas but it also responds to precedent practicesand the need for situational improvisation. Although

constructionist approaches are useful counterpoints tomyopic behaviorism they fail to capture the "work inprogress" nature of social action as signifying practice(cf. Ingold 1 993:1 62). The social structuration of spaceis an ongoing and always incomplete work and individ-ual components or sites are only partial sedimenta-tions of processes that stretch over variable scales ofspace and time. Spatial patterns therefore may beambiguous with respect to both function and meaning.Nonetheless, it is hoped that the methodologicalstrategies outlined above will help reduce ambiguityand lead to useful proposals regarding the behavioraland social dimensions of Maritime Archaic andPaleoeskimo dwelling space.

52

CHAPTER 3

Nulcasusutok Island:

Overview and SurvcucA Sites

The first archaeological fieldwork undertaken onNukasusutok Island was in 1928 when William DuncanStrong excavated Inuit communal houses at the sitenow designated as Nukasusutok-8 and collected fromgraves at several locations on the western end of theisland, including Nukasusutok-7. J. Garth Taylor revis-ited Nukasusutok-8 during his 1966 field study ofLabrador Inuit settlements (Taylor 1966). In 1 973,Warren Hofstra, associated with the SmithsonianInstitution, conducted a brief survey of the island andrecorded Nukasusutok-1 to 7 and Nukasusutok-9.William Fitzhugh's Smithsonian crew returned in 1975and 1976 to conduct further surveys, testNukasusutok-5 and excavate the Late Pre-Dorset struc-tures at Nukasusutok-2.

In 1979 and 1980 the author conducted severalinvestigations on the island. The Maritime Archaic siteNukasusutok-5 was excavated in both years and theDorset locality Nukasusutok-12 was excavated in1980. Surveys were carried out in both years in orderto revisit previously recorded sites and identify newones. Nukasusutok-9 (HcCh-1 1) was the only site thatwas not relocated. The area surveyed in 1979 wasrestricted to the central portion of the island betweenNukasusutok 8 and 10, the eastern end of the islandnear Mount Pickle Harbour was surveyed in 1980.Additional excavations were conducted by the authorat Nukasusutok-5 in 1992 and 1993 and Nukasusutok-8 was test-pitted in 1993. In 1997 contract surveysrelated to mineral exploration were undertaken by

Gerald Penney (1997), who identified previouslyunrecorded features at Nukasusutok-7 on the south-west corner of the island. These features were revisit-ed by the author in 2004.

Table 1 lists the archaeological sites that havebeen registered on Nukasusutok Island and theirapproximate locations are depicted in Figure 16.Precise point locations are withheld at the request ofthe provincial Culture Heritage Division. A total of 14sites has been recorded, of which eight componentsare attributable to the Maritime Archaic, five to theLabrador Inuit, two to Dorset and one to Late Pre-Dorset. This chapter provides brief descriptions of theminor surveyed sites, most of which are MaritimeArchaic flake scatters. Four sites will be described inseparate chapters: the excavated localities ofNukasusutok-5 (Maritime Archaic), Nukasusutok-12(Early/Middle Dorset), and W. D. Strong's and theauthor's activities at Nukasusutok-7 and 8. One signif-icant site will not be considered in detail:Nukasusutok-2. This important Late Pre-Dorset localityis described by Fitzhugh (2002), so only a brief sum-mary is provided as follows.

Nukasusutok-1 (HcCh-4)

This locality includes a small Maritime Archaic occupa-tion and two large Inuit fox traps. The MaritimeArchaic component is located on a flat gravel ridge onthe south side of a rock outcrop and has clear views tothe northeast and southwest. To the north the topog-

NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND: OVERVIEW AND SURVEYED SITES

53

Table 1. List of Archaeological Sites Registered on Nukasusutok Island.

Borden No.

Cu Itur6

Sit6 Typ6

Ni J k;i ^ii J jtok-1

HcCh-4

M;iritimp Arrh;^ir" Iniiit

lithir <ir;ittpr' fny t"r;in*;

Nijk;^<iij<^iJtnk-?'^

HcCh-5

y i,^ 1 fp;^t"M rp Hva/p 11 i nn

Nijk^^i]^iitok-4

HcCh-6

M^irittmp Arrhpiir

IViai ILIIII^ 1 \ 1 K.\ \\X\\^

lithir <ir;^t"t"pr

Nijki^<iij^iJtnk-S

HcCh-7

Maritime Archaic

h;ihit;^tinn <iitp

Ni]k;^<sij<;iJtnk-fi

HcCh-8

Mpiritimp Arrhptir

lithir <^rpittpx

Niik,^<iii<;iJtnk-7

HcCi-8

Inuit^oH hnii<ip

tpnt rinn<; nr;^\/p^

Nuka.susutok.-8

HcCh-1 0

1 nu it

rommiinpil <snH hnii^p^ nr-^vp^

Nijk?i*;ij<;iJtnk-Q

HcCh-1 1

Maritimp Arrhpiir^?^

lithir <^r;^ttpr

NII k;^ j^iijtnk-1 0

HcCh-1 2

Mpiritimp Arrh^^ir

lithir c;r;^ttpr

Nukasusutok-1 1

HcCh-1 3

Inuit

tent rings

Nukasusutok-1 2

HcCh-14

Early/Middle Dorset

axial feature dwellings

Nukasusutok-1 3

HcCh-1 5

Maritime Archaic

lithic scatter

Nukasusutok-1 4

HcCh-16

Maritime Archaic; Inuit

lithic scatter; pinnacles

Mount Pickle Harbour-1

HcCh-1 7

Early Dorset

lithic scatter

Nukasusutok-3 was combined with Nukasusutok-2

raphy drops quite steeply down to the North Harbourwhile in all other directions the site is bordered bylower marshy areas. No elevation above sea level wastaken, but according to the topographic map it mustlie at roughly 65 m asl. The site was first reported in1973 by Hofstra, who surface collected a singleground slate flake. The cultural material observed in1979 was scattered sparsely across a deflated areaabout 8 m by 8 m in size. A biface blank of Ramahchert was surface collected. Flakes of quartz, Ramahchert, slate and black chert were noted on the surface.

The lithic raw materials and high elevation sug-gest a Maritime Archaic Naksak Complex affiliation.The biface blank (Figure 1 7:c) is large (1 33 mm long),asymmetric in form, with partial flaking of the dorsalsurface (mostly on the margins), and a largely unre-touched flat ventral surface with cortex. The unusuallyhigh elevation suggests the locality was probably usedwhen the shoreline was lower, perhaps as low as 30 masl., for which a date of ca. 6800 B.P. would be expect-ed, although an even later date is possible.

The two Inuit fox traps are positioned on top of arock outcrop. They are constructed of large rocks andboulders and contain sliding door openings.

Nukasusutok-2 (HcCh-5)

This important Late Pre-Dorset locality was visited bythe Smithsonian Institution in 1975 and two axial fea-ture dwellings were excavated in 1 976 (Cox 1 978:1 01;Fitzhugh 1976:1 35). The site is located on a broadgravel beach at roughly 60-65 m asl., about 30 mnorthwest of the Maritime Archaic site Nukasusutok-10, which is situated higher up on the crest of thebeach sequence. The material has recently been pub-lished by Fitzhugh (2002); the following site descrip-tion summarizes his report.

The two axial feature dwellings lay virtually side-by-side, only 14 m apart. Both were oval, bi-lobed inform, with their axial features oriented towards thenorth (seaward). Most of the tent anchor rocks atStructure 1 had been removed and piled on top of theaxial feature, but Structure 2 was intact, with a sur-

54

CHAPTER 4

/ 7/ Tools from surveyed Maritime Archaic Sites onNukasusutok Island, a: bipolar core, Nukasusutok-4:b: stemmed point, Nukasusutok-4: c: asymmetric bifaceblank, Nukasusutok-I, d: miniature celt, Nukasusutok-13,e: celt fragment, Nukasusutok-6: f: bipolar core,Nukasusutok-I 4.

rounding ring of anclioring rocks (Figure 18). Bothstructures were ca. 4 m front-to-back along their axialfeatures and ca. 5 m wide. In both cases the axial fea-tures consisted of three main components placed in afront-to-back sequence: (1) an enclosed box-hearth ofvertical flat slabs containing "boiling stones," (2) aslab-lined hearth depression for heating the stones,and (3) a semi-open hearth bordered by inclined rockslabs and containing burned fat, interpreted as alamp/cooking hearth. Both structures also had smallwing pavements extending from one side of the axialfeature at the rear of the dwelling.

Small lithic assemblages were associated witheach dwelling. Structure 1 had only 7 tools, all insidethe structure. Structure 2 had 61 tools and 282 flakes,most of which were located outside the front of thedwelling. Those lithics deposited inside the structurewere primarily associated with the axial feature andhearths; few were found in the lateral compartments.Tool types included: burins (ground and unground,some with waisted hafting constrictions), burin spalls,bifaces (two side-notched), an endscraper, microb-lades, microblade cores of crystal quartz, celts and uti-lized flakes. The most remarkable characteristic of theassemblage was the 10 celts associated with Structure2, an unusually large number for an outer coast Pre-Dorset site.

The ground and waisted burin forms and side-notched bifaces are Late Pre-Dorset types. The axialfeature dwellings are similar to the Independence IIstructures described by Knuth (1968). A single radio-carbon date run on burned fat procured from thehearth in Structure-1 was assayed at 331 5 ± 85 B.P., or3055 ± 85 B.P. with C-1 2/1 3 correction.

Cox (1978:98) suggested the more substantialPre-Dorset axial feature structures, such as those atNukasusutok-2, may be fall or winter dwellings (cf.,Ramsden and Murray 1 995). Fitzhugh (2002:1 53-1 55)concluded that Nukasusutok-2 might have been a win-ter settlement used from October to December, basedon several characteristics of the site: (1) its unusuallyhigh elevation and great distance from the contempo-rary shoreline, (2) the solid and carefully planned con-struction of the dwellings as well as the presence offire-cracked rock and burned fat, (3) the abundance ofcelts, presumably used for chopping firewood andfrozen meat, and (4) the lack of lithics in the lateralcompartments may indicate the presence of bedding.On the other hand, Fitzhugh (2002:1 55) also notedseveral features that might militate against a lengthywinter occupation: a small lithic assemblage indicativeof minimal accumulation, a lack of storage caches, andpredominantly outdoor lithic reduction activities. A

NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND: OVERVIEW AND SURVEYED SITES

55

] 8/ Nukasusutok-2 Structure

summary of Pre-Dorset settlement patterns empha-sized the general assumption that winter settlementwas located in the inner bays or interior, in light ofwhich Nukasusutok-2 is a singular anomaly (Fitzhugh2002:1 55-1 56).

Nukasusutok-4 (HcCh-6)

Recorded by Hofstra in 1973, this Maritime Archaicsite was revisited in 1979. It is located at the westernend of a long tombolo beach near the center of theisland and is probably ca. 70 m asl., near the marinelimit. Exceptional views may be had northeastwardsdown North Harbour and across Wyatt Harbour to thesouth. The eastern portion of the beach surface isextremely rocky while the western end is vegetatedwith crowberry, lichen and small groves of sprucetrees. Several small gravel-cobble blow-outs in the cen-ter of the beach were probably the source of the toolscollected by Hofstra: a large Ramah chert biface mid-section, a quartz biface tip, two quartz bipolar cores,five utilized flakes (two slate, three quartz) and one

ground slate flake. The 1979 surface collection con-sisted of the basal fragment of a Ramah chert pointwith a relatively compact stem (Figure 1 7:b) whichseems stylistically earlier than those from theNukasusutok-5 components believed to date 5600-5300 B.P. (Chapter 8).

A small test excavation of 7 m^ was placed in thecentral portion of the beach and a 1 m^ test pit waslocated 32 m to the south near the edge of the beach.The in situ deposits consisted of a thin (4-5 cm) man-tle of vegetation and humus underlain by an intermix-ture of cobbles and brown sand. A small charcoal sam-ple was procured in the central excavated area from apossible hearth associated with a faint red ocher stain,but the sample was insufficient for conventional radio-carbon dating. The only implements recovered fromthe excavated units were a Ramah chert biface frag-ment, a utilized flake of the same raw material and aquartz bipolar core (Figure 1 7:a). The small debitagecollection, totalling 103 flakes, was composed of73.5% quartz, 19.6% Ramah chert and 6.9% "others"

56

CHAPTER 4

(the latter including slate, gray quartzite and anigneous material). The paucity of cultural material indi-cates this site was a small temporary camp, with thewide separation of the surface scatters suggesting sev-eral discrete occupation loci.

About 100 m east of the excavation was a lowrock mound situated 20 m back from the northern ter-race edge. The mound lay on top of a sand-gravelbeach and was oval, 3.50-3.75 m by 4.0-4.5 m in sizeand ca. 0.50 m high. It was bordered by seven largeboulders and filled in with loosely packed 40-60 cmand larger boulders, heavily encrusted with blacklichen. Since the feature resembled a Maritime Archaicburial mound it was photographed vertically with abipod, after which the upper mantle of rocks wasremoved. This revealed a "box" formed by five verylarge boulders embedded in the beach with smallerrocks placed within. After additional bipod photogra-phy more rocks were removed from the box untilsandy gravel was encountered and excavation contin-ued through silt and rocks, terminating at 1.25 mbelow the surface since no trace of cultural materialwas found. It is uncertain whether this was a culturalfeature.

Nukasusutok-6 (HcCh-8)

Nukasusutok-6 was recorded by Hofstra in 1973 andwas revisited in 1979. It is located on the western sideof Wyatt Harbour at the opening of an east-west trend-ing pass and lies on a partially deflated raised beach atca. 30 m asl., which can be maximum dated to ca. 6800B.P.. The topographic location of the site suggests theterrace was inhabited when the pass was a narrowmarine passage that separated what is now a peninsu-la from the mainland. This constriction may have beena good spot for sealing or fishing, but the sparse cul-tural remains indicate the site was only used briefly.

The cultural materials occurred in three smalllocalities that extended along the terrace front forabout 25 m. Each locality was a debitage scatter of6-8 m^ in size. Flake raw material data were collected

at each locus by counting the items found within a 1 mdiameter sampling circle at the center of each distribu-tion (Table 2). Quartz constituted 91-96% of the flakessampled, slate 4-15%. Slate varieties present includedgreen, red, mauve and gray-banded materials. Only oneRamah chert flake was observed, but being outside thesampling units it was not included in the table counts.

Table 2. Nukasusutok-6 Flake Raw Materials

L-1 L-2 L-3 N %

N % N % N % TOTAL

Quartz 71(95.9) 50(84.7) 6(92.4) 182(91.5)

Slate 3 (4.1) 9(15.3) 5 (7.6) 17 (8.5)

TOTAL 74 59 66 199

Hofstra's 1973 surface collection included a celt frag-ment, two quartz utilized flakes and two quartz bipo-lar cores. The only tool was found in 1 979 was a badlyweathered miniature celt bit made of yellow-greenslate (Figure 1 7:e), which is comparable to those fromthe Maritime Archaic Naksak Complex.

Nukasusutok-9 (HcCh-11)

Nukasusutok-9 was registered by Hofstra in 1 973 but itwas not possible to relocate it in 1979. According tothe scanty site records it was located at the western endof the pass that separates the Wyatt Harbour Peninsulafrom the mainland. The only materials collected fromthe site were two utilized flakes of Ramah chert.

Nukasusutok-10 (HcCh-12)

Nukasusutok-l 0 is a Maritime Archaic occupationlocated on a raised gravel-boulder beach on the east-ern arm of the island, ca. 75 m asl., near the marinelimit. It is situated slightly above and about 30 msoutheast of the Late Pre-Dorset structures atNukasusutok-2. The best view from the locality isacross the North Harbour. The site was discovered dur-ing the 1976 Smithsonian excavations at Nukasusutok-

NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND: OVERVIEW AND SURVEYED SITES

57

2. A revisit in 1979 indicated that surface traces ofMaritime Archaic activity were limited to two small con-centrations of quartz debitage and numerous largechunks of quartz scattered intermittently among theboulders along the crest of the beach. Few Ramah chertflakes were observed. A large vein of quartz, 18 mlong, 1 m wide, was exposed on the side of the hill tothe northeast. This, and the large quantity of shatteredquartz, suggested that one of the functions ofNukasusutok-10 might have been as a quarry site.Smithsonian surface collections included a small ovalquartz biface and two biface fragments of Ramahchert. No tools were found during thel979 visit.Fitzhugh (personal communication) suggested theremight be a Maritime Archaic boulder structure at thecrest of the raised beach, but observations in 1 979 anda brief visit in 1992 failed to identify any structuralremains. The high elevation and the quartz-dominatedlithic material suggest an early Naksak Complex affili-ation.

Nukasusutok-11 (HcCh-13)

This site consists of Inuit tent rings located at the tipof the peninsula that forms the western boundary ofNorth Harbour.

Nukasusutok-1 3 (HcCh-1 5)

Nukasusutok-1 3 is a small Maritime Archaic site locat-ed on the south side of the island, ca. 1 km east ofWyatt Harbour, on a 65 m asl. raised beach that mayhave been a tombolo beach at the time of occupation.A good view of the sea is available to the south.Cultural materials consisted of a dense oval concentra-tion of quartz debitage ca. 3 m in diameter with otherflakes scattered about more diffusely for a totalexposed area of 20 m^. Two meters west of the quartzconcentration was a 4 by 3 m oval alignment of cob-bles that may have been a structural feature. A 1 m^test pit was excavated into a vegetated area adjacentto the quartz concentration, but only two quartz flakeswere encountered. Two 1 m diameter circular sampling

units were used to generate raw material counts forthe lithic scatter. Table 3 shows that 96 % of the mate-rial was quartz and 3 % Ramah chert. Outside the sam-ple units two red quartzite flakes were also observed.

Tables. Nukasusutok-13Flake Raw Material Frequencies

L-1

L-2

TOTAL

N %

N %

N %

Quartz

210 (96.3)

14 (100.0)

224 (96.6)

Ramah Chert

8 (3.7)

8 (3.4)

TOTAL

218

14

232

The only tool recovered from the site was a virtuallycomplete miniature celt of green slate (Figure 1 7:d),which was found on the surface 2 m south of the testpit. The lateral edges of the implement are bifaciallyflaked and grinding is concentrated at the bit,although it also extends over three-quarters of thetool. This form is typical of the Naksak Complex. Thehigh elevation of 65 m suggests the site is fairly earlyin the Maritime Archaic sequence, but the locality wasprobably occupied when sea level was substantiallylower than the beach terrace.

Nukasusutok-14 (HcCh-16)

This small Maritime Archaic locality is situated on abare gravel tombolo beach near the middle of theisland, 1 km west of Mount Pickle Harbor. No preciseelevation was taken, but the site probably lies at 30-35m asl. It consists of a 5 m diameter scatter of quartzdebitage at the easternmost end of the raised beach.A Ramah chert bipolar core (Figure 1 7:f) and a slateflake were surface collected. No Ramah chert flakeswere observed on the surface.

Mount Pickle Harbour-1 (HcCh-17)

The 1980 survey registered a Dorset site on a terraceoverlooking the small harbour on the eastern end ofNukasusutok Island. A surface collection of 24 toolswas procured. Four Ramah chert flakes and four

58

CHAPTER 4

« A I f

a b c d e

19/ Dorset Tools from Mount Pickle Harbour-1. a, b:triangular endblades; c: endblade on microblade; d, e:distally retouched microblades; f: ground schist; g-i:microblades.

nephrite flakes (one ground) were also collected. Thetool classes are described below.

Tool Descriptions

Triangular Endblades (n=3) All three triangular end-blades are made of Ramah chert. Two are proximalfragments. One of these, which may be unfinished, hasa straight, bifacially-thinned base (Figure 19:a). Theother is small (12.8 mm wide) with a straight-edgedindentation at the base that produces small spurs ateach corner (Figure 1 9:b). The third specimen is a bifa-cially flaked distal fragment; its plano-convex cross-section and width suggest it was made on a microb-lade (Figure 1 9:c).

Tip-Fluting Spalls (n=4) All four tip-fluting spalls aremade of Ramah chert. Two are complete or nearly com-plete, one is a proximal fragment, another a medialfragment. All are primary spall removals.

Microblades (n=l 3) Twelve of the 13 microblades aremade of Ramah chert, one is made of crystal quartz;examples are illustrated in Figure 1 9:g-i. Four are prox-imal fragments, five are medial fragments and three aredistal elements. For the five specimens from which reli-able measurements can be obtained, width ranges from7.9-11.3 mm. Six specimens exhibit traces of utiliza-tion, while two are deliberately retouched. Theretouched specimens are both distal fragments andboth have been modified to create pointed tips. Oneexample has one lateral edge retouched mostly on thedorsal side with less retouch ventrally, while the otherlateral edge is mostly retouched ventrally (Figure 1 9:d).The other implement has slight ventral retouch on bothedges, limited to the tip (Figure 19:e). It is unclearwhether these are finished products or whether theywere intended to be retouched points on microbladessimilar to Figure 1 9:c.

Utilized Flakes (n=3) All three utilized flakes are madeof Ramah chert.

Ground Schist (n=l) A small bar of ground schist isillustrated in Figure 19:f.

Discussion

This small surface collection does not provide a solidbasis for dating, but certain characteristics can bepointed out. The relatively straight-based endblades,together with the tip-fluting spalls, suggest an EarlyDorset or early Middle Dorset date. The retouchedpoint on a microblade (and possibly the distallyretouched microblades) may also indicate a relativelyearly Dorset phase.

NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND OVERVIEW AND SURVEYED SITES

59

20/ Nukasusutok-5 in its landscape. View to the west.

60

CHAPTER 5

NulcasusutoL-^:Descriptive Overview

Nukasusutok-5 (HcCh-7) was discovered in 1973 byWarren Hofstra (associated with the SmithsonianInstitution). The site was test-pitted in 1 975 by WilliamFitzhugh (1 976:1 32-1 33, 1 978:77) and additional sur-face collections were made in 1976. These surveysindicated the site was large, extending for at least 1 00m along a tombolo beach, with rich deposits of tools,debitage and charcoal. A hard soil deposit observed inone of the test pits was initially thought to be fat-con-solidated sand (Fitzhugh 1978:66). Radiocarbon datesof 5575±90 B.P. and 4645±65 B.P. suggested the sitepertained to the Middle Maritime Archaic period,although the spread of the dates implied the presenceof more than one component. All of these factors indi-cated the site was a prime candidate for more intensiveinvestigation, so the author undertook excavationsthere in 1 979 and 1 980 (Hood 1 981). During the early1980s, Fitzhugh built up a more detailed picture ofMaritime Archaic dwelling structures. By the early1 990s, when the author began to re-evaluate his previ-ous work, it was evident that some of the conclusionsregarding spatial patterning were faulty.Consequently, in 1992 and 1993 additional excava-tions were implemented in order to clarify the spatialpatterning at the site. This report combines the resultsof all field seasons and supercedes all previous inter-pretations.

Discussion of Nukasusutok-5 extends over fivechapters. The primary function of this chapter is toprovide a general background for the spatial analyses

to follow. It begins with an overview of the site and itsphysical surroundings, moves on to an outline of theexcavation layout and methods, then presents adescription of the excavation results from the centralsubarea of the site, focusing on the features identified.Spatial patterning at the central subareas is discussedin Chapter 6, while description and analysis of theother subareas is found in Chapter 7. A description ofthe tool assemblages is provided in Chapter 8. Finally,Chapter 9 compares the subareas and draws generalconclusions regarding the significance ofNukasusutok-5 for the study of the Early/MiddleMaritime Archaic.

The Site and its Environs

Nukasusutok-5 is positioned in an extremely well-pro-tected location deep inside Wyatt Harbour (Figure 16).Situated on raised beach terraces 28-31 m asl. (Figure20), the site is surrounded by hills to the east, westand north that provide fair protection from the prevail-ing westerly wind, but northeasterly gales are liable tosweep the beach ridge since their force is only partial-ly deflected. The southwest side of the raised beachdrops steeply down to Wyatt Harbour, while the north-east slope is of moderate gradient. A paleoshorelineprojected along the lowest occupied elevation of 28 mproduces a tombolo beach that would provide accessto the sea from both sides of the site. This tombolobeach would have been an attractive settlement spacewith shorelines even lower than 28 m because its grad-

NUKASUSUTOK 5 DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW

61

21/ Nukasusutok-5 main beach terrace. Area 1 in foreground, Area 2 in center. View to the north.

ual northeast slope would continue to provide goodboat landing possibilities.

The beach upon which the main part of site islocated is about 120 m long, trending northwest-southeast, and ranges from 30-40 m wide across itscrest (Figures 21 and 22). The northwestern end ter-minates at the base of a 1 50 m high hill and thesoutheastern end is bordered by a lower knoll, thesummit of which is perhaps 1 5-20 m higher than thebeach surface. The central and southeastern portionsof the beach are dominated by lichen vegetationwhile the northwestern end is endowed with thickergrowth, including dwarf birch and dwarf spruce.Towards the central and western parts of the steepslope along the south side of the beach, moister con-ditions and a somewhat sheltered location in the leeof the beach ridge have facilitated the growth of fair-ly dense clusters of dwarf spruce and a number offull-sized spruce trees. On the crest of the raisedbeach (31 m asl.), several boulders are exposed onthe central surface of the beach and a few tongues of

bedrock are visible at the terrace edge. A small blow-out, covering about 50 m^, is located near the south-eastern end of the beach and is the only indication ofserious erosion at the site. Otherwise, the depositsare undisturbed.

A small vein of quartz runs along the face of thenorthern hill, not far from its summit. Brief inspectionof this geological feature did not reveal any obvioussigns of quarrying activity, but it is possible thatsome of the quartz used by the inhabitants ofNukasusutok-5 was procured here. Quartz outcropsare also found at other places on the island, notablybeside Nukasustok-1 0 (Chapter 4).

Archaeological Activities and Field Methods

1975 Smithsonian Institution Survey A total of 37 arti-facts was surface collected during the Smithsonian sur-veys of 1973 and 1 975, most presumably originatingin the blow-out at the southeastern end of the raisedbeach. Among these artifacts were: four bifacialpoints, three flake points, one micropoint, two bifaces,

62

CHAPTER 5

three endscrapers, four flake knives, 25 utilized flakesand one bipolar core.

Three 1 test pits were excavated during the1 975 survey. Test Pit A was situated in the central por-tion of the beach and came down directly on a hearththat lay in "greasy" black sand mixed with charcoal andred ocher. Recovered from the unit were a biface tip,bipolar cores, utilized flakes and 1 61 flakes of quartz,Ramah chert, slate and Mugford chert. A charcoal sam-ple from the hearth was dated to 5575±90 B.P. (Sl-2626). Test Pit B was located 19 m northwest of "A"and contained a quartz biface tip, utilized flakes and1 30 flakes of quartz, Ramah chert, slate, and Mugfordchert. Black sand at the base of the deposits, 20 cmbelow ground surface, was interpreted as burned fat.Test Pit C was located 32 m northwest of "B" near thenorthwestern end of the beach. It contained a flakeknife of Ramah chert and two utilized flakes, alongwith 5 unretouched flakes. The most remarkable fea-ture of this test unit was a cemented soil horizonencountered 23-30 cm below the surface, which con-tinued down to 55 cm where it terminated on sterilebeach gravel. This horizon was interpreted as fat-con-solidated sand. The cemented zone contained charcoaland flakes only in its upper 5-7 cm. A charcoal samplefrom the cemented horizon was dated to 4645±65 B.P.(SI-2527).

1979-80 Excavations The 1979 fieldwork addressedfour main problems: (1) clarification of the divergentradiocarbon dates, (2) evaluating whether thecemented soil horizon was a cultural deposit of fat-consolidated sand, (3) the collection of intra-siteactivity patterning data, and (4) elucidation of therelationship between the Naksak, Sandy Cove andRattlers Bight Complexes. A brief return to the site in1980 aimed to resolve questions generated by theprevious year's fieldwork: (1) were there two habita-tion structures, (2) was there a second, later, compo-nent in the central portion of the site, and (3) were aset of red ocher feature burials?

After the initial mapping procedures were com-pleted a grid was installed on the site using a baselinerunning the length of the tombolo beach. Over the twofield seasons, three-person crews excavated a total ofca. 1 24 m^ in three separate subareas (Figure 22): theedge of the blow-out at the eastern end of the site(Area 1), the center of the beach (Area 2) and thesouth-facing beach slope (Area 3). An open-area exca-vation was conducted using 2 by 2 m fields subdivid-ed into 1 m^ quadrats as the basic working andrecording units. In 1979, formal tools, utilized flakesand ground slate flakes were recorded in situ. Flakedistribution patterns were recorded on floor plans by acombination of direct measurement and "eyeballing,"and the debitage was collected by 1 m^ quadrats. Theexcavation proceeded using arbitrary vertical levelsranging from 5-1 5 cm. Vertical depths were taken fromthe ground surface by line level. Virtually all of theexcavation back-dirt was sifted through a 6.4 mm (1/4inch) screen. In 1980 the excavation at Area 2 wasextended, but because of poor weather conditions andlimited time, debitage was not recorded in situ andvery little back-dirt was screened. Fortunately, only asmall area was excavated and the finds were muchsparser than in the central part of Area 2. After thesetwo field seasons it was concluded that: 1) Area 2 hadevidence for two tent rings with external hearth areas,2) the red ocher features at Area 3 were unlikely tohave been burials, and 3) the supposed fat-consolidat-ed sand was an extremely well developed iron pan(Hood 1981).

/ 992-93 Excavations In 1 991 -92 a re-evaluation of theoriginal data in light of accumulated information onMaritime Archaic dwelling structures indicated that theprevious interpretation positing two tent rings wasincorrect. Instead, it seemed possible that some kindof rectangular structure was present. A report fromFitzhugh's brief visit to the site in 1985 (Smithsoniansite record files) speculated on the presence of a long-house structure running down the center of the beach.

NUKASUSUTOK-5: DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW

63

22/ Nukasusutok-5 excavation layout.

y//A///JV//^//Y'^A'^^y!(//^//A N

I I Area2A^ Area 2B[v] Area2C

25/ /^reo 2 subareas.

44x70y

Y/2l Vegetation/peatI I Gray leached sand

Brown sand

[ ■ ;| Dark brown mottled sandWk\ Yellow sand

24/ Area 2A soil profile.

Consequently, the goal of the1992-93 fieldwork was toextend the original Area 2 exca-vation towards the northwestand southeast to evaluate thepossibility that the spatial pat-terns reflected the presence of alonghouse.

The field methodsemployed in 1992-93 wereslightly different than thoseused in 1979-80. Debitage wascollected in 50 cm^ quadratsand the vertical depths of allretouched artifacts, rocks andother features were determinedwith an engineer's level. As in1 979, the flake distribution pat-terns were recorded through acombination of direct measure-ment and "eyeballing" and allback-dirt was screened through6.4 mm mesh. In 1992 theexcavation consisted of a rec-tangular field of 24 m^ (Area2B) which formed a northwest-ward extension of the originalArea 2 excavation, while the1993 effort opened up 27 m^(Area 2C) to the southeast ofArea 2. In each year the workwas accomplished by a two per-son crew.

Descriptions of the fea-tures, pedology, formationprocesses and dating of Area 2are preconditions for makingsense of the spatial patterns.Because the Area 2 spatialanalysis in Chapter 6 is longand complex, the text is divided

64

CHAPTER 5

into manageable units by using most of the presentchapter to describe the archaeological context of Area2. Since the analyses of Areas 1 and 3 are more limit-ed in scope, these subareas are only mentioned brieflyhere for the sake of general orientation; details can befound in Chapter 7.

Area 1

Area 1 was defined as the central and eastern portionsof the blow-out located at the southeastern end of thetombolo beach, ca. 31 m asl. (Figures 21 and 22).Clusters of rocks exposed in the blow-out suggestedthe presence of five or six hearths. In 1 979 a T-shapedexcavation field totalling 16 m^ was positioned at theedge of the blow-out. Since the excavation did not pro-duce much in the way of tools or additional features,attention was shifted to the central part of the beach.

Area 2

Area 2 was positioned near the center of the tombolobeach, 25 m west of Area 1 and at a similar elevationof 31 m asl. (Figures 21 and 22). A total of ca. 1 24 m^was excavated over four field seasons. The largest sin-gle excavation was in 1979, when ca. 54 m^, wasopened. The 1979 work constitutes most of what isdefined as Area 2A (Figure 23). In 1 980 an additional16.5 m^ was excavated southwards; this includes thenorthern portion of Area 2C. In 1992, 26 m^ wasexcavated north of the original excavation; this sub-area is referred to as Area 2B. The 1 993 excavation of27 m^ expanded south of the 1980 limit, extendingsubarea 2C.

The results of the 1992-1993 fieldwork revealedthat these two extensions differed from the centralarea excavated in 1 979-1 980 in that both Areas 2B and2C exhibited thinner deposits, fewer features, and lessartifactual material. Additionally, Area 2B containeddeposits of fire-cracked rock quite unlike anything inAreas 2A and 2C. Furthermore, the radiocarbon dates(see below) indicated chronological differences; Area2A ca. 5300-5700 B.P. and Areas 2B and 2C both ca.

6000 B.P.. It was apparent that different settlementphases were represented at Area 2, not a continuouslonghouse structure.

Stratigraphy

A representative soil profile for Area 2A is shown inFigure 24. In the central portion of the excavation thevegetation and humus zone (Ifh horizon) ranged fromabout 3 to 1 2 cm in thickness with its deepest depositsfound above sub-surface depressions. The base of thishorizon was generally a thin layer of greasy blackhumified peat. Cultural material was found occasional-ly among the roots of the undecomposed vegetationbut was more frequent in the humified peat. A thin,discontinuous leaching zone (Ae horizon) was found inmost of the excavated units. This gray sand layer wasthickest and most prominent above sub-surfacedepressions and it contained moderate quantities ofcultural material. Next in the profile was a dark brownsand, which contained most of the cultural material. Itsdistinct dark coloring is mostly the result of humic acidand sesquioxide translocation downwards from theleached horizon. The depth of this deposit varied con-siderably. It was quite thin near the northwestern endof Area 2A (79y line), ranging from 4-8 cm thick, butat the southeastern end, in the vicinity of severalhearths (44x 70-73y), it ranged from 20-25 cm thick.Among the boulders along the northern periphery ofthe excavation the dark brown sand graded into a veryblack sand, which overlay the basal beach deposit.Beneath the dark brown sand was a layer of culturallysterile yellow sand that graded into a surface of round-ed beach cobbles and gravel. This sterile horizon com-menced 8 cm below surface level at the northwesternend of Area 2A, 14-16 cm below the surface at theeastern end, and 25-30 cm below the surface in one ofthe hearth areas (44x70-73y). In sum, the initialMaritime Archaic occupation at Area 2A probablyoccurred on a sand layer overlying a gravel-cobble sur-face. Areas 2B and 2C exhibited thinner sand depositsand markedly less development of a dark B horizon.

NUKASUSUTOK-5. DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW

65

During the 1979 excavation at Area 2A thereseemed to be a predominantly sterile layer (9-14 cmbelow surface) between two different cultural levelsnear 46x69y. The upper level tended to have a higherfrequency of Ramah chert flakes. In the first analysis ofthe site, several upper levels of adjacent excavationunits for which a later component seemed possiblewere separated analytically and termed "Occupation 2."At the time, the grounds for this distinction wereambiguous and the present re-analysis does not clari-fy the matter. A later component cannot be ruled out,but the apparent superposition could also be the resultof wind redeposition. In the spatial analysis (Chapter 6)the debitage patterning in this area is interpretedas being derived primarily from the 5300-5700 B.P.occupation.

Features

Four classes of features were identified at Area 2: rockconstructed surface hearths, pit-hearths, irregulardepressions and fire-cracked rock concentrations.There was also a large flat boulder in the middle ofArea 2A which, despite being a natural feature, seemssignificant for the spatial organization of the site and

thus worthy of brief consideration here. The three sub-areas are treated separately; each feature is describedalong with its relevant contextual information. Featurelocations and configurations can be found in Figure25, while Figure 26 shows a vertical bipod photo ofpart of Area 2A.

Area 2A

The Area 2A features occurred in two groups. At thenorthern end of the subarea were hearths 1, 2, 6, 7, 8and possible hearths 18 and 19, along with depres-sions 1 to 3. Towards the south were hearths 3a, 3b,4, 5 and possible hearth 16. In the middle was thelarge boulder. These feature groups will be describedfrom north to south.

Hearth 1 (Figure 27) was situated 25 cm north ofthe central boulder and was composed of eight round-ed and flat cobbles and a large, slightly inclined, flatslab. Faint traces of red ocher and a small amount ofcharcoal were found among the rocks.

Hearth 2 was located at the north end ofSmithsonian Test Pit A. It consisted of a 75 cm wideflower petal-like arrangement of large and small flatslabs. This feature had been exposed to the wind since

66

CHAPTER 5

26/ Area 2A bipod photo.

27/ Area 2A hearth-1.

1 975, so if any charcoal or red ocher had been pres-ent, it was gone by 1 979. Adjacent to the hearth werean unstemmed flake point of Ramah chert, a Ramahchert biface preform, a stemmed flake of Ramah chert,two biface fragments of Ramah chert, a flake knife ofblack chert and a schist tablet.

Hearth 6 was 75 cm in diameter and consisted ofa 1 5 cm deep pit surrounded on three sides by fourlarge rocks, with a small flat slab wedged between twoof the rocks on the southern edge of the pit. The pitwas stained with red ocher and filled with a great deal

of charcoal. A crude flake pointof Ramah chert, a utilized flakeof Ramah chert and large num-bers of Ramah chert, quartz andslate flakes were containedwithin the pit fill. Nearby thefeature were a flake knife ofRamah chert and a schist tablet.

Hearth 7 was positioned inthe southwest corner ofSmithsonian Test Pit A.According to their field notes,the hearth was 50-75 cm indiameter and was composed ofnumerous small flat slabs and asingle inclined flat slab, accom-panied by red ocher and char-coal fill. A Ramah chert bifacefragment, two utilized Ramahchert flakes and a Ramah chertbipolar core were found indirect association. Charcoalfrom this hearth was radiocar-bon dated to 5575±90 B.P. (Sl-2526).

Hearth 8 was the eastern-most component of what wasinterpreted as a series of threeinterlocking pits. The pits werefirst identified as shallowdepressions filled with humified peat that stood outclearly from the surrounding dark brown sand matrix.The hearth was a pit, 85 cm long, 35 cm wide, 25 cmdeep, with a roughly bowl-shaped cross-section.Several small cobbles were positioned along the rim ofthe pit and a large rock lay at its base near the south-western end. The pit fill of dark brown sand was virtu-ally indistinguishable from the surrounding matrixexcept for red ocher and a large amount of charcoal.Charcoal from the hearth was dated 5305±175 B.P.(UGa-3160). Artifacts found within the pit included a

NUKASUSUTOK-5: DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW

67

fragment of a ground slate tool, a Ramah chert micro-point, a slate point tip and a Ramah chert utilizedflake. The hearth basin also contained a large numberof small Ramah chert retouch flakes.

Depressions 1 and 2 formed a linear series withHearth 8, but it was difficult to define precisely theirboundaries and thus specify the temporal relationshipof the features by cross-cutting. Depression 1 was 50cm in width, roughly 1 0 cm deep and was bordered by,and contained, several small cobbles. It did not containcharcoal or red ocher. Artifacts found within the pitwere a utilized flake of Ramah chert and a ground slateflake. Depression 2 was approximately 1 m long, 75cm wide, about 10 cm deep, with an irregular bi-lobedshape. No charcoal or red ocher was present. Artifactsfrom the feature included a black chert endscraper andpart of an asymmetric biface of Ramah chert, whichjoined with another fragment found just outside thepit. The irregular nature of these depressions as wellas their lack of charcoal and red ocher suggests theywere of natural origin, perhaps related to wind defla-tion or tree-throw disturbance.

Near the western edge of the excavation wasdepression 3, a shallow irregular feature, 1.4 m long,90 cm wide and 7 cm deep. It contained several cob-bles, a few flecks of charcoal, but no red ocher. A smallnumber of flakes (30-40) were found within its bound-aries and two small bipolar cores were located nearby.Given its amorphous shape and relative lack of char-coal and lithic material this feature is most likely a ves-tige of deflation or tree-throw activity.

During re-analysis of the site two features wereidentified as possible hearths. Near the northwesternedge of Area 2A was a circular cluster of rocks, ca. 60cm in diameter, which included a flat slab but lackedcharcoal. This feature was designated as possiblehearth 1 8. Just north of depressions 1 and 2 was a 35cm by 25 cm oval stain of red ocher mixed with flecksof charcoal. Cross-sectioning indicated the featurewas bowl-shaped and 6 cm deep. It contained only afew flakes. Given vague similarities with the central pit

identified in Area 2B, the feature was designated pos-sible hearth 1 9.

The boulder at the center of Area 2A was a largeflat-topped rock, 1.25 m long, 75 cm wide and 50 cmhigh. As discussed in the spatial analysis (Chapter 6),this natural feature seems to have served as a centralfulcrum in structuring the arrangement of two possibledwelling modules on the beach. Its surface wasinspected carefully for signs of cultural modification,but none were identified.

Hearths 3a and 3b were probably two separatefeatures, but since their degree of interlocking wasunclear in the field they were designated as compo-nents 3a and 3b of a single feature. Hearth 3a was apit, 0.5 m in diameter, capped on its surface with sev-eral cobbles and excavated to a depth of 7 cm to thetop of the sterile yellow sand. Charcoal was found atthe base of the pit and three small red ocher stainsringed the periphery of the pit bottom. Also at the baseof the pit were three artifacts: a black chert end-scraper, a side-notched biface of Ramah chert and autilized flake of Ramah chert. The surface of hearth 3b,which measured 0.75 m in diameter, was a roughsemi-circle of rocks that surrounded a 10 cm deepcharcoal-filled pit. Several cobbles and flat slabscapped the pit surface and a stain of red ocher waspresent on the northern edge. At the surface of thefeature were a biface preform of Ramah chert, a bipo-lar core of Ramah chert, an endscraper of black chertand a schist tablet.

Hearth 4 was ca. 75 cm in diameter and consist-ed of an oval ring of cobbles surrounding a thin scat-ter of charcoal. No pit was apparent and no red ocherwas found within or adjacent to the feature. Artifactsin proximity to the feature included a biface tip ofRamah chert, a quartz block core, a Ramah chert uti-lized flake and a ground slate flake.

Hearth 5 (Figure 28) was marked by an ovalalignment of cobbles and consisted of an oval pit 40cm in diameter and 1 5 cm deep. The pit contained alarge quantity of charcoal as well as red ocher, which

68

CHAPTER 5

28/ Area 2A hearth-5.

29/ Area 2B under excavation. Fire-cracked rocl< concentrations in foreground and onnorthern edge of excavation.

was more granular than the powdery textured mate-rial found in the other features. A single roundedcobble was placed at the base of the pit. Charcoalfrom the feature was dated 5670 ±175 B.P.(UCa-31 61). Only one artifact was found in the vicini-ty of the hearth: a utilized flake of Ramah chert.

Depression 4 lay south of hearth 4 and was anirregular arc roughly 2 m long, ranging between 20-60 cm wide and several centimeters deep. Although itcontained some rocks there were relatively few

flakes. Its irregular form andlack of cultural material sug-gests it may have been of natu-ral rather than cultural origin.Depression 5, adjacent tohearth 5, was 60 by 40 cm insize and contained small rocksand a considerable quantity ofRamah chert flakes along oneedge. Although a cultural ori-gin cannot be ruled out, itsposition in the upper portion ofthe sediment and its similarityto depression 4 suggest a nat-ural disturbance.

During re-analysis of thesite, a possible hearth (no.16)was inferred from a rock feature1 m northeast of hearth 4. Thisfeature, 80 by 50 cm in extent,consisted of a petal-likearrangement of four flat slabsalong with several other rocks,but no charcoal association wasreported.

Area 2B

Fire-cracked rock concentra-tions were the most distinctivecharacteristic of Area 2B, cover-ing almost 35% of the excava-tion surface (Figures 25 and 29). The rock occurred inthin (<5 cm) "carpets," the most extensive of whichoccurred along the northwestern edge of the excava-tion (83-84y), 1.8 m northwest of the central pit fea-ture and 1.2 m southeast of the pit (77-79y units). Theconfiguration of these carpets strongly suggests theyextend into the unexcavated areas beyond Area 2B.Two smaller concentrations lay immediately adjacentto the western and eastern sides of the central pit. Theconcentration to the east partly superimposed the

NUKASUSUTOK-5: DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW

69

30/ Area 2C overview looking North. Area 2A in background.

3]/ Area 2C heanh-9.

edge of the feature, so it must post-date the infillingof the pit.

In the center of Area 2B was a large pit. Theboundaries of this feature were difficult to discernwithin the dark and, at the time of excavation, water-soaked soil matrix. It consisted of an oval basin, 1.25m long, 0.90 m wide and 5 cm deep. A few small flatrock slabs were found in its northwestern section anda small cluster of rocks lay in its southeastern portion.Red ocher stains were present on the western edge andwithin the feature. Tiny charcoal flecks were found

throughout the pit, but weremostly concentrated on thewestern side. A total of 46 tinyburned bone fragments werealso present in the northwest-ern portion of the feature.Flakes of quartz, Ramah chert,Mugford chert and slate werefound within the basin. Artifactsfound within or adjacent to thepit included a quartz block core,utilized flakes and ground slateflakes. Charcoal from the pitreturned a radiocarbon date of6100±120 B.P. (Beta-581 73).

Hearth 1 1 was positioned60-80 cm west of the centralpit. It consisted of a cluster ofrocks associated with smallpatches of charcoal; someflecks of red ocher were presenta short distance from the fea-ture. The dispersed nature ofthe rocks suggested the featurewas disturbed. Charcoal fromthe hearth area was dated6040±90 B.P. (Beta-57124). Aconcentration of black chertflakes lay 25 cm southwest ofthe feature's largest componentrock. Nearby artifacts included a quartz block core,utilized flakes, a bifacial point base of quartz, a bifacefragment of Ramah chert and ground slate flakes.

Both the radiocarbon dates and the behavioralpatterning suggest that Area 2B represents an occupa-tion phase separate from Area 2A. Nonetheless, animportant point to consider is the degree of overlapbetween the southwestern edge of Area 2B and theArea 2A occupation, since a tongue of fire-crackedrock extends over the 50x line into Area 2A. This issuewill be considered in more detail in Chapter 6, but suf-

70

CHAPTER 5

32/ Area 2C hearth-12.

fice it to say that while there isa high likelihood of apalimpsest deposit in the 49-50x area, there are reasonablegrounds to use the 50x line as apractical boundary between thetwo occupations.

Area 2C

As will be established inChapter 6, south of the south-ernmost hearths at Area 2Athere was a radical decrease inthe density of lithic materialthat continued until a concen-tration of lithics was encountered in the southeasterncorner of Area 2C. This pattern, along with a radiocar-bon date, suggests that Area 2C is an occupationphase separate from Area 2A. Six hearth features werepresent at Area 2C and these will be described insequence from north to south (Figures 25 and 30).

Hearth 9 (Figure 31) stood out as the most uniqueand well constructed (or perhaps best preserved) hearthfeature at the site. It was roughly circular, 1.0 m indiameter, consisting of an interior floor with several flatstones that was surrounded on three sides by flat slabs,the tops of which were inclined inwards towards thecenter of the feature. These inclined slabs were backedby cobbles. The placement of the rocks suggests theinclined flat slabs may have been wedged upright toform a three-sided hearth box open to the north. Verylittle charcoal was found within the feature, but a thickstain was situated just east of its open side. This char-coal deposit may have resulted from intentionalremoval of the hearth contents. The vicinity of hearth 9was virtually devoid of tools and debitage. A utilizedflake of black chert was found in the hearth interior anda large schist tablet lay to the east of the feature.

The feature designated hearth 1 0 had two compo-nents. On the east side was a small pit, 40 cm in diam-eter, 1 5 cm deep, the base of which contained a small

pocket of charcoal beneath a flat cobble. It was similarin form to hearth 5. No cultural materials were associ-ated with this feature. Ca. 60 cm to the west was anelongated pit, 1.2 m long, 40 cm wide and 1 5 cm deep;a large rock was positioned at its northwestern endand a couple of smaller rocks were present in thesoutheastern end. The pit fill contained small pieces ofcharcoal, two small spots of red ocher and a utilizedflake of Ramah chert. Charcoal from this feature wasdated 6050±80 B.P. (Beta-71 475).

Hearth 12 (Figure 32) consisted of a slightly dis-persed group of rocks, including two large flat slabsand several smaller fire-cracked rocks. Associated withthe feature was a small concentration of burned bonefragments (n=294) and some very sparse charcoalflecks. Roughly 80 cm to the east of the cluster wereseveral small clumps of red ocher.

Hearth 1 3 should be treated as rather question-able, consisting of little more than a cluster of sixrocks. Yet its association with a few flakes and itsplacement relative to the other features strongly sug-gested a hearth function.

Hearth 14 was composed of an arc-shaped mid-den-like deposit between, and extending out from,two large rocks. This unusual deposit was 1.3 m longand 0.6 m wide and consisted of "greasy" red-brown

NUKA5USUTOK-5: DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW

71

mottled sand (the reddish coloration caused by acombination of iron translocation through the soil,fire oxidation, and red ocher stains). The deposit con-tained faint charcoal flecks, small pockets of burnedbone (n=651), and small particles of red ocher.Several small fire-cracked rocks were also present,slightly to the east of the feature. A large quantity offlakes was associated with hearth 14. Burned Ramahchert flakes were particularly frequent between andimmediately adjacent to the two rocks at the centerof the feature. A charcoal sample from the featurewas dated 1 570±80 B.P. (Beta-71 474). About 1.0-1.2m north of hearth 1 4 was an outlier patch of charcoal,70 cm by 1 5-20 cm in size, adjacent to a small clus-ter of rocks. It was unclear whether this was relatedto hearth 14 or whether it represented an earlier,disturbed feature.

Hearth 1 5 was partly exposed at the southernlimit of the excavation, 1 m southeast of hearth 1 4. Ina cleft between two rocks was a red ocher and charcoalsmear on top of a small flat slab. A small cluster of fire-cracked rocks lay immediately adjacent to the north-east. A few other nearby rocks may have belonged tothe feature. Within the hearth were quartz and Ramahchert flakes, while several quartz block cores, utilizedflakes and ground slate flakes lay nearby.

Summary: Area 2 Chronology andFeature Variation

Chronology Table 4 lists the seven radiocarbon datesfrom Area 2 and one from Test Pit C at the extremenorthwestern end of the same beach level. The date of1 570±80 B.P. from hearth 14 at Area 2C is problemat-ic. It should probably be rejected because it seems too

Table 4: Radiocarbon Dates from Nukasusutok-5: Area 2 and Main BeachCalibrated with OxCal 3.10 (Bronk-Ramsey 2005)

Feature

Date B.P.

Calibrated BC

Lab No.

Material

Comment

TP-A/hearth 7 (2A)

5575±90

4500-4330

SI-2526

unidentifiedcharcoal

Hearth 5 (2A)

5670±175

4710-4340

UGa-3161

unidentifiedcharcoal

Hearth 8 (2A)

5305±175

4330-3960

UCa-3160

unidentifiedcharcoal

Hearth 1 1 (28)

6040±90

5060-4790

Beta-571 24

unidentifiedcharcoal

Pit (2B)

6100±120

5210-4850

Beta-581 73

unidentifiedcharcoal

Hearth 10 (2C)

6050±80

5060-4830

Beta-71 475

unidentifiedcharcoal

1 3c adjusted: -28.1

Hearth 14 (2C)

1570±80

Beta-71 474

unidentifiedcharcoal

unacceptably late; lowdensity "different" material

TP-C (north terrace)

4645±65

3520-3350

SI-2527

unidentifiedcharcoal

possibly too young;iron pan formation mayresult in accumulationof younger humic acids

72

CHAPTER 5

recent for the associated lithic material. Also, theradiocarbon laboratory reported the charcoal sampleconsisted of low density wood different in appearancefrom the other samples. On the other hand, there isalways the possibility that the sample might date aLate Prehistoric Indian or Dorset component, althoughthere is no evidence for this in the lithic material.

Taken at face value, the remaining dates fromArea 2 suggest the presence of two occupation phas-es. Phase 1, dated ca. 6000 B.P., occurs in Areas 2Band 2C. These two subareas were separated by a dis-tance of over 10 m and although there were somesimilarities in associated features (i.e., hearth-pitcomplexes, see below), there are marked behavioraldifferences (discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6).Phase 2, with dates ranging from ca. 5700-5300 B.P.(note the large standard deviations for two of thedates), is limited to Area 2A. This occupation liesbetween the two earlier components, so it is reason-able to ask if the Phase 2 occupation was superim-posed on the earlier Phase 1 occupation. As will bediscussed in Chapter 8, there are no obvious aspectsof the tool typology that would indicate superposi-tion, but Chapter 6 identifies a small area of probableoverlap between the northern end of Area 2A andArea 2B: fire-cracked rock deposits along the 49-50xlines. Chapter 6 argues that the spatial patterning oflithics and hearths at Area 2A exhibits certain consis-tencies suggestive of two "behavioral modules", oneon either side of the large central rock, but the num-ber of hearths associated with each module raisesquestions about possible re-occupation. So far, aphase post-dating ca. 5300 B.P. has not been identi-fied clearly at Area 2. As noted previously, during the1979 excavation a flake scatter was observed at ahigher level than the main Area 2A occupation,although it was not possible to elaborate upon this inthe subsequent analysis. There are also later radio-carbon dates from other contexts at the site:4645±65 B.P. from Test Pit C at the northwestern endof the site terrace and 5090±95 B.P. from Area 3 (see

Chapter 7). Consequently, the likelihood of a thirdoccupation phase at Area 2 should be kept in mind.

Looking more critically at the radiocarbon dates,three possible sources of error can be suggested. Thefirst is inter-laboratory variation. All of the 6OOO-1- B.P.dates were run by Beta Analytic, while the later dateswere provided by the Smithsonian and the University ofGeorgia. A second possible source of error is the oldwood factor; none of the charcoal dated 5000-1- B.P.was identified to species so it is possible that it couldhave been derived from old driftwood. The third sourceof error is soil chemistry. As discussed in Chapter 7,Area 3 and the western end of the main beach terracewere subject to extreme podzolization processes lead-ing to the formation of an impressive iron pan. Thesepedological processes may contribute to the accumula-tion of younger humic acids that may effect radiocar-bon dates (cf., Lascelles et al. 2000). Although Area 2did not exhibit iron pan formation there was verystrong podzolization, especially at Area 2A where thesand sediments were considerably deeper than Areas2B and 2C. If so, it is possible the radiocarbon datesfrom Area 2A are too young and that the subarea mayactually date closer to 2B and 2C (6000 B.P.).

Shoreline dating does not provide much assis-tance in assessing the radiocarbon dates. The displace-ment curve for the Nain region (Figure 5) indicates thatthe 31 m asl. beach terrace upon which Area 2 is situ-ated could have emerged by ca. 7000 B.P.. The curvealso suggests that if a 6000 B.P. occupation, such asAreas 2B and 2C, was located near its contemporaryshoreline it should lie at ca. 20 m asl., while a 5500B.P. occupation, such as Area 2A, should lie ca. 1 5 masl. Consequently, assuming the displacement curve isaccurate, it is likely that both the Area 2 occupationphases were located a considerable distance abovetheir contemporary shorelines, 10 m in the case ofAreas 2B and 2C, 1 5 m in the case of Area 2A. OtherNain area Maritime Archaic localities dated ca. 6000B.P. lie between 26-22 m asl., suggesting a generaltendency for sites to be placed well above their con-

NUKASUSUTOK-5: DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW

73

temporary shorelines. This placement is likely relatedto the practical advantages of using tombolo beach-es: two-sided access for boat landing, large settle-ment surfaces and excellent views.

A final chronological element can be mentioned.Although none of the charcoal samples submittedfor radiocarbon dating were identified as to woodtype, a series of charcoal samples from both thenorthern and southern parts of Area 2A as well asfrom near hearth 10 at Area 2C were identified byDosia Laeyendecker of the Smithsonian Institution.All these samples contained alder/birch (probablymostly alder) and willow; coniferous wood wasabsent. The lack of coniferous wood suggests theseoccupations pre-date 4500-4200 B.P., when sprucewoodland became established in the area (Short1978:32).

Feature Variation

At this point, a brief summary of the Area 2 featuresis in order. Their range of formal and functional vari-ation will be evaluated to foreshadow their signifi-cance for the spatial analysis and interpretation tobe presented in Chapter 6.

Two major hearth types were found at Area 2:surface hearths associated with rock clusters(hearths 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9, 1 1, 1 2, 1 3, 1 4 and possibly1 5) and shallow pit-hearths with surface rock clus-ters and at least one or two rocks within the pitbasins (hearths 3a, 3b, 5, 8). Both types were gener-ally associated with flat rock slabs and red ocher wasoften, though not always, present. Among the sur-face hearths, hearth 9 stood out as unique in itsrobust construction with a paved floor and inclinedslabs, although this impression may simply be aresult of better preservation than the other features.Nonetheless, some functional difference may be sig-naled by the box-like form.

At Area 28 a large pit lay adjacent to hearth 1 1 .A similar arrangement was found at Area 2C, with anelongated pit lying between hearths 9 and 10. This

could indicate a paired pit/hearth functional unit,although the contemporaneity of the features cannotbe determined. Area 2A's hearths 2 and 8 might alsobe seen in this light, since the latter has a pit-likeform, although it is considerably smaller than theaforementioned pit features.

At Area 2A the hearths were clustered in twogroups on opposite sides of the large central rock.The possibility that these groupings represent sepa-rate activity modules will be taken up in the nextchapter, where the features are contextualized withtheir associated lithic distributions.

The large quantity of fire-cracked rock at Area2B stands out from the other two subareas. Thisstatement should perhaps be qualified, since insuffi-cient attention may have been paid to the presenceof fire-cracked rock during the 1 979-80 fieldwork atArea 2A. Nonetheless, a significant qualitative differ-ence between these two subareas is a reasonableassumption. Area 2B is unquestionably differentfrom Area 2C; in the latter subarea, fire-cracked rockoccurs only as small scatters associated with three ofthe hearths. The spatial pattern of the rock distribu-tion at Area 2B is also distinctive: a roughly concen-tric ring around a central pit/hearth complex. Thenext chapter discusses the possible behavioral link-ages between these features.

Area 3

Area 3 lay 38 m west of Area 2, slightly downslopeon a narrow terrace lying at 28 m asl. (Figure 22).The locality was discovered in 1979 during shoveltesting aimed at determining the boundaries of thesite. As luck would have it, a shovel-test penetratedthe center of an impressively thick and bright redocher deposit. An area of 28 m^ was opened, reveal-ing four features, two consisting of remarkable ovalconcentrations of red ocher and rocks and two moreconsisting of rock clusters, one with a restricted redocher deposit, the other with a charcoal patch. Atfirst, these features were believed to be burials, but

74

CHAPTER 5

Wyatt Harbor, view to the southeast over Nukasusutok-5 site (Photo W. Fitzhugh 1975)

subsurface investigation did not confirm this. Shoveltests conducted elsewhere along the terrace provid-ed negative results except in one area 4.5 m south-west of the main excavation. A 1 by 3 m unit wasopened there, but very little cultural material wasencountered. A detailed analysis of Area 3 is pre-sented in Chapter 7.

NUKASUSUTOK-5: DESCRIPTIVE OVERVIEW

76

CHAPTER 5

NukasusutoSpatial Analysis

Chapter 3 outlined interpretations of Maritime Archaicsocial relations and their behavioral consequences anddiscussed methodological strategies for linking thesebehavioral consequences with spatial patterning in thearchaeological record. This discussion constitutes aplatform for the analysis of spatial patterning at Area2 that will be undertaken here.

Limitations and Complications

In choosing the most appropriate analytical methods itwas necessary to recognize the limitations of the Area2 data. The first problem was the quality of the prove-nience data. For the 1 979 excavation a significant pro-portion of the utilized flakes, bipolar cores and blockcores were only provenienced within 1 m^ units, sothese tool classes could only be handled by quadratanalysis. The other classes could be presented in bothpoint-plotted and quadrat form. Regarding the deb-itage analysis, there were good "eyeball" plots of flakesby major raw material types for all excavation seasonsexcept 1 980. Weather conditions were so poor in 1 980that flakes were simply collected by quadrats.Fortunately, the area excavated was small (1 2 m^) andthe quantity of debitage very low, so the plotted flakedistributions from adjacent units could still be used fora meaningful visual analysis. Indeed, the debitagepoint patterns provide some of the strongest supportfor the interpretations presented herein. The quantita-tive analyses of debitage raw materials were conduct-ed with quadrats. Area 2A and part of 2C, excavated in

1979-80, were analysed using 1 quadrats. Area 2Band most of 2C, excavated in 1992 and 1993, wereanalysed using 50 cm^ quadrats.

Another potential limitation is the effect of siteformation processes. The first issue involves the ana-lytical implications of having at least three occupationphases at the site as a whole and at least two phasesat Area 2, dated ca. 6000 B.P. and 5500 B.P.. To whatdegree can we be assured that any patterns we observeare not simply the result of a messy palimpsest accu-mulation? Chapter 5 pointed out that the radiocarbondating of the features at Area 2 suggests the two occu-pation periods are spatially separated. Furthermore,the discussion of debitage distributions to be present-ed in this chapter will demonstrate that while a smallarea of overlap probably exists between Areas 2A and2B, this does not significantly compromise the analyti-cal results.

Harder to evaluate is the possibility of a later com-ponent overlying the southern portion of Area 2A. Asnoted in Chapter 5, this possibility was indicated bythe presence in several units of Ramah chert flakesclose to the surface, separated from the main occupa-tion horizon by a thin sterile zone. Given the lack ofconsistent stratigraphic control in these units it wasimpossible to make a clear distinction of this upperlevel material in order to check the effects of itsremoval on the spatial patterning.

The other problem is the cumulative effect of var-ious natural formation processes on the deposit, par-

NUKASUSUTOK-5 SPATIAL ANALYSIS

77

ticularly when combined with the multiple-componentissue. One phenomena is vertical movement in thesand deposits of objects of different density. At Area 2quartz flal<es and chunks sometimes lay deeper thanRamah chert or other flakes. But probably the moreimportant disturbance factor was wind deflation andredeposition of the sand sediments, a process visibletoday in the blow-out between Areas 1 and 2. As notedin Chapter 5, some of the irregular peat-filled depres-sions observed at Area 2 might be the result of defla-tion. This process may produce a mixed deposit of cul-tural material from different occupation levels at thebottom of a blow-out. Wind action may also displacecultural material along a horizontal plane. Anotherpotential disturbance factor is tree-throws, whichmight uproot and mix cultural material from separatelevels and result in short lateral movements of materi-al. Presently there are no trees at Area 2, but they growfurther west on the terrace and their distribution mighthave been more extensive previously.

Preliminary Overview

The spatial analysis begins with a presentation of theoverall feature, debitage and tool distributions, sincethese provide the essential framework upon which thesubsequent analyses and interpretations build. Themain goals are to identify the boundaries of the threeanalytical subareas and to establish preliminary behav-ioral interpretations that will provide direction for theanalyses.

Flake and Feature Distributions

As noted in Chapter 5, the three subareas can be dis-tinguished chronologically, with centrally positionedArea 2A dated 5600-5300 B.P. sandwiched betweenAreas 2B and 2C, both dated 6000-61 00 B.P.. A plot ofthe distribution pattern of all flakes at Area 2, irrespec-tive of raw material type, also reinforces the impres-sion that the three subareas can be treated as separate

analytical units (Figure 33). The low flake frequencybetween Areas 2A and 2C suggests there is minimallikelihood of significant spatial overlap and palimpsestproblems. On the other hand, the units between Areas2A and 2B (48-50x) contained a fairly high frequencyof flakes. Spatial overlap is likely here, since the highfrequency of Ramah chert in the border area is moreakin to the flake raw material frequencies in 28 thanthe northern portion of 2A and because there is aslight extension of the Area 28 fire-cracked rock "car-pets" into the border area, especially in 49x78-79y.Nonetheless, the amount of overlap is not extensive.

The flake distribution patterns at Area 2A displaytwo double linear or perhaps horseshoe-like configura-tions (Figure 34)— hereafter referred to as "lobes"—one on each side of a large flat-topped rock. Parts ofthese configurations display sharp boundaries^, per-haps indicative of a limiting factor. The eastern bound-ary of the southernmost lobe is diffuse, although thereis an identifiable shift in the density of the points. Thisis the area in which there might be a later occupationand thus a palimpsest effect (units 45-47x70-73y), apossibility which is discussed further below.

The north lobe is comprised of two parallel north-south trending distributions, each ca. 4 m long, 1-1.2m wide, which are separated by a near-empty "corri-dor" 60-80 cm wide. There appears to be a narrow 50-60 cm opening at the northern end of the lobe. Thesouthern end is linked by a sparse distribution offlakes and terminates at the edge of the large centralrock. The flake concentration marking the slightly pro-jecting northeastern corner of the lobe might be a con-sequence of overlap with Area 2B, since fire-crackedrock extends into this area (49x78y).

Five hearths are contained within the north lobe.Hearth 2 is positioned in the corridor near the middleof the lobe and is flanked on either side by hearths 6and 8, which lie slightly within the linear flake distribu-tions. Hearth 7 is situated on the inner edge of the

Note that the seemingly sharp boundary at 44x 72-71 y is artificial; in 1980 flakes were not plotted in this area.

78

CHAPTER 6

50x84y

47x83y

C Lobe boundary5°""* m Hearth

\Z] Fire-cracked rock

44K79y

43x75y

0 1 2

3b

12

14

o ail

®

13

34/ Area 2A: inferred flake lobes in relation to features.

50x71y

47x69y

44x79y

35/ Area 2A: rock distribution in relation to inferred flake lobes.

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

79

36/ Area 2A: flake lobes superimposed on vertical bipod photo.

flake distribution and beside the corridor while hearth1 is located close to the eastern edge of the lobe. Acluster of rocks that might be a hearth (H-1 8) lies justoutside the north lobe in 48x79y. As described inChapter 5, the hearths exhibited varying forms, per-haps indicative of functional differences. Hearths 1, 2and 7 were surface cobble and slab hearths, hearth 6was a pit surrounded by large rocks, while hearth 8was an elongated pit.

The south lobe also consists of two parallel linearflake distributions, the eastern one 3.7 m long by 0.75-1.0 m wide, the western one 3.7 m long by 1.2 m wide,which are separated by a corridor 0.70-1.0 m wide.The northern end of the lobe is entirely open while thesouthern end has a narrow 60 cm opening betweentwo hearths. The northern end of the eastern lineardistribution terminates 70 cm southeast of the largeflat central rock. Depending on where the boundariesof the flake distribution are drawn, the northern end ofthe western linear distribution terminates 50-80 cmsouth of the limit of the north lobe. This configurationcreates an area of low flake density (2.0 by 1.5 m insize) between the central rock and the south lobe.

The south lobe contains four definite hearths, ofwhich three are located near the southern end. Hearth3b is positioned in the middle of the corridor and is

flanked on both sides byhearths 3a and 5, which lie atthe inner edges of the linearflake distributions. Hearth 4 liesslightly within the corridor andon the edge of the open spacebetween the south lobe and thecentral rock. Additionally, arock cluster in 46x73y mighthave been a hearth (H-16),given its association with a redocher patch and its position rel-ative to the flake distribution. Ifso, the hearth locations at thesouth lobe would be more simi-lar to those at the north lobe. As at the north lobe, thevarying forms of the hearths suggest functional differ-ences. Hearths 3a and 5 were circular pits, hearth 3ban elongated pit and hearth 4 as well as possiblehearth 16 were surface cobble/slab features.

The pattern becomes more complex when over-laid with the rock distribution (Figures 35 and 36).Rocks occurring within the lobes are generally hearth-related. Most of the flat slabs are spatially associatedwith hearths, suggesting they were connected withhearth construction and cooking/heating practices.Other small rocks are scattered around the lobes;some of these were probably displaced or discardedfrom hearths while others may simply be part of thesediment matrix. The northeast tip of the north lobeshows a minor cluster of rather small rocks; thesemight be outliers of the fire-cracked rock concentra-tion at Area 2B.

Most of the other rocks occur in the area betweenthe lobes, concentrated on the western and easternsides of the large central rock. The western side con-tains a diffuse scatter of over two dozen rocks, most ofwhich are moderately large and rounded in form, but anumber of flat slabs are also present. Some of thelarge rocks are positioned directly against the north-western tip of the south lobe (the vertical photo in

80

CHAPTER 6

Figure 36 shows this more clearly than the drawings).On the eastern side of the large central rock is a dis-tinctive group of moderately large rocks, includingquite a few flat slabs, that extends eastwards from thecentral rock. Some of the larger rocks directly borderthe northeastern tip of the south lobe while a few liewithin 50 cm of the southeastern edge of the northlobe. The western and eastern rock alignments there-fore seem structurally similar in their positioningagainst the ends of the lobes and their extensionacross the gaps between the two lobes.

At the northern end of the north lobe there is asmall cluster of rocks just outside and west of the gapin the flake distribution. Although these may be theremains of a hearth (H-1 8), they might also have beenejected from the activity space within the north lobe.Nearby is a small pit containing charcoal and red ocherthat might have been a hearth (H-1 9). Just east of thenorth lobe there is a small concentration of probablefire-cracked rocks nestled between four boulders(49x76y); their association with either the north lobeor Area 2B is unclear. Other fire-cracked rocks werescattered here and there at Area 2A, but they were notrecorded systematically. It seems clear, however, thatthere were no major concentrations as at Area 2B.

The preceding description of the spatial pattern-ing can now be integrated into a preliminary interpre-tation. There are two debitage lobes, each 4 m long by3 m wide, on either side of a central rock. The overallpattern does not resemble that of the drop/toss-zonedistinctions of the external hearth model. Each lobecontains five hearths that are spaced similarly, as wellas a triple hearth alignment, in both cases locatedtowards the end of the lobe furthest from the centralrock. Rock clusters occur on both the eastern andwestern sides of the central rock in the between-lobespace. These spatial configurations suggest the lobesshare a marked degree of organizational symmetry.Consequently, there are reasonable grounds to consid-er the lobes as possible dwelling-related behavioralmodules that can be treated as distinct analytical units.

Area 2B is distinguished by its pattern of fire-cracked rock carpets surrounding a pit and a disturbedhearth. This quasi-concentric feature-centered distri-bution bears a general resemblance to the drop/tosszone model, with flakes mostly occurring in whatmight be a drop zone close to the central features andfire-cracked rock lying in a surrounding toss-zone-likering. In contrast. Area 2C is marked by generally lowflake density, except for sharply bounded clusters onopposite sides of hearth 14. There were no significantaccumulations of fire-cracked rock. Too little was exca-vated at Area 2C to contextualize the pattern, butthere is a clear behavioral contrast with Area 28. Thebounded flake distributions at Area 2C are reminiscentof the lobes at Area 2A.

A Preliminary Look at the Tool Distribution

Having defined what seem to be meaningful overallpatterns in the distribution of debitage and features,we should take a preliminary look at the tool distribu-tion to see how it fits with the initial interpretations. Asnoted previously, point pattern analysis of the tool dis-tributions is hampered by the imprecise proveniencingof many utilized flakes, bipolar cores and block cores.Although the provenienced portion of these types can-not be taken as a random sample of the overall distri-butions of the types, eliminating them entirely from apoint pattern analysis or shifting the entire analysis toquadrats might lose useful information. Consequently,the provenienced portion of the offending types wasconsidered to have at least rough representative valueand a fc-means cluster analysis of the tool assemblagewas undertaken. The results should be viewed as illus-trative of general tendencies and the overall logic ofthe analysis, not as the basis for robust conclusions.

Several different numbers of clusters could fit thismaterial depending on the degree of splitting/lumpingone is willing to accept, but some of the tool clusterswere stable through different runs. Figure 37 illus-trates 12- and 9-cluster solutions in relation to theflake and feature distributions. In most cases the tool

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

81

37/ Area 2 k-means cluster analysis, nme-cluster solution. 12 twelve-cluster solution.

clusters are associated with hearths, either centereddirectly on the features or adjacent to them. In Area2A, clusters 2, 4, 5, and 7 are stable in both solutions.The positioning of cluster 8 is roughly similar in thetwo solutions, but in the 12-cluster solution its cen-troid is displaced slightly north, with several itemsbeing split off to form a new cluster (1 1) centered onhearth 6. This seems to be a reasonable adjustment.Additionally, in the 12-cluster solution the centroid ofcluster 9 is shifted south such that its tool contents aresplit with new cluster 1 2. Each of these two clusters is

positioned adjacent to a hearth (hearths 5 and 4,respectively). This corresponds better with expecta-tions of hearth-centered distributions, but it may besomewhat artificial given the diffuse nature of the tooldistributions. Taken at face value, the stability of mostclusters over both solutions indicates a pattern, butthe differences suggest it would be worthwhile to runadditional analyses for Area 2A separate from theother two sub-areas. This is discussed further below.

In Area 2B, clusters 3 and 6 are stable in bothsolutions, with the former encompassing the central

82

CHAPTER 6

Area 2B

38/ Area 2: quadrat groupings used in the analyses.

pit-hearth complex and the latter situated in an area offire-cracked rock to the east. In Area 2C, cluster 5remains stable between hearths 9, 10, 12 and 13. Inthe 9-cluster solution cluster 1 includes both hearths14 and 15, but in the 12-cluster solution cluster 1splits, with a new cluster 10 emerging by hearth 15and cluster 1 centered on hearth 14. Unfortunately,too little was excavated around hearth 1 5 to evaluatethe significance of this splitting.

Overall, the relative lack of cluster overlapbetween the three subareas reinforces the impressionderived from the flake distributions that the threeareas can be treated as independent units for analysis.The following pages will present more detailed inter-pretations of the spatial structure within each subarea.

Area 2A

The preceding section used the overall distribution offlakes and tools in relation to features at Area 2 toestablish a basic framework for analysis. Two behav-ioral modules were postulated for Area 2A. This initialinterpretation will now be investigated systematicallythrough an analysis of the distribution patterns of alldata classes. Figure 38 provides an overview of how

quadrats were grouped into larger model-based analyt-ical units for some of the analyses.

Flake Distributions

The most valuable information comes from the point-plotted flakes: quartz, Ramah chert, fine-grainedcherts and slate (the latter two materials treated gener-ically). Quadrat data are also provided for the variousraw material types, since these counts include flakesfound during screening and provide more secure iden-tifications of color variants for Mugford chert and slatethan was possible in the field.

The point plots for quartz and Ramah chert exhib-it similar forms (Figures 39 and 40), but quartz pro-vides a stronger demarcation of the north lobe whileRamah chert gives a clear definition of the south lobe.Quartz flakes are concentrated close to hearths 6 and8 at the north lobe and hearths 3b and 5 at the southlobe. With the exception of hearth 3b, these concentra-tions lie mostly on one side of the hearths. Other clus-ters, particularly in the south lobe, are independent ofthe hearths. At the north lobe, Ramah chert has slightconcentrations within and adjacent to hearths 7 and 8,but is otherwise rather diffuse except for a clustering

NUKASUSUTOK-5; SPATIAL ANALYSIS

83

at the northwest corner of the lobe. At the south lobe,there is a tight concentration of hundreds of Ramahchert flakes on one side of hearth 4 and a broader,probably overlapping, concentration on one side ofhearth 5. The 3-4 area between these two hearthscontains a total of ca. 1 500 Ramah chert flakes, mak-ing it the most intensive point of Ramah chert reduc-tion/discard at Nukasusutok-5. A less voluminous clus-tering (ca. 600 flakes) occurs on one side of hearth 3a,extending into what initially appeared to be a hearth-independent concentration at the northeast corner of

the south lobe. In retrospect, however, the adjacentrock cluster associated with a red ocher stain may be ahearth (H-l 6, Figures 25 and 33), although no charcoalwas recorded in the field notes.

In sum, the distribution patterns of both rawmaterials are partially, but not exclusively, hearth-cen-tered. Each material exhibits fairly clear outer bound-aries rather than a density gradient, consistent withthe impression derived from the total flake distribu-tion. There is also a fairly clear inner boundary in eachcase, resulting in a markedly lower flake density in the

84

CHAPTER 6

53x84y

50x64y

53x76y

Ramah chert flakes

47x83y

44x79y

50x71y

0 1 2I I I

a-

43x75y

O ■fc'

^ U11

22 22 12 2

37

22

o

/I

23^,

26

43

27

Ramah chert flakes

34 -22V

o

27

27

14

23!

32

41

35

109

510

59

432

56

172

408

225

63

Yf6

ca62

92

34

20

11

't6x63y

41x61y

40/ Area 2 distribution of Ramah cliert flakes.

middle of each lobe. Consequently, the overall patterndoes not correspond with the exterior hearth model.

As noted previously, however, the scatter ofRamah chert flakes to the east of the south lobe cre-ates some interpretive problems. There is a reasonablyclear, albeit narrow, break in the density gradientbetween the south lobe and the eastern scatter, butthere may be a palimpsest effect from a later occupa-tion. To control for this possibility, Figure 41 presentsa plot of the Ramah chert flake distribution for thesouth lobe with the uppermost level 1 flakes eliminat-

ed. This is not an ideal solution since level 1 was suf-ficiently deep that it probably combined some flakesfrom the two possible components. Nevertheless, themodified plot strongly reinforces the idea of a clearboundary along this side of the lobe and reveals a lin-ear distribution with a width very similar to that of thewestern side of the lobe.

Patinated Ramah chert has a white and some-times cracked surface indicative of thermal alteration.The quadrat diagram (Figure 42) indicates that pati-nated Ramah chert clusters strongly in the south lobe

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

85

with Area 2B. Since patinationis the result of thermal stress itis not surprising to find thematerial concentrated nearhearths, but its occurrencesome distance from hearthsimplies that in those cases itmust have been removed fromthe hearths and redepositedelsewhere. This possibility isdiscussed further below.

The point-pattern distribu-tion of fine-grained cherts,along with a quadrat breakdownby gray Mugford and blackchert variants (Figure 43) indi-cates they are mainly associatedwith the south lobe and are

42/ Area 2 distribution of patinated Ramah cinert flal<es.

48x75y+.

48x69y

•

•

+

44x75y

• .../••• .•••<i.v. ••• • .• •• •:.■■•<'-■ ::-.V.»',i ..V V: -.ly ;•■

44x69y

41/ Area 2A south lobe, lower level distribution of Ramah chert flakes.

adjacent to hearths and at the northernmost end ofthe north lobe associated with hearths 2, 6 and 8, butnot with the other two hearths. It is absent from the"middle" area between the lobes. The patinatedRamah chert in units 49x78-79y north of the northlobe may be partly or entirely the result of overlap

absent from the "middle" area. In the south lobe, bothmaterials cluster around hearth 4, with lesser amountsnear hearth 5. The black chert distribution is interest-ing since its highest frequencies (10 flakes) are foundin symmetric opposition at both ends of the lobe nearthe "middle" area. In the north lobe, both cherts are

86

CHAPTER 6

Table 5: Area 2A Flake Raw Material Frequencies by Model Units

North Lobe

Middle

South Lobe

Other

TOTAL

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Quartz

1 1 59 (47.0)

63 (58.3)

1065 (26.0)

301 (19.1)

2588 (31.4)

Ramah chert

1097 (44.5)

44 (40.7)

2634 (64.3)

1 182 (74.8)

4957 (60.1)

Patinated Ramah

42 (1.7)

71 (1.7)

25 (1.6)

1 38 (1.7)

Gray Mugford chert

20 (0.8)

35 (0.9)

4 (0.3)

59 (0.7)

Green Mugford chert

2 (0.0)

2 (0.0)

Black chert

19 (0.8)

35 (0.9)

7 (0.4)

61 (0.7)

Slate—total

129 (5.2)

1 (0.9)

252 (6.2)

61(3.9)

443 (5.4)

Beige

7 (0.3)

19 (0.5)

3 (0.2)

Green

1 1 (0.4)

1 (0.9)

87 (2.1)

31 (2.0)

Gray

99 (4.0)

1 38 (3.4)

20 (1.3)

Gray-banded

8 (0.3)

1 (0.1)

Red-brown

3 (0.1)

3 (0.1)

6 (0.4)

Indet.

1 (0.0)

5 (0.1)

TOTAL

2466

108

4094

1580

8248

primarily associated with hearths 2, 6 and 8, while theyare absent from hearths 1 and 7, The small cluster ofboth materials in units 49x77-78y north of the northlobe may be a result of overlap with Area 2B.

Figure 44 shows the distribution of plotted slateflakes (undifferentiated by color variant). Once againthe pattern is one of concentration in the two lobesand virtual absence from the middle. It is also clearthat within each lobe the outer boundaries of theslate distributions fit closely with those of quartz andRamah chert. At the south lobe slate occurs as tworoughly parallel distributions on either side of thecentral corridor. Closer inspection suggests it clus-ters adjacent to hearths 3a, 4, 5, with another appar-ently hearth-independent concentration at the north-eastern edge of the lobe. The latter is consistent withthe tendencies noted in the quartz and Ramah chertdistributions.

To pull this together, Table 5 compares the pro-portions of the flake raw material types by groupingthe quadrats into model-based units: the north andsouth lobes representing behavioral modules, the

"middle" consisting of units near the large central rockbetween the lobes and "other" defined as all remain-ing units outside the lobes. There is a clear differencebetween the north lobe and middle subareas, withtheir somewhat even proportions of quartz to Ramahchert, and the south lobe and "other" subareas, whichhave much higher proportions of Ramah chert toquartz. Comparison with chi-square expected frequen-cies confirms the importance of the aforementionedproportional differences, although the frequency ofRamah chert in the south lobe and "other" subareasmay be inflated by palimpsest effects from a Ramahchert-rich later component. The expected frequenciesalso indicate a slight over-representation of slateflakes at the south lobe. If we consider flake raw mate-rials by weight (Table 6), quartz clearly dominates inall subareas, but the proportional weight of Ramahchert is greater in the south lobe and "other" subareas,consistent with the frequency data.

The middle subarea's relatively balanced frequen-cy of quartz and chert resembles the north lobe pro-portions (although by weight the Ramah chert propor-

88

CHAPTER 6

53x76y N

Slate flakes (generic)

3

IP

o

Green slate flakes

^ 9

•I2I 9^

O o

Gray slate flakes

n I

C3J

1)4 6 12C1I-,

II

H74

Gray-bandedslate flakes

O

O

Beige slate flakes

TJ

®

II

44/ Area 2 distribution of slate flakes.

NUKA5USUT0K 5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

89

Table 6: Area 2A Flake Raw Material Weights by Model Units in Grams

iNurin LUDcN (%)

IV| lUU Ic

N (%)

30Uin LOD€

N (%)

vjinerN (%)

QuHrtz

H DUzf \o / .0}

1 OA (-70 9\

5 71 r7n 41

1 8HK ^11 OoD ^Do.

R9m3.h chert

A7K (Q 7\

77n 07 Q1

rdLirialcU rvdllldri

44. 7 Ri

Lirdy iviugioru cncii

A (D ^ \^ ^u.1)

s? (^n 71

17 11

DidCK crtcri

:3.D \\J.\)

1 0 c m 0\

1 0.0 vu.Jj

1 H 1 1

ij 1 ccii iviuy 1 Ul U

n ■? en ni

3laLc — lOLdI

yj.c. yJ. \ )

■? 71 7 ^ 11

Q1 A a 51

I.J \\J.ut

7 en 11

1 A in 'i\

Gr86n

OQ z> (r\ Q\

\j .L. \\J . \ }

1 7 0 1^1

f,7 A U A\

1 7 =^1

1 Q Q 71

Cray-banded

3 (0.1)

0.1 (0.0)

0.1 (0.0)

Red-brown

0.9 (0.0)

0.5 (0.0)

2.6 (0.1)

Indet.

19 (0.4)

2 (0.0)

tion in the middle is somewhat higher), but the middlehas an extremely low overall flake total, entirely lackspatinated Ramah chert and Mugford chert, and hasonly a single slate flake. Thus, the low intensity of lith-ic reduction in the middle subarea stands as a markedcontrast to the two lobes and is also consistent with itslow frequency of retouched implements (n =14, seeTable 7), though not with the relatively high propor-tion of quartz cores (see below). The "other" subareahas quartz/Ramah chert proportions similar to thesouth lobe.

If we consider slate color variants by frequency,both lobes are dominated by gray slate, while greenslate is the second most frequent variant. Nonetheless,a chi-square test (x^ = 80.92) indicates there are sig-nificant differences in the spatial distributions of theslate variants, the expected frequencies pointing to aslight over-representation of gray slate in the northlobe and slight a over-representation of green slate inthe south lobe and "other" subarea. The frequency ofgreen slate in the "other" subarea— most being con-centrated east of the south lobe— could imply a behav-ioral link between the south lobe and the "external"

area to the east. If the comparison is conducted byweight, however, there is parity in gray and green slatebetween the two lobes, but a repeated over-propor-tional amount of green slate in the "other" subarea(Table 6). Thus, the similarities in slate type propor-tions between the south lobe and the "other" subareaparallel the similarities in quartz/Ramah chert propor-tions between the same subareas.

Variation in flake raw materials can also be evalu-ated independent of the model units. Although it can-not be assumed that the distributions of tools and deb-itage are conditioned by the same depositional vari-ables, a tool-cluster based quadrat grouping of flakesmight reveal additional dimensions of spatial variation.The quadrats were grouped according to the 9-clustersolution, but the 1 m^ units did not coincide perfectlywith the clusters. The resulting table (not shown) wasnot particularly enlightening, since the frequency vari-ations were fairly consistent with the model-basedanalysis. A better way of handling the debitage distri-bution independent of model assumptions wasexploratory correspondence analysis of raw materialfrequencies by quadrats. The correspondence plot in

90

CHAPTER 6

i

Table 7: Area 2A Tool Classes by Model Units.

PT

Bl

PR

FP

SC

UF

SP

CA

SB

ST

BC

CO

TM

OTH

TOTAL

N

2.5

6

3

7

6

25

2

2

2

8

1 3

1 3

1

1

91.5

MID

0.5

2

1

4

1

4.5

1

1 4

S

8

6

2

2

1 1

41

2

1

4

35

32

1 1.5*

1

2

1 58.5

OTH

2

2

1

1

4

27

6

7

12

8

5

2

77

TOTAL

1 3

16

6

10

22

97

4

3

12

51

57

37

7

6

341

%

3.8

4.7

1.8

2.9

6.5

28.4

1.2

0.9

3.5

1 5.0

16.7

10.9

2.1

1.8

* a fragment conjoining with another in a different unit was assigned a value of .5

PT: points (bifacial), BL bifaces, PR: preforms (biface), FP: flake points, SC: scrapers (endscrapers andflake knives), UF: utilized flakes, SP: slate points, CA: celt/adze, SB: slate blanks (unmodified plates andblanks), ST: slate tool fragments (ground slate flakes and unidentified tool fragments), BC: bipolarcores, CO: block cores (quartz), TM: tool manufacturing (hammerstones, schist tablets, whetstones),and OTH: other (stemmed flakes, linear flakes, graver).

Figure 45 indicates that the first axis (horizontal)accounts for 75.2% of the variation, seriating thequadrats relative to their proportions of Ramah chertand quartz. The units on the left side of the axis aredominated by Ramah chert while the units on the rightside are dominated by quartz. The second axis (verti-cal) accounts for 18.2% of the variation, scaling thequadrats relative to slate proportions. Units placedtowards the top of the axis have unusually high fre-quencies of slate. Symbol coding of quadrats by themodel-based units indicates a clear pattern. Most ofthe north lobe quadrats and all the middle quadratsare pulled right by high quartz frequencies, while mostof the south lobe quadrats are pulled left by abundantRamah chert (although several are pulled by quartz)."Other" quadrats are distributed in both the quartz andRamah chert groups, although three quadrats are out-liers pulled by high frequencies of slate. Ten of the 1 3"other" quadrats that group with the south lobe areactually adjacent to that lobe, while 10 of the 15"other" quadrats that group with the north lobe lieadjacent to that lobe. Mugford chert has very littleinfluence on the plot. Thus, the correspondence analy-

sis indicates that the model-based units are to a greatextent replicated by model-independent analysis.

Tool Distribution

The spatial distribution of tool classes may indicatesomething about functional or depositional variationwithin Area 2A. The analyses are conducted using 14largely functional classes, some of which (e.g., bifacialpoints) could be further subdivided into formal/func-tional variants (see Chapter 8 for a description of thetool material). Table 7 outlines the tool class frequen-cies in relation to the model-based units introduced inthe debitage analysis. Variation in the table can bescaled by correspondence analysis and visualized in aplot (Figure 46). The first axis of the plot accounts for44.9% of the variation and primarily contrasts thesouth lobe on the right side with the north lobe slight-ly towards the left. The south lobe is positioned withbipolar cores, bifacial points, scrapers, utilized flakesand slate tool fragments. The north lobe is only distin-guished by flake points. Common to both lobes areblock cores, bifaces and preforms. The middle subareais pulled to the extreme left of the plot, probably

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

91

because of a modest frequencyof block cores combined withan absence of bipolar cores.Along the second axis, account-ing for 34.9% of the variation,the "other" subarea is distin-guished towards the bottom ofthe plot by slate blanks and toolmanufacturing items. Althoughthe low tool frequencies limitthe robustness of the analysis,it does point to contrastsbetween the subareas. Thelobes are not replicate behav-ioral modules, but they doshare broad similarities.

A more detailed assess-ment of tool class variation canbe had by combining the quan-titative data with the spatial dis-tribution diagrams. While someof the tool classes can reason-ably be evaluated in terms oftheir point distributions, oth-ers— specifically, utilizedflakes, block cores and bipolarcores— lack systematic pointproveniencing and are bestevaluated by quadrats. Bothtypes of information are provid-ed here. There are some inter-esting patterns in the distribu-tions of block and bipolar cores(Figures 47 and 48). The largelyunworked quartz block coresare frequent in the middle areabetween the lobes, suggestingthey were cached or dumpedthere. Half of the cores in thisarea are located in quadratswith few quartz flakes, while the

45/ Area 2A: correspondence analysis plot of flake raw materials by quadrat, coded byanalytical model units.

2.0-

1.5-c\ SP^

1.0-

Bl 0.5-Axis 1 (44.9%) ^'a • .

^ N Pj^^

-2.0 -1.5 -1.0 -0.5

.ST

SC ^BC 1.0

1 1 1

CO A

^""^

^UF

A

OTH

-1.0-

OTH

•

^ SB

1 ^ -

▲ Tool class '

• Model unit

-2.0-

■ ^TM

-2.5-

Axis 2 (34.9%)

46/ Area 2A: correspondence analysis plot of tool classes by analytical model units.

92

CHAPTER 6

47/ Area 2: distribution of Mock cores by quadrat.

48/ Area 2 distribution of bipolar cores by quadrat.

Other half are positioned within or adjacent to a clus-ter of quartz debitage at the northeastern corner of thesouth lobe. Consequently, the placement of blockcores is partly independent of quartz reduction loca-tions. There is also a slight concentration of blockcores at the northern end of the north lobe. Here, how-ever, the cores are clearly associated with quartz flakeconcentrations. In contrast, bipolar cores, the interme-

diary and final product of quartz reduction, are mostlyfound within the south lobe, where they are associatedwith the greatest densities of quartz flakes but arelargely independent of the distribution of block cores.At the north lobe there are small clusters of bipolarcores at each end of the eastern side; the cluster nearthe northern end is associated with a concentration ofquartz flakes, but the southern cluster is not. Both

NUKASUSUTOK 5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

93

49/ Area 2 distribution of utilized flal<es by quadrat.

clusters are associated with or are adjacent to concen-trations of block cores. In the quadrats east of the mid-dle area between the lobes there are several bipolarcores that are largely independent of the distributionof both block cores and quartz debitage. This place-ment might suggest they are secondary refuse ratherthan the products of In situ reduction. In sum, with theexception of the eastern exterior area, the associationssuggest primary refuse accumulation combined withsome degree of caching or dumping of block coresseparate from reduction areas. It is noteworthy thatpossible caching areas are found in similar locations atthe northern end of both lobes.

Utilized flakes (Figure 49) are generally foundadjacent to the hearth features, although they are alsofrequent near the eastern edge of the middle area andin the corridor of the south lobe. There is also a smallconcentration in the area east of the south lobe.

The distribution of bifacial points is plotted inFigure 50, biface preforms in Figure 51, and bifacesand fragments thereof in Figure 52. Most of the itemsfrom the three classes are associated with one or theother lobes, generally lying within 1 m of a hearth.Both preforms and biface fragments are fairly evenlydistributed between the two lobes, but bifacial points

are more frequent in the south lobe. The reverse pat-tern is seen for flake points (Figure 53); seven pointsare associated with the north lobe, while only two areassociated with the south lobe.

Endscrapers are made exclusively of fine-grainedchert, both gray Mugford and black chert. They occurin both lobes, although they are somewhat more fre-quent in the south lobe, particularly adjacent to Hearth3a (Figure 54). Three are found near the western edgeof the middle area. Two endscrapers lie near the opennorthern end of the north lobe, although one is In thearea of presumed overlap with Area 2B. The distribu-tion of endscrapers is only partly consistent with thedistribution of fine-grained chert flakes (Figure 43). Onthe eastern side of the south lobe there are seven toolsand only 23 flakes, while on the western side there isonly one tool but 46 flakes. Thus, discard/use and pro-duction/retouch are not always correlated.

Ground slate tools are distributed fairly evenlybetween the two lobes, with slate points and adzespresent in each lobe (Figure 55). The distribution ofraw slate plates and partially formed tool blanks(Figure 56) is fairly even between the two lobes (two vsthree), but four are scattered in the area east of thelobes. Overall, ca. 73% of all ground slate flakes and

94

CHAPTER 6

unidentifiable ground tool fragments are associatedwith the south lobe (Table 7, Figure 57). The distribu-tion of ground slate flakes struck from tool edges isshown in Figure 57. All but one of these are found inthe south lobe and in units adjacent to hearths. Onespecimen from inside the south lobe conjoins with anon-edge- struck slate flake in the area east of thesouth lobe. A single edge-struck flake occurs in thenorth lobe, adjacent to a hearth. In sum, although thedeposition of slate tools within each lobe is roughlyequivalent, the south lobe seems to exhibit a greater

degree of slate tool production and reworking, as indi-cated by the high frequency of unground and groundslate flakes (Table 5; Figures 44 and 57). The area eastof the south lobe contains a modest number of groundand unground slate flakes, plates/blanks and tools.

The residual category "miscellaneous tools" (Figure58) tends to be associated with the hearths and is fair-ly evenly distributed between the lobes. An exception isthe clustering of a flake knife, a graver/scraper and astemmed flake near the eastern edge of the middlearea. Seen in conjunction with a cluster of utilized

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

95

53x84y

50x84y

47x83y

£1

53x76y

50x71y

Biface preforms

44x79y

43x75y

—2.HJO

0 1 2I I I

©

H12

o

H13

Biface preforms

11

46x63y

HU •

41x61y

57. Area 2: distribution of biface preforms

flakes in the same area (Figure 49), this might indicatesome scraping/cutting functions were undertakenthere. A schist tablet is associated with hearth 6 in thenorth lobe, while a hard slate whetstone lies adjacent tohearth 3a in the south lobe. These may have been asso-ciated with grinding slate or bone implements, but theimplement at hearth 6 is only associated with a singleground slate flake, while hearth 3a is adjacent to sever-al ground slate flakes and tools.

The stories told by tool raw material frequenciesand weights are quite different (Tables 8 and 9). By fre-

quency, the proportion of Ramah chert to quartz toolsis 2;1 across all the subareas except for the middle,where they are even. This proportion would be muchhigher if quartz cores were eliminated from the fig-ures. By weight, however, quartz constitutes ca. 75% ofthe material in all subareas except the middle, where itis nearly 98%. This is much the same pattern as seenwith the flakes (Tables 5 and 6), where Ramah chert ishigh in frequency but low in weight.

At this point it would be useful to consider thetool distribution with the model-independent

96

CHAPTER 6

approach, using /c-means derived groupings. To sup-plement the overall 9- and 12-cluster solutions pre-sented previously (Figure 37), a separate analysis ofArea 2A was conducted. The best result is a 1 2-clustersolution (Figure 59) which is broadly similar to theoverall Area 2 12-cluster solution, but some new clus-ters are split off. While this may be a slightly bettergrouping seen from the perspective of identifyinghearth-centered distributions, some of the new small-er clusters may be spurious. However, as mentionedabove, a serious problem is that the inadequate point-

proveniencing of certain tool types limits the utility ofpoint pattern analysis. We could try to group thequadrats according to the clusters defined by /(-meansanalysis, but we run into difficulties, since the 1 m^quadrats can overlap different clusters, particularly inthe more fine-grained 12-cluster solution. In anattempt to maintain some form of model-independentapproach, the earlier 9-cluster solution (Figure 37) waschosen for illustrative purposes. This still poses somedifficulties in that the clusters do not conform neatly tothe quadrat boundaries, although the number of prob-

NUKASUSUTOK-5 SPATIAL ANALYSIS

97

lem areas is relatively small. Difficult quadrats wereassigned to a cluster based on degree of overlap andthe relative density of plotted tools. The resulting clus-ter groupings are very similar to the model-based sub-areas, so it is questionable whether this approach pro-vides much information beyond that of the model-based analysis. Nonetheless, the resulting tool fre-quency distribution is presented in Table 10.

The many low cell frequencies in Table 10 renderanalysis problematic, but Figure 60 presents a corre-spondence analysis plot to visualize possible varia-

tions between the clusters. The clusters lie in a ringaround the origin of the plot and their positioning rel-ative to the tool classes does not suggest groupings.There are minor differences between the clusters, butthe variation only involves one or two tool classes andsmall numbers of items. Nuances can be identified byconsidering the cells for which observed frequenciesdepart somewhat from expected values. Bipolar coresare slightly over-represented in cluster 2 (south lobe,hearths 3a,b), concomitant with an under-representa-tion of quartz block cores. In cluster 9 (middle, with

98

CHAPTER 6

overlaps from both lobes and the area east of thelobes), block cores and slate tool fragments are over-represented. There is a less-marked overweight ofscrapers and bifacial projectile points in cluster 2 andof block cores and slate blanks in cluster 7 (east of thelobes). Cluster 8, lying at the northern "entrance" tothe north lobe, exhibits a slight overweight of flakepoints. There is a slight over-representation of utilizedflakes in cluster 9, but this does not seem terribly sig-nificant when the quadrat distribution pattern isinspected (Figure 49). There is also an over-represen-

tation of ground slate flakes and unidentifiable slatetool fragments in cluster 9, particularly in associationwith hearth 4 (Figure 57). Ground slate flakes are alsoconcentrated near hearth 5 (Cluster 2), although this isnot statistically disproportional.

If we consider tool raw material frequencies bycluster unit (Table 11), there are few differencesbetween observed and expected frequencies otherthan somewhat more than expected quartz in cluster 7(east of the lobes)— mostly accounted for by cores—and a slight over-representation of quartz and slate

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

99

(treated generically) in cluster 9. For the latter, thequartz is accounted for by cores, while the slate con-sists of ground flakes— most of which are associatedwith the edge of the south lobe. Thus, the cluster-based division provides little information beyond thatderived from the model-based units.

In sum, the /c-means approach does not providemuch information to supplement or contradict themodel-based analysis. The 12-cluster solution for Area

2A alone (Figure 59) provides a schematic overview ofthe hearth-centered distributions, while the "lumped" 9-cluster solution for Area 2 as a whole (Figure 37) indi-cates that the major and most stable clusters stronglyparallel the divisions used in the model-based analyses.Clearly, however, the necessity of using large andcoarsely grouped quadrats undermines the possibilityof isolating patterns that might be revealed by moreprecise point-provenience analysis or smaller quadrats.

100

CHAPTER 6

Table 8: Area 2A Tool Raw Material Frequencies by Model Units.

iNurin LUDc

IVIIUUIc LUUc

3UUIII LUUc

1 \J 1 ML

IN (/o)

IN y/o)

IN \/o)

IN \/a)

IN ^/o;

Qunrtz

D.J (D^. D J

^ 1^ ^ O') A\

1 Pi 11C\ 81ID \^\J.OJ

OVJ J. J/

Ramah chert

AR (AF, ni

/ . J ^ J J .

^Pi (AF, 8\3u V^D.O;

1 "^R iAF ^11 DO Vt'O . J ^

Gray MuQford

J \J-->)

J (. 1 .a;

DidCK cneri

iL \iL.iLj

11 if, Q\

18 K ^1

jIdLc lOldl

\ A ^\

1 ^7 1 ^

1 J V 1 O •

Gr66ri

O

o

1

1 c

a

D

Gra,y

1

1

? ?

L.

CJ

78

D Q/H r^c/^\A/n

Kcu Ui uwri

1

1

7

e.

D

Vjidy DdnUcU

1

1

:3

inuei.

1

1

11

7

Schist

1 (1.1)

4 (5.2)

5 (1.5)

Other

1 (0.6)

1 (1.3)

2 (0.6)

*.5 denotes a conjoining fragment

Table 9: Area 2A Tool Raw Material Weights by Model Units. In Grams.

North Lobe

Middle Lobe

South Lobe

Other

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N

(%)

Quartz

1751 (68.8)

1161 (94.7)

1759 (76.4)

1475.6

(58.2)

Ramah chert

284.2 (11.2)

64.4 (5.3)

302.3 (1 3.1)

165

(6.5)

Black chert

12 (0.5)

32 (1.4)

1 5

(0.6)

Gray Mugford

25.3 (1.0)

16 (0.7)

4

(0.2)

Slate—total

294.7 (11.6)

0.3 (0.0)

160.6 (7.0)

1 55.1

(6.1)

Green

111.5

0.3

98.7

144.1

Gray

16

19.8

9.9

Red-brown

167

3

1.1

Gray-banded

0.2

6.1

Gray/schist

33

Schist

177 (7.0)

33 (1.4)

554.5

(21.9)

Other

0.3 (0.0)

167

(6.6)

Distribution of Red Ocher and Bone Fragments

Figure 61 depicts the distribution of red ocherstains and bone fragments. It is possible that morered ocher stains were present but went undocu-mented given the difficulty of identifying them in

the very dark brown podzolized sand or becausesome were erased by deflation. Taking the data athand, red ocher stains are found almost exclusivelywithin the lobes, where they occur within or closelyadjacent to hearths. Stains are associated with both

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

101

Table 10: Area 2A Tool Classes; Quadrats Grouped by K-Means Cluster.

PT

Bl

PR

FP

sc

UF

SP

CA

SB

ST

BC

CO

TM

OTH

TOTAL

Cluster 2

7

6

2

2

11

32

2

1

4

1 9.5*

25

3

4

2

120.5

Cluster 4

0.5

1

1

1

2

8

2

1

2

3

3

24.5

Cluster 7

3

2

1

2

2

22

4

7

1 3

1 1

2

1

70

Cluster 8

1

4

2

5

4

20

1

6

6

8

1

1

59

Cluster 9

1.5

3

3

1 5

2

2

16.5

10

1 2

2

67

TOTAL

13

16

6

10

22

97

4

3

12

51

57

37

7

6

341

* .5 denotes a conjoining fragment

PT: points (bifacial), Bl: bifaces, PR: preforms (biface), FP: flake points, SC: scrapers (endscrapers andflake knives), UF: utilized flakes, SP: slate points, CA: celt/adze, SB: slate blanks (unmodified plates andblanks), ST: slate tool fragments (ground slate flakes and unidentified tool fragments), BC: bipolarcores, CO: block cores (quartz), TM: tool manufacturing (hammerstones, schist tablets, whetstones),and OTH: other (stemmed flakes, linear flakes, graver).

Table 11: Area 2A Tool Raw Material Frequencies by K-Means Cluster.

Cluster 2

Cluster 4

Cluster 7

Cluster 8

Cluster 4

N

(%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Quartz

22

(18.3)

4 (16.3)

21 (30.0)

13 (22.0)

20 (29.9)

Ramah chert

55

(45.6)

13.5 (55.1)

35 (50.0)

33 (55.9)

21.5 (32.1)

Black chert

10

(8.3)

1 (4.1)

4 (6.8)

3 (4.5)

Cray Mugford

3

(2.5)

1 (4.1)

1 (1.4)

1 (1.7)

2 (3.0)

Slate—total

26.5

(22.0)

5 (20.4)

11 (15.7)

7 (11.9)

19.5 (29.1)

Green

1 1

3

4

3

9

Cray

12.5

5

1

8.5

Red-brown

1

2

2

1

Gray-banded

2

1

1

Gray/schist

Indet. 1 1

Schist

3

(2.5)

2 (2.9)

1 (1.7)

Other

1

(0.8)

1 (1.5)

TOTAL

120.5

24.5

70

59

67

" .5 denotes a conjoining fragment

surface and pit hearths, although they seem most lobe and two small stains just south of the south

intensive with pit features. Deviating from this pat- lobe. No uncrushed ocher fragments were observed

tern is a patch 1 m north of hearth 8 at the north at Area 2A.

102

CHAPTER 6

The paucity of bone is a consequence of bothtaphonomic factors and recovery techniques. Theextremely acidic soil (pH 4.0-5.0) destroyed all but afew fragments of highly calcined bone. On the otherhand, it is possible that more fragments could havebeen recovered with fine-screening (only 1/4 inchmesh was used). All bone fragments at Area 2A areassociated with the two lobes. At the north lobe, a sin-gle fragment is found in the pit of hearth 8, anothersingle fragment lies 1 m to the southeast and anothersingle piece lies between hearths 1 and 6. At the south

lobe, six fragments are associated with hearth 5. Noneof these bone fragments could be identified to taxon.

Feature-Centered Distributions, Size-Sorting,and Cultural Formation Processes

Since the behavioral modules suggested in the Area 2Amaterial might imply dwelling structures we shouldconsider more explicitly the ethnoarchaeologicallyderived feature-centered models. As discussed inChapter 3, we might expect to find different types ofdistribution patterns associated with exterior and inte-

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

103

53K84y

50x84y

47x83y

CI

53x76y

50x71y

Ground slate flakes and tool fragments

44>i79y

1^

o

46x63y

43x75y

0 1 2I I I

o ©

0 • <•

41x67y

Ground slate flakes and tool fragments

(n) edge-struck flakes

n

11

41x61y

i

57/ Area 2 distribution of ground slate flakes and ground tool fragments.

rior hearths. In general, exterior hearths may havemore extensive debris distributions with drop- andtoss-zones characterized by size-sorting of culturalmaterial: smaller items in the drop-zones adjacent tohearths, larger items in the toss-zones further away—a roughly concentric zonation. Interior hearths mayexhibit an adjacent concentration of cultural materialbut may lack clear drop- and toss-zones because ofperiodic maintenance of dwelling interiors designed toprevent the accumulation of material in the sleepingareas near the dwelling walls. Maintenance of dwelling

interiors may result in the development of exterior sec-ondary refuse deposits such as "door dumps" (Binford1983:177). Thus, instead of concentric size-sortingthere is a distinction between small-sized items nearinterior hearths and larger items in exterior dumps.

Evaluation of the total debitage distribution aswell as distributions of individual raw materials doesnot indicate the concentric and gradual "distancedecay" patterning expected at exterior hearths.Flakes are obviously clustered adjacent to hearths,but they are generally concentrated on one side of

104

CHAPTER 6

53x84y

50x84y

53x76y

50x71y

47x83y

Miscellaneous tools

FSC= flake scraper/knifeGSC= graver/scraperGST= grindstoneHAM= hammerstoneLFK= linear flakeSFK= stemmed flakeSHF= scfiist fragmentSHT= schist tabletWHS= whetstone

45x63y

SH£

Miscellaneous tools

FSC= flake scraper/knifeGSC= graver/scraperGST= grindstoneHAiVI= hammerstoneLFK= linear flakeSFK= stemmed flakeSHF= schist fragmentSHT= schist tabletWHS= whetstone

41x61y

58/ Area 2: distribution of miscellaneous tools.

the hearths rather than forming a ring around them.The overall distributions are bounded in linear "lobe"patterns which, to some extent, may be the result ofoverlapping hearth-centered distributions. The outeredges of the lobes (particularly the southern one) arefairly sharp, suggestive of a boundary effect. At thesame time, the inner edges of the lobes indicate cen-tral areas with minimal debitage accumulation, eithera consequence of differential activity placement ormaintenance of the central areas. The tool distribu-tion patterns are also closely linked to hearths,

although the concentration of block cores in the"middle" and the area east of the lobes deviates fromthe overall pattern.

If the overall configuration of the debitage andtool distributions seems more in line with an interiorhearth model, what about the size-sorting criterion?One problem in assessing size-sorting is that lithicsmay be less sensitive to the discard and maintenancepractices noted ethnoarchaeologically for bones andimplements of organic materials, given much less vari-ation in size dimensions. Nonetheless, since lithics are

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

105

the only available data class their potential for reveal-ing relevant patterning should be explored. A distinc-tion between large/small tools and tool fragments wasmade with reference to a histogram of all tool maxi-mum lengths for Area 2. Given a skewed distributionwith over 60% of the tools less than 40 mm long, smallwas defined as <39.9 mm, large as >40.0 mm. Giventhe relatively small number of tools and their variablenumbers across the units, it did not seem advisable tocalculate a size-sorting index. Instead, a subjectiveevaluation was made in which units with either highabsolute numbers of large tools or high proportions oflarge to small tools were identified and marked onFigure 62. At the north lobe, units with large tools liebetween hearths 7 and 8, adjacent to hearths 2 and 6,and associated with possible hearth 1 9. The latter con-centration is strongly affected by the presence of sev-eral quartz block cores. There are no units with con-centrations of large tools outside the open northernside of the lobe, as might be expected from a "door

dump." At the south lobe, a unit with large tools isdirectly associated with hearths 3a and 3b while anoth-er lies in the relatively debitage-free "corridor" betweenhearths 3a and 4. Large tool units also occur at boththe eastern and western edges of the middle area.Most of the large implements on the eastern side areunused quartz block cores. As discussed previously,these may represent a raw material cache rather thana discard dump. In sum, there is little evidence for thesystematic removal of larger tools from within themodules to secondary deposits elsewhere.

Debitage might also have been subject to mainte-nance related size-sorting, especially quartz, the expe-dient reduction of which produced a wide array oflarge chunks. Quartz chunks might be more annoyingon a dwelling floor than small Ramah chert retouchflakes and the larger quartz fragments would be easi-er to collect and discard outside a dwelling. However,size-sorted patterns of debitage might also reflect thespatial staging of lithic reduction sequences. Initial

106

CHAPTER 6

▲ Tool class• Cluster

1.5-CO^ 1.0-

Axis 1 (38.4%)

0.5-

9 7'

-1.0. .OTH

^ 1

^PR

-3.0 -2.0

1.0

■*H

2.0

1

3.0 1

1 1

ST^ BC^

-0.5-

-1.0--1.5-

'SB. 2

PT

4

^SP

Axis 2 (33.5%)

60/ Area 2A: correspondence analysis plot of tool classes byk-means cluster, based onthe overall Area 2 nine-cluster solution.

ing the associated tool context.Reduction related size-sortingmight be indicated by associa-tions between block cores andlarger debitage fragments andbipolar cores and smaller deb-itage fragments, while mainte-nance related size-sortingmight be signaled by the co-occurrence of both core typesand larger debitage sizes. If allreduction stages occurred atthe same locale the entire rangeof core types and debitage sizeswould be present.

Investigation of quartzsize-sorting was undertaken by

reduction of quartz block cores resulting in the pro-duction of large fragments might occur in one area,then some of those fragments could be removed toanother location for further bipolar reduction, produc-ing a concentration of small fragments. Nonetheless, itmight be possible to distinguish between maintenancerelated and reduction related size-sorting by consider-

calculating a size-sorting index (SSI; Wandsnider 1996,see Chapter 3) for each of the 1 m^ quadrats at Area2A. The SSI summarizes the representation of smalland large items in a quadrat, with high negative valuesindicating a dominance of large items, high positivevalues a dominance of small items, and values near 0indicating a mixture of sizes. The large and small flake

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

107

o

H11

OH17

Units with concentrations of large tools

H9

H)2

H15

o

0.11

0.01 -i^

0.85 (jO.S?

0.030.11

■0,08

-0.81

o.-ts

-0.01

')

0.36-0.36

Size-sorting index (SSI)

predominance of large quartz flakespredominance of small quartz flakes

u

-0.02

11

62/ Area 2: size distribution of tools and quartz flakes.

categories were constructed with reference to a linegraph of quartz flake sizes for Area 2 as a whole.Around 85% of the flakes were <35 mm in size and thegraph flattened out markedly above 35 mm, so "large"was defined as >35 mm. Figure 62 displays the size-sorting indices; units dominated by small or largeflakes are highlighted. At the north lobe there is a unitwith predominantly small flakes that lies betweenhearths 2, 7 and 8. On its northern flank are threeunits with a predominance of large flakes; two of thesealso have significant numbers of large tools, as does

one unit to the southwest. Hearth 6 lies in one of theaforementioned units dominated by large flakes, butadjacent units to the north and east are dominated bysmall flakes. Hearth 1 is situated in a unit with prima-rily large flakes and adjacent to a unit in the middlesubarea with mainly large tools (quartz cores). Oneunit north of the north lobe (49x79y) has a preponder-ance of large flakes, but its location in the area ofprobable overlap between Areas 2a and 2b renders itproblematic. At the south lobe the unit containinghearth 3a is dominated by large quartz flakes while an

108

CHAPTER 6

1

1

6

2

1

1

1

Total biface-thinning flakes

1

2

11

3

6

1

4

5

1

3

2

4

3

2

2

7

1

2

2

2

1

:c

)

4

2

■

7

7

2

1

2

-(

8

4

8

21

2

7

\

1

o

14

1

5

5

9

19

1

^

4

20 ^

4

3

3

7

9

24

16

6

@

3

1

63

22

12

5

5

2

7

5

0"

7

0

30

a::

1

2

3

9

10

1

1

1

2

5

6

6

67

65

25 C

9

L

(

)

3

2

1^

2 .

1

14

2

i

6

11

24

9

c

2

2

1

2

1

2

2

(

.

1

2

1

2

1

Large (>30mm) biface-thinning flakes

1

1

t

1

c

■

1

1

:>

1 -

o

T

2

2

1

3

/

(J

2

4

1

10

7

3

1

1

1

_ 1

2

10

2

4

5

3 C

)

(

)

_^1

4

2

2

4

4

1

1

(

1

1

63//Area 2: distribution of Ramah chert biface-thinning flal<es.

adjacent unit is dominated by small flakes; both theseunits also contain significant numbers of large tools.Two units on opposite sides of hearth 5 have a tenden-cy towards mostly small flakes, while one nearby unitat the western entrance of the middle subarea has aconcentration of large tools. An interesting pattern isthe presence of three units with large flakes just out-side the eastern edge of the middle subarea, accompa-nied by three units near that edge with concentrationsof large tools (mostly quartz cores). This distributionsuggests that quartz blocks cached in the middle sub-

area may have been reduced in a location immediatelyto the east; the cores may have been reduced mostlyby direct percussion (there are few bipolar cores),which produced relatively large flakes.

The bounded nature of the overall flake distribu-tions has already been used to argue against an exte-rior hearth model. It is clear that the size-sorting datado not fit very well with the expectations of the exteri-or model: concentric zones of small items in dropzones near the hearths, larger items in more distanttoss zones. Only the area around hearth 8 in the north

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

109

lobe appears to conform. Hearth 3a at the south lobeactually exhibits the opposite pattern: large quartzflakes and tools adjacent to the hearths, small flakessomewhat distant. This opposite pattern may repre-sent spatial differences in the staging of quartz reduc-tion: initial direct percussion adjacent to the hearth,selection of desired fragments, then bipolar reductionconducted a short distance from the hearth. Hearth 5at the south lobe is ambiguous; it lies beside two unitswith a preponderance of small quartz flakes, one ofwhich (44x74y) is adjacent to a more hearth-distantunit with a very slight tendency towards larger flakesizes. One of these hearth-adjacent units (44x74y) alsocontained the largest concentration of small Ramahchert flakes at Area 2.

Nor do these data provide much clear evidence formaintenance related size-sorting. Within the north lobethere are four or five units with predominantly largequartz flakes and three or four units with large tools.The south lobe has less in the way of large quartzflakes, but has three units with many large tools.Besides the area directly east of the middle zone, thereare no units outside the lobes with concentrations oflarge tools or flakes that might suggest dumps. Thus,the general impression is that if the lobes representdwelling structures there was not much effort devotedto maintenance in the form of removing large-sizedlithic clutter (although the floors could be the result ofless fastidious pre-abandonment behavior [Stevenson1991]). In sum, the quartz flake size-sorting data areambiguous, but there are indications that some of thevariation might be related to spatial positioning ofreduction stages.

A final variable that might point to maintenanceactivity is the distribution of thermally altered (patinat-ed) Ramah chert flakes. These flakes must have beentransformed by direct contact with hearth areas, sotheir occurrence in locations distant from hearthswould indicate secondary deposition. Figure 42 indi-cates that patinated Ramah chert is strongly associat-ed with hearths and that secondary deposits are most-

ly within an arm's length of a hearth. A concentrationoccurs outside the northern end of the north lobe, butit is possible that this is associated with the activitiesthat produced the fire-cracked rock concentrations atArea 2B. Otherwise, several patinated flakes occur inthe exterior area to the east of the south lobe. Thesemight indicate dumping, but a cluster of rocks at theedge of the excavation (Figure 35) could represent ahearth. In sum, the distribution of thermally alteredRamah chert does not provide much evidence formaintenance activity at Area 2A.

Refitting

Up to this point, micro-scale analysis has been used toestablish the presence of two behavioral modules. It isnow time to consider the meso-scale question of theirrelationship to each other and to other parts of Area2A by looking at lithic refitting patterns. If we consid-er broken tools, virtually all conjoining tool fragmentsare found nearby each other within the same quadrat.The only cross-quadrat refits are two fragments of aleaf-shaped (bipointed) biface that reconnect betweenthe southwestern portion of the north lobe and theedge of the south lobe and the middle subarea (Figure50), a quartz block core with one piece in the innerportion of the north lobe and its conjoining piece atthe northern end of the lobe (Figure 47), and twoground slate flakes joining between the inside of thesouth lobe and the area to the east of that lobe (Figure57). The latter connection between the south lobe andeastern exterior area parallels previous observations ofsimilarities between the two areas in slate flake rawmaterials and quartz/Ramah chert proportions.

To supplement this meager evidence an attemptwas made to refit the quartz block cores with some ofthe larger quartz "chunks" from the debitage. Thisproved to be futile, perhaps due to insufficient effort,but also because of the tendency for quartz to befound either as minimally modified block cores, bipo-lar cores, or thoroughly shattered flakes, such thatthere were few easily refitted intermediate forms. A

110

CHAPTER 6

more systematic refitting study of the Area 2A materi-al might help clarify the spatial organization of thesite, but the bulk of the evidence at hand suggests thetwo lobes were behaviorally independent units.

Putting the Pieces Together

The multiple lines of evidence presented so far sug-gest the two lobes are distinct behavioral modules thatshare similar general activity patterns, but which varysomewhat in tool types and raw material use. Bothmodules exhibit similar patterns of debitage distribu-tion, each have roughly the same number of hearthsand the hearths are positioned similarly at oppositeends of the modules, although the north lobe also hasa central hearth. Defined in relation to the debitagedistributions the modules are of very similar size: ca.4 by 3 m. The sharply bounded debitage distributionsand the lack of the concentric drop/toss-zone pattern

hypothesized to characterize external hearths couldsuggest the modules were associated with tentdwellings. The lack of refits between the modules indi-cates a degree of behavioral independence. Two alter-native dwelling configurations can be considered.

The first alternative (Figure 64) considers thesharp external bounding of the debitage lobes to bethe consequence of a tent wall edge-effect and postu-lates two separate dwelling modules on the north andsouth sides of the large central rock. In this scenariodebitage deposition is concentrated along the tentwalls, extending 1.0-1.2 m from the walls towards themiddle of the dwelling. Most of the hearths are locat-ed rather close to the postulated dwelling walls (ca. 0.5m), with the exception of hearth 2 (centrally located)and hearths 4 and 16 (ca. 1 m from the wall). In themiddle is a low flake/tool density area, which in thenorth lobe is 0.5-1.0 by 3.0 m in size (although it is

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

N

Depression ■ Flake

65/ Area 2A: rectangular structure interpretation.

punctuated by hearth 2) and in the south lobe 0.7-1.0by 2.5 m. These central spaces were either used foractivities that did not accumulate lithic refuse (e.g.,sleeping) or were kept clean by maintenance proce-dures (which did not result in lithic size-sorting).Openings at the northern ends of each lobe might indi-cate entrances. The hearth locations might suggestthat certain practices were focused on the inner andouter portions of the dwellings.

Although the modules seem to be independentbehavioral units, the overall similarities and symme-tries in spatial patterning are striking. At the macro-scale level, the modules might represent independentstructures deliberately aligned in tandem with thelarge flat central rock as a spatial fulcrum point. Theclustering of rocks in the middle subarea on both theeastern and western sides of the large central rockmight indicate deliberate placement with reference to

two contemporary structures. This apparent commonconceptual plan could imply a cooperative relationshipbetween two households. The dwellings were not phys-ically connected, but the total living space would havemeasured 10 by 3 m in size and run north-south par-allel to the beach front.

There are several objections to this alternative.First, some of the apparent boundaries in the flake dis-tribution patterns might be the result of wind deflationand redeposition processes. The possible superposi-tion noted near the eastern edge of the south lobemight also be attributable to such processes.Additionally, the descriptive overview presented inChapter 5 noted the presence of several depressions atArea 2A that might indicate deflation; two of these aredirectly associated with the south lobe (Figure 64).Depression 5 cuts across the middle of the lobe in aneast-west direction; its orientation cannot account for

112

CHAPTER 6

the empty "corridor space" in the lobe, although itmight have contributed to the accumulation of flakesnear hearth 4. Depression 6 lies beside hearth 5; it isfilled with flakes and seems to contribute little to accu-mulation or smearing of the distribution. Although lessobvious aeolian formation effects cannot be ruled out,the similar configuration of both lobes suggests thereis some integrity to the pattern. On the other hand,neither size-sorting patterns nor the distribution ofpatinated Ramah chert suggest the operation of main-tenance practices that might have been responsible forcreating bounded distributions.

Perhaps a more significant objection is the spatialstructure. The floor areas are rather small: 12-15 m^.That is not unusual for hunter-gatherer tent dwellings,but the small area is punctuated by multiple hearthsand the cleared central areas are of extremely limiteddimensions (0.5-1.0 by 3.0 m, 0.7-1.0 by 2.5 m) suchthat very few people could be accommodated. Theproximity of several hearths to the hypothesizeddwelling walls is problematic given the potential forigniting a tent covering. Additionally, the spatial con-figuration is different from most of the ethnographicand archaeological examples discussed in Chapter 3,in which hearths and debris accumulations are situat-ed towards the center of the dwellings and the clearedliving space is positioned at the sides or the back.

In sum, the multiple hearths raise the problem offeature contemporaneity, thus challenging the behav-ioral unity of the modules.

The second alternative also sees the two modulesas components of separate dwellings, but it requires agestalt switch to see them as parts of larger rectangu-lar structures extending east-west, parallel to eachother and perpendicular to the beach front (Figure 65).In this scenario the linear arms of the lobes are activi-ty concentrations that divide the rectangular structuresinto segments in a manner consistent with the long-

house model. The south lobe provides the best illustra-tion of this interpretation, although it implies a struc-ture that extends beyond the western boundary of theexcavation. The north-south ends of the south lobedefine the width of the structure (3.7-4.0 m). Thenorthern end of the structure is indicated by the drop-off in flake density between 47-48x, which occursshort of the large boulders in 48-49x71 y that consti-tute a natural limit for a dwelling, and by a set of small-er rocks in 47x71-72y that arc along the edge of theflake density shift and which might be tent anchorrocks. Some of the rocks in the "middle" subarea mightrelate to the northern wall of the dwelling, while thesouth side lacks indications of wall rocks. The overalllength of the structure is at least 6 meters and it con-tains at least three segments separated by the two lin-ear lithic concentrations associated with hearths. Twohearths lie within 50 cm of the north wall and two area similar distance from the south wall; the fifth lies 1.2m in from the south wall. Lithic reduction activities andtool deposition are concentrated in the area within andbetween the lobe arms; the eastern and western flanksor segments have markedly fewer flakes and tools andcould therefore be sleeping areas. Refits of two sets ofground slate flakes between the center of the lobe andthe eastern flank or segment provide a behavioral link-age consistent with this interpretation.

The north lobe provides a weaker exemplificationof the interpretation. Its eastern boundary abutsdirectly on several large boulders that are naturaldwelling limits. The sparse flake distribution towardsthe west is not inconsistent with the interpretation,but it is too meager to be strongly convincing. Adwelling of 3.7-4.0 m in width and at least 5 m inlength is implied. Two hearths are located within 50cm of the south wall while two are positioned 1.2-1.5m in from the north wall. A fifth hearth is centrallylocated between the lobe arms. A possible sixth

4Th e wall-centered deposition would be most like the pattern noted at one of the Ungava Bay Late Dorset longhouses (Figure13b; Plumet 1985).

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

hearth lies 50 cm from the north wall. This configura-tion implies that the eastern end of the dwelling wasthe focus of lithic reduction and tool depositionaround the hearths while the western portion was anopen area with little depositional activity.Consequently, in contrast to the hypothesized south-ern dwelling, the northern structure was divided intotwo clearly contrasting sides: an eastern portion withhearth activity and lithic reduction and a western por-tion with minimal deposition, perhaps a sleeping area.Along the south wall a tongue of flakes protrudesslightly into the middle subarea just west of the largecentral rock, suggesting an extension of depositionoutside the dwelling (perhaps a doorway?).

The segmented structure alternative requires aslight reorganization of the previously presented data.Table 12 outlines the distribution of tool classes withthe excavation units grouped as closely as possible tothe hypothesized rectangular structures. A chi-squaretest indicates no significant differences in tool classrepresentation between the two structures at the .05level (-/^ = 21.53); but note the many low cell values).Looking at the expected frequencies, flake points andblock cores are over-represented at the northern struc-ture while ground slate flakes and tool fragments are

over-represented at the southern structure. Tool rawmaterial frequencies and weights (Table 13) exhibitbroadly similar proportions at the two structures; asfar as frequencies are concerned, there is no statisti-cally significant difference between the structures

= 7.48). Slate is proportionally greater by frequen-cy at the southern structure, but slightly greater byweight at the northern structure. Table 14 comparesthe flake raw materials. In relation to expected fre-quencies, quartz is over-represented at the northernstructure and Ramah chert is over-represented at thesouthern structure. Among the slates, gray slate dom-inates by frequency at the northern structure whileboth gray and green slates are well represented at thesouthern structure. By weight, quartz dominates atboth structures, although there is a substantial weightpercent of Ramah chert (28%) at the southern struc-ture. The frequency dominance of gray slate at thenorthern structure is offset by relatively even propor-tions of gray and green slate by weight. Consequently,although there is variation between the hypothesizedsegmented dwellings, there are no grounds to positdistinct contrasts in social practices.

This second interpretation of the modules is sub-ject to the same objections as the first. Changing the

Table 12: Area 2A Tool Classes by Hypothesized Rectangular Structure

PT

Bl

PR

FP

sc

UF

SP

CA

SB

ST

BC

CO

TM

OTH

TOTAL

North

2.5

6

3

7

7

28

2

2

2

9

14

14

1

1

98.5

South

8

8

2

3

1 1

51

2

1

7

39.5

35

12.5

2

3

185

TOTAL

10.5

14

5

10

18

79

4

3

9

48.5

49

26.5

3

4

283.5

•■ .5 denotes a conjoining fragment

PT: points (bifacial), Bl: bifaces, PR: preforms (biface), FP: flake points, SC: scrapers (endscrapers andflake knives), UF: utilized flakes, SP: slate points, CA: celt/adze, SB: slate blanks (unmodified plates andblanks), ST: slate tool fragments (ground slate flakes and unidentified tool fragments), BC: bipolarcores, CO: block cores (quartz), TM: tool manufacturing (hammerstones, schist tablets, whetstones),and OTH: other (stemmed flakes, linear flakes, graver).

114

CHAPTER 6

Table 13: Area 2A Tool Raw Material Frequencies and Weights (in grams)by Hypothesized Rectangular Structure

North

North

South

South

N

Wt (a)

N

Wt (a)

(%)

Quartz

24

(24.4)

1 869.0

(69.8)

39.5

(21.4)

1 923.5

(72.3)

Ramah chert

51.5*

(52.3)

292.2

(10.9)

78

(42.2)

341.3

(12.8)

Cray Mugford chert

4

(4.1)

28.3

(1.1)

4

(2.2)

16.0

(0.6)

Black chert

3

(3.0)

1 5.0

(0.6)

1 2

(6.5)

33.0

(1.2)

Slate—total

1 5

(1 5.2)

294.8

(1 1.0)

49.5

(26.8)

1 78.6

(6.7)

Green

9

1 1 1.6

1 7

1 07.7

Gray

1

16.0

26.5

61.3

Red-brown

3

167.0

2

3.5

Gray-banded

1

0.2

3

6.1

Indet.

1

n.a.

1

n.a.

Schist

1

(1.0)

1 77.0

(6.6)

Other

2

n 1)

1 67.3

(6 31

TOTAL

98.5

185

* .5 denotes a conjoining

fragment

gestalt does not resolve the problem of multiplehearths within a small area, with their potential impli-cation of re-occupation. The modules present interest-ing patterns, but their interpretation is problematic.

Consumption of Lithic Raw Materials andTechnological Organization.

Given the presence of two behavioral modules andpossible rectangular structures we can consider whatmight be inferred about variations in raw materialconsumption and the spatial dimension of techno-logical organization. The undifferentiated "other"subarea used in the previous analyses is now subdi-vided so as to accommodate the rectangulardwelling interpretation: quadrats associated with thehypothesized rectangular dwellings are categorizedas "north-other" or "south-other" while the remainingunits are classed as "other." Thus, the north lobe andnorth-other taken together constitute the northernrectangular structure and the south lobe and south-

other constitute the southern rectangular structure.Table 1 5 provides a breakdown of total raw materialweights (tools and flakes) by spatial position at Area2A. Quartz is used prodigiously: 6 kg at the northlobe (6.4 kg for the northern rectangular structure)and ca. 4.5 kg at the south lobe (4.8 kg for thesouthern rectangular structure). In contrast, the totalquantity of Ramah chert consumed (or discarded) ateach lobe/structure is quite modest, although thefigure for the south lobe (1.6 kg) is over double thatof the north lobe (0.7 kg), as is the figure for thesouthern structure (2.3 kg) versus the northernstructure (0.8 kg). Fine-grained cherts are rareand/or highly conserved, with a total of only 49 gdiscarded at the north lobe/structure and 76 g at thesouth lobe/structure. Slate is also used quite mod-estly, with ca. 0.4 kg used at the north lobe/struc-ture and 0.5 kg at the south lobe/structure. Slatetype weights vary spatially, however: while bothlobes use roughly similar amounts of green slate, the

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

Table 14: Area 2A Flake Raw Material Frequencies and Weights (in grams)by Hypothesized Rectangular Structure

North

North

South

South

N (%)

Wt (g)

(%)

N

(%)

Wt (g)

(%)

Quartz

1273 (46.8)

4678.0

(87.2)

1214

(24.3)

4035.2

(65.3)

Ramah chert

1 228 (45.2)

558.2

(1 0.4)

3322

(66.6)

1 732.0

(28.0)

Patinated Ramah

44 (1.6)

1 9.9

(0.4)

84

(1.7)

49.2

(0.8)

Gray Mugford chert

20 (0.7)

4.0

(0.1)

38

(0.8)

9.6

(0.2)

Black chert

21 (0.8)

3.9

(0.1)

38

(0.8)

1 9.7

(0.3)

Green Mugford

2

(0.0)

0.2

(0.0)

Slate—total

133 (4.9)

99.5

(1.9)

291

(5.8)

330.7

(5.4)

Beige

7

1.3

21

6.1

Green

1 1

39.3

1 1 0

1 73.1

Gray

1 03

36.0

1 52

1 46.9

Gray-banded

8

3.0

0.1

Red-brown

3

0.9

3

2.5

Indet.

1

19.0

5

2.0

TOTAL

2719

4989

.5 denotes a conjoining fragment

south lobe uses much more gray slate and the northlobe more red-brown slate.

The variations in the quantity of quartz andRamah chert outlined in Table 12 point to slight dif-ferences in raw material management and discardpractices at the two modules. Practices related to oneof the materials, however, cannot be directly comparedwith those related to the other since they constitutedifferent kinds of reduction systems. Quartz wasreduced both by free-hand percussion on raw blocksand bipolar percussion, while Ramah chert was organ-ized in a bifacial reduction system based on large pre-forms. A summary of the products of each reductionsystem is presented in Table 16.

As far as quartz is concerned, the total weight ofthe material is greater in the north lobe. Both lobeshave about the same amount of flakes and blockcores. The south lobe has somewhat more tools, butthis is largely a consequence of the frequency of bipo-lar cores, of which there are twice as many at the south

lobe as at the north. This might suggest less intensivereduction at the north lobe without the discard ofintermediate stage bipolar cores, or simply greaterreliance on direct percussion rather than the bipolartechnique. As noted earlier, the spatial distribution ofcores IS sometimes independent of the debitage.Several block cores occur in the debitage-poor middlesubarea, seemingly cached or dumped there unrelatedto m situ reduction. Just east of the middle area thereare several bipolar cores that are independent of bothblock cores and quartz debitage, which suggests theyare secondary refuse. Otherwise, the core/debitageassociations are suggestive of primary refuse from insitu reduction.

For Ramah chert, the inhabitants of the southlobe consumed over twice as much material by weightas those of the north lobe, with a corresponding dif-ference in flake production. The quantities of bifacefragments and preforms are similar, while the southlobe has three times the quantity of bifacial points,

116

CHAPTER 6

Table 15: Area 2A Total Lithic Raw Material Weights (Tools and Flakes)by Model Units. Rounded to the Nearest Gram.

North Lobe

North-Oth

Middle

South Lobe

South-Oth

Other

g

(%)

g

(%)

g (%)

g

(%)

g

(%)

g (%)

Quartz

6072

(83.3)

369

(78.5)

1 244 (94.5)

4483

(67.5)

337

(28.2)

2438 (83.6)

Ramah chert

757

(10.4)

91

(19.4)

72 (5.5)

1608 (24.2)

723

(60.5)

339 (1 1.6)

Patinated Ramah 20

(0.3)

1

(0.2)

45

(0.7)

5

(0.4)

5 (0.2)

Black chert

1 5

(0.2)

3

(0.6)

47

(0.7)

3

(0.3)

1 1 (0.4)

Gray Mugford

28

(0.4)

3

(0.6)

22

(0.3)

2

(0.2)

0.1 (0.0)

Green Mugford

2

(0.2)

Slate—total

394

(5.4)

3

(0.6)

0.2 (0.0)

435

(6.6)

123

(10.3)

122 (4.2)

green

1 57

0.1

2

233

55

1 1 5

gray

49

3

1 86

51

5

beige

1

5

14 1

red-brown

167

4

3 1

gray-banded

1

5

0.1

indet.

19

2

Schist

744

555

1 79

Other

167

167

consistent with the differences in overall raw materialand flake quantities. On the other hand, despite hav-ing twice the amount of raw material, the south lobehas only ca. 30% more tools than the north lobe; thisdisparity suggests that some tools or preforms wereproduced for curation to other localities. At bothlobes 70-75% of the discarded Ramah chert toolscould be considered expedient (i.e., utilized flakes,flake knives, flake points), while 24-25% are curatablebifaces. Unlike quartz, bipolar cores of Ramah chertdo not represent a fundamental part of the reductionsystem. Instead, they are most likely the product ofrecycling tool fragments. A chi-square test indicatesthere is no significant difference in the frequencies ofquartz and Ramah chert bipolar cores between thesubareas (/^ = 0.46).

The distribution of Ramah chert bifaces and pre-forms may be more a consequence of discard behav-iour than an indication of activity areas or spatial stag-ing in tool production. A variable that may be more

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

sensitive to tracking the spatial positioning of bifacereduction is the distribution of biface-thinning flakes(BTFs). Archaeological data from quarry and site con-texts (Cramly 1 978; Lazenby 1 980, 1 984) indicate thatRamah chert was often transported in the form of largebifaces and preforms. Reduction of these implementsproduces large quantities of BTFs and variation in thesize of these flakes is partly related to reduction stage.The spatial concentration of BTFs of different sizesmay therefore indicate spatial staging in biface reduc-tion. The approach is not without its methodologicalproblems (Andrefsky 1998:118), however, and theeffects of maintenance activity on size-sorting must beconsidered.

All excavation units with significant quantities ofRamah chert produced considerable numbers of BTFs(defined following House and Ballenger 1976; Raab etal. 1979). In order to set a size threshold for identify-ing the products of initial stage biface reduction, a"large" thinning flake category was defined as flakes

1 1 7

Table 16: Summary of the Quartz and Ramah Chert Reduction Systems at Area 2A

QUARTZ

Tools

Block Cores

Bipolar

Flakes

Total Weight (g)

North lobe

23

12

9

1 1 59

6072

North-other

1

1

114

369

Middle

5.5*

4.5

63

1 244

South lobe

35.5

14.5

21

1065

4483

South-other

4

1

1

1 54

555

Other

12

6

3

165

2438

RAMAH CHERT

Tools

Points

Biface.Frags.

Preforms

BipolarCores

BifaceThinning

Flakes

TotalWeight (g)

North Lobe

48.5*

2.5

6

3

4

1 1 1

1 1 39

757

North-other

3

1 3

131

91

Middle

7.5

0.5

2

9

44

64

South Lobe

66

8

6

2

8

341

2705

1608

South-other

14

1

1

2

104

688

505

Other

18

1

1

5

59

369

339

.5 denotes a conjoining fragment

with one dimension in excess of 30 mm. This limit wasnot entirely arbitrary in that: a) the overall Ramah chertflake size distribution falls mostly less than 25 mm,and b) observations from prehistoric workshops andexperimental reduction of Ramah chert bifaces sug-gests that the reduction of large transportable quarryblanks and biface preforms will probably produce con-siderable debitage in the over 30 mm size range.

Figure 63 indicates that the distribution of largeand small BTFs is fairly consistent with the overall dis-tribution of Ramah chert flakes, since units with sever-al BTFs tend to be units with relatively many Ramahchert flakes, although this is not always the case. By fre-quency, most of the BTFs are found in the south lobe,which also has the most Ramah chert debitage. Theoverall distributions of small and large BTFs are similarand most of the major concentrations of each size class

occur adjacent to hearths. An exception to the latter isthe cluster of BTFs in 46x74y near the northeast cornerof the south lobe; this was also a locus of quartz reduc-tion. There is also a slight concentration of BTFs in thearea east of the lobes, particularly at the eastern end ofthe hypothesized southern structure. By and large, thedistribution of BTFs is consistent with the distributionsof bifacial points and preforms, except in the area eastof the lobes where there are relatively few implementsin relation to the number of BTFs. In sum, there is notmuch evidence for spatial variations in the staging ofRamah chert reduction. Tool production and discardgenerally are spatially associated, except in the areaeast of the lobes where production activity is associat-ed with minimal tool discard.

Fine-grained cherts (mostly gray Mugford andblack chert) occur in minor quantities by frequency

118

CHAPTER 6

and weight and the size of the debitage is uniformlysmall (see Chapter 9). This does not mean that thesematerials were insignificant; their near-exclusive usefor endscrapers implies a high degree of selectivity.The three bipolar cores of these materials likely repre-sent recycled tool fragments. The spatial distributionof both tools and flakes made from these cherts isstrongly, though not exclusively, limited to within thetwo lobes.

Slates exhibit distribution patterns that are gener-ally similar to the fine-grained cherts, but slate pro-cessing and discard is not as spatially restricted.Finished slate tools and fragments thereof are allfound within the lobes as are the majority of groundslate flakes, which represent the reworking of finishedtools. However, several ground slate flakes and twoblanks lie outside the south lobe in what would be theeastern end of the hypothesized southern structure;two of the ground flakes conjoin with pieces within thesouth lobe. Otherwise, modified plates of slate rawmaterial and tool blanks occur both within and outsidethe lobes. Slate flakes of all color types occur primari-ly within the lobes, but small concentrations of greenand gray slate flakes are also found in the eastern endof the southern structure.

Area 2A Conclusion

Neither the two module nor the rectangular dwellinginterpretation fit precisely with reports from otherEarly/Middle Labrador Maritime Archaic dwellings, butthe segmented structure model comes closest, giventhe pattern of linear feature-centered distributions run-ning across the width of a rectangular dwelling,flanked by floor-areas with limited deposition. The seg-mented structure interpretation is also consistent withthe ethnoarchaeological and other archaeologicalexamples of interior dwelling space considered inChapter 3, which generally exhibited centrally locatedhearth-centered debris distributions flanked by rela-tively debris-free habitation areas. On the other hand,the orientation of the hypothesized dwellings perpen-

dicular to the beach front departs from most of thedocumented Maritime Archaic dwellings, which havetheir long walls oriented parallel to a beach.

The dwelling sizes implied by both interpretations(modules: 4 by 3 m, rectangular: 4 by 6-i- m) are broad-ly consistent with the current picture of Early/MiddleMaritime Archaic structures. At Aillik-2 (nearMakkovik), several structures were found on shorelinesoriginally estimated to date 6000-5500 B.P.: a one seg-ment structure 3 m in length, a two segment structure6 m in length and a four segment structure 10 m inlength (Fitzhugh 1984:10). More recently, Fitzhugh(2002:7) reports a radiocarbon date of 6870±1 80 B.P.for the latter 1 0 m structure and an additional five seg-ment structure 8 m in length from the same beachlevel is dated 6400±1 1 0 B.P.. At Aillik West 1, a threesegment structure 9 m in length is radiocarbon datedto 5210±270 B.P. (Fitzhugh 1984:10). At HamiltonInlet, Sandy Cove Complex sites (ca. 5000 B.P.) appar-ently contain structures with two or three hearths andlengths of 12-16 m (Fitzhugh 1984:13). More detailedinvestigations of Early/Middle Maritime Archaic siteswill be necessary to clarify the functional and culturalparameters of these different spatial configurationsand to assess how the Area 2A features fit into therange of variation.

Area 2B

Area 2B consists of a central pit and hearth complexsurrounded by extensive deposits of fire-cracked rock(Figure 33, 66). Radiocarbon dates of 6100-6000 B.P.indicate this subarea is slightly earlier than Area 2A.Defining the southern boundary of Area 2B is some-what problematic. As discussed previously, some ofthe quadrats in the 49-50x76-80y area may containpalimpsest deposits resulting from an overlap betweenthe Area 2A and 2B occupations (see Figure 33). In par-ticular, the high frequency of Ramah chert flakes plusthe presence of fire-cracked rock and clusters of othersmall rocks in 49x76-80y strongly suggest this area ispart of the Area 2B occupation. Nonetheless, given this

NUKASU5UT0K 5 SPATIAL ANALYSIS

119

overlap problem and the predominant limitation of k-means cluster 8 to the area south of the 50x line, thelatter is used as a convenient, if imperfect, southernboundary for the Area 2B analysis.

The central pit is a vaguely defined oval basin 1.25by 0.9 m in size, 5 cm deep, containing charcoal, redocher and calcined bone fragments. About 60-80 cmto the west is hearth 1 1, a disturbed feature that mayor may not have been contemporary with the pit. Thesecentral features are surrounded by an area of 1.2-1.6m radius that for the most part contains a diffuse scat-ter of small to medium-sized rocks. This relativelyrock-free central area is ringed by fire-cracked rockdeposits distributed as thin "carpets," some of whichextend beyond the boundaries of the excavation. Thesmaller concentrations of the rock debris probably rep-resent discrete depositional events while the largerconcentrations may be accretions of several deposi-tional episodes. A small rock deposit overlaps the east-ern edge of the central pit feature such that thisdeposit must partially post-date the feature. Anotherlesser concentration lies immediately to the west of thepit, implying a close association. The largest continu-ous rock concentrations lie 1.6 m to the northwest and1.2 m to the southeast of the pit. The southeasternconcentration has a peculiar distribution around alarge boulder; the rock-free area adjacent to the boul-der indicates that for some reason the fire-crackedrock was not deposited directly up against the boulder.Lithic debitage is mainly concentrated in the centralarea that is relatively free of fire-cracked rock. Anexception is an almost circular flake concentration inthe southern corner of the excavation (50x 76-77y),which is discussed further below.

A preliminary interpretation of this pattern is thatthe central hearth-pit area was employed in multipleepisodes of using rocks for cooking or heating, aprocess involving the positioning of people in thelargely rock-free area surrounding the pit. Some of thesmall-medium size rocks plotted in this zone may rep-resent unused raw materials for the heating process.

The fragmentary debris produced by the heatingprocess was then collected and discarded a short dis-tance beyond the central features, creating the contin-uous carpets of fire-cracked rocks east and west of thepit. The smaller concentrations immediately adjacentto the pit may indicate the last cleaning phase prior tothe cessation of heating activity. Two alternative mod-els could account for this concentric configuration: 1)Binford's (1 983:1 53, 1 67-1 69) "drop/toss-zone" modelfor patterning associated with external hearths andactivity areas, and 2) an external discard model, inwhich fire-cracked rock produced within a dwellingwas discarded in a ring immediately outside thedwelling walls. These two models provide the underly-ing framework for the analysis.

There is more to Area 28 than a concentric pat-tern, however; two additional features complicate theanalysis. The aforementioned circular concentration offlakes in 50x76-77y is directly associated with a clus-ter of rocks and adjacent to a tongue of fire-crackedrock that extends out from the main mass, as well asanother smaller fire-cracked rock dump. Although nocharcoal was recorded in the area of the flake/rockconcentration, the pattern of all these elements is verysimilar to that noted at other hearths. The unusualtongue-like configuration of the adjacent fire-crackedrock deposit could be better explained as a result ofdumping from this possible hearth (H-1 7), rather thanfrom the central hearth-pit complex. Thus there couldbe two different feature-centered complexes at Area2B. A second possible anomaly is the concentration offire-cracked rock on the west side of the boulder inunit 50x79y; the concentration extends tongue-liketowards the north lobe at Area 2A. The shape of thisdeposit and its orientation with respect to the bouldersuggests that instead of being thrown north to southfrom the central portion of Area 2B, it could have accu-mulated by dumping from a location slightly to thewest. Two features 1 m to the west and south are pos-sible source areas: a rock cluster (lacking charcoal)suggestive of a possible hearth (H-1 8) and a small pit

120

CHAPTER 6

with charcoal and red ocher which might have been ahearth (H-19). The following discussion provides amore detailed analysis of these patterns.

Tool Distribution

Detailed information on the distribution of tool classescan be had in Figures 47 to 58. Beginning with amodel-based analysis, the tools are grouped using thefollowing units: central pit, hearth 11, fire-crackedrock zone, possible hearth 1 7, and units adjacent tohearth 1 7 (Figure 38). As shown in Table 1 7, all the for-mal tools are found either in the central pit/heartharea (points, bifaces, flake knives) or near possiblehearth 1 7 (flake point, endscraper). Despite the largenumber of fine-grained chert flakes adjacent to hearth1 1 and the central pit (see below), no endscrapers—which are made almost exclusively of this material-were found in the central area. Utilized flakes are mostfrequent in the central pit/hearth area, but they arealso found in the fire-cracked rock zone and adjacentto possible hearth 1 7. Two quartz block cores occur inthe central area near the pit. Three bipolar cores arepresent in the central area and another three are found

in the extreme southeastern corner of Area 2B, an areawith very few quartz flakes (Figure 39). Given the asso-ciation between bipolar cores and quartz reduction atArea 2A, the latter isolated bipolar cores might havebeen tossed there from locations of quartz reductionin the central area or at possible hearth 1 7. No finishedground slate tools or slate plates/blanks were found inArea 2B, but there were several ground slate flakes, allbut one of which were associated with the pit or hearth11. Given the presence of a modest number of slateflakes (of four different raw material types) and a pos-sible sandstone grindstone, this could suggest anemphasis on reworking curated tools rather than pro-duction activity.

Table 18 outlines the distribution of tool rawmaterial frequencies in relation to the model-basedunits. No patterning is evident besides the lack of slatetools in the hearth 17 units.

Of the 42 tools from Area 2B, 39 have point prove-nience. Consequently, although the sample size issmall, a /(-means cluster analysis may be more robustthan at Area 2A. The overall 12-cluster /(-means solu-tion computed for Area 2 as a whole (Figure 37) indicat-

Table 17:

Area 2B Tool Classes by Model Units

Center

H-ll Fire- H-17 AdjacentCracked H-17

TOTALN (%)

Stemmed points

1

1 (2.4)

Bifaces

1

1 (2.4)

Flake points

1

1 (2.4)

Endscrapers

1

1 (2.4)

Flake knives

2

2 (4.8)

Utilized flakes

9

3 5 4

21 (50.0)

Bipolar cores

1

1 1 3

6 (14.3)

Block Cores

2

2 (4.8)

Ground slate flakes

3

2 1

6 (14.3)

Grindstones (?)

1

1 (2.4)

TOTAL

18

8 7 1 8

42

NUKASUSUTOK 5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

121

Table 18: Area 2B Tool Raw Material Frequencies by Model Units

Center H-11 Fire-Cracked H-17 Adjacent H-17 TOTAL N (%)

Quartz

4 2

3 9(21.4)

Ramah chert

7 2

6 5 20 (47.6)

Black chert

2 2

4 (9.5)

Cray Mugford chert

1 1 (2.4)

Slate—total

4 2

1 7(16.7)

Green

2 2

1 5

Gray

1

1

Indet. 1 1

Sandstone

1

1 (2.4)

TOTAL

18 8

7 1 8 42

ed two clusters at Area 2B. Cluster 6 lies in the middleof the central pit-hearth complex while cluster 3 is anortheastern outlier to possible hearth 1 7. Inspectionof the tool distribution constituting cluster 6, however,suggested this cluster lumps together several possiblyindependent tool groupings. Consequently, a separate/(-means analysis was conducted on the Area 28 mate-rials. Three and 5-cluster solutions seemed best, butthe 5-cluster solution was preferred because it provid-ed a good separation of what seemed like intuitively

reasonable groups (Figure 67). Clusters 1 and 4 areassociated with the pit, suggesting two depositionalpositions on opposite sides of the feature, while clus-ter 5 is associated with Hearth 1 1. Cluster 3 includesitems lying within or near the fire-cracked rock ringsouthwest of the pit. Cluster 2 consists of implementslying east of possible hearth 1 7.

Table 19 shows the tool classes associated witheach of these five clusters. The number of tools in eachcluster is similar. Although there are differences in the

Table 19: Area 2B Tool Classes by K-Means Cluster

Cl C-2

C3 C-4 C-5 TOTAL

Stemmed point 1 1

Biface 1 1

Endscraper 1 1

Flake knife

2

2

Utilized flake

3 4

4 5 3 1 9

Bipolar core

3

1 2 6

Block core

1

1 2

Ground slate flake

1

12 2 6

Grindstone (?) 1 1

TOTAL 7 8 6 9 9 39

■Three items without point provenience: a utilized flal<e near Cluster 1, a utilized flake near Cluster 4 and aflake point equidistant west of Clusters 2 and 3.

122

CHAPTER 6

66/ Area 2B: features and total flake distribution.

types represented in each cluster, the low frequenciesmake it difficult to assess the meaning of the varia-tions. The best that can be said is that utilized flakesare evenly distributed across the clusters while formaltools have more restricted distributions. Five of the sixbipolar cores are associated with hearths (either hearth1 1 or adjacent to possible hearth 1 7). These clusterresults may provide a more nuanced view of spatial

distributions within the model-based units, but theyreveal little about the nature of these patterns. Thesame might be said of the distribution of tool rawmaterials by cluster (Table 20). Tools of Ramah chert(mostly utilized flakes) are fairly evenly distributedacross the clusters, while black chert tools (all utilizedflakes) and green ground slate flakes are mostly limit-ed to clusters 4 and 5 (the central subarea).

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

123

Table 20: Area 2B Tool Raw Material Frequencies by K-Means Cluster.

C-1

C-2 C 3

C-4

C 5

TOTAL N (%)

Weight (g)

Quartz 2

3

1

3

9 (23.1)

973

Ramah chert 3

4 4

4

2

1 7 (43.6)

104

Black chert

2

2

4 (10.3)

18

Cray Mugford chert

1

1 (2.6)

2

Slate—total 2

1

2

2

7 (17.9)

Green

1

2

2

5

9

Gray 1 1 1

Indet. 1

1

1

Sandstone

1

1

n.a.

TOTAL 7

8 6

9

9

39

Three items without point provenience, all of Ramah chertother equidistant west of Clusters 2 and 3.

one near Cluster /, one near Cluster 4, the

Flake Distribution

As noted above, the majority of the flakes at Area 2Bare concentrated in the central fire-cracked rock-freearea (Figure 66). Ramah chert is the most abundantflake material. A significant quantity of these flakes isfound within the central pit and the vast majority liewithin a 1.8 m radius of the pit edge, with the highestdensity on the eastern and southern sides of the fea-ture (Figure 40). The coterminous boundary betweenthe flakes and fire-cracked rocks is most clear alongthe 79y line south and east of the pit. In some areas,however, the distributions overlap: the extreme north-west corner of Area 2B, west and north of the pit, westof the large boulder and in unit 49x78y. Nonetheless,given the overall pattern of marked drop-off in flakefrequency beyond 1.8 m from the pit, the clustering ofmany Ramah chert flakes associated with fire-crackedrock in 49-50x78-79y (west of the boulder) may be theresult of overlapping deposition with Area 2A.

The circular concentration of Ramah chert flakesin 50x76-77y at the southern corner of Area 2Bappears to be a depositional unit quite separate fromthe debitage associated with the central pit-hearthcomplex. The concentration is 90 cm in diameter, witha hollow center 30-40 cm wide. Several rocks occur

124

near the center of the flake distribution as well as onits edges. Although no charcoal was noted here, theconfiguration of flakes and rocks is strongly sugges-tive of a hearth (possible hearth 1 7). The Ramah chertflakes on the northwest side of the concentration arepartially overlapped by a fire-cracked rock deposit thatseems to extend out from the main mass. This exten-sion may have originated from activities centered onhearth 1 7 rather than being the result of dumpingactions associated with the central features. A similarinterpretation could also apply to the discrete fire-cracked rock cluster to the northeast of hearth 1 7(51 x76-77y).

Patinated Ramah chert (Figure 42) is mostly con-centrated in a 1 m wide arc to the north, to the eastand south of the central pit. It is also associated withthe carpet of fire-cracked rocks south of the pit (51-53x77-78.5y), which contains little unpatinated Ramahchert. Since patination is the result of thermal alter-ation the presence of patinated flake concentrations inunits entirely outside the pit and hearth featuresimplies they are secondary refuse dumped there afterremoval from the combustion features. This contrast-ing distribution of unpatinated and patinated Ramahchert is consistent with the argument of a central drop-

CHAPTER 6

zone (mostly unpatinated chert from tool retouch) andan encircling toss zone (fire-cracked rock and patinat-ed chert removed from the central hearth). The othermajor concentration of patinated Ramah chert isdirectly associated with possible hearth 1 7.

The distribution of large Ramah chert biface-thin-ning flakes (BTFs; Figure 63) is limited to the quadratsnorth and west of the central pit and hearth features,with the exception of one flake east of the pit and asingle flake associated with possible hearth 17. Mostof the small BTFs are located on the opposite (south)side of the pit. This contrast hints at differences in thespatial positioning of biface reduction stages. Overall,the proportion of BTFs is greatest in the central pit-hearth area (42.9%) and in association with possiblehearth 17 (27.2%; Table 20, below). Notably, however,no Ramah chert points or preforms and only a singlebiface were found at Area 28 (Table 20, Figures 50 to52). Keeping in mind the limited excavation area, thismight suggest preparation of bifaces curated for useelsewhere.

The distribution of quartz flakes (Figure 39) isgenerally consistent with that of Ramah chert,although much less dense. With the exception of units50x76-77y (associated with possible hearth 1 7), mostof the quartz flakes are located in the central area with-in 1.8-2.0 m of the pit. In contrast to Ramah chert,quartz flakes are rare within the pit itself.

The distributions of slate (Figure 44) and fine-grained cherts (Figure 43) are similar; both occurmostly in the central area, especially south and west ofthe pit. This is opposite the trend for Ramah chert,suggesting the materials were reduced at differentlocations. Slate occurs mostly within the pit itself andwithin a 1.2 m radius of the pit edge, with the faintsuggestion of two scatters, one south and one west ofthe pit. A few flakes are also associated with possiblehearth 17. Beige slate is clustered near hearth 11,while the other types are mostly associated with thepit. Black chert was mostly located outside the pit andwithin a 1.6 m radius of its edge and, like slate, is clus-

tered in two scatters, one west and one southwest ofthe pit. The latter cluster lies beside hearthl 1, indicat-ing an activity locus unassociated with the pit. Thereare few gray Mugford chert flakes, but their distribu-tion is more balanced between the eastern and westernsides of the pit. A very few black chert and grayMugford chert flakes are associated with possiblehearth 1 7.

Given the preceding considerations, the flake dis-tributions at Area 2B can be analysed by grouping the50 cm^ quadrats into analytical units based on the fea-ture-centered model (Figure 38, Table 21). A generalcategory of "central" units could be defined fromquadrats associated with the pit and hearth 1 1, an areamostly free from fire-cracked rock except for the clus-ters immediately adjacent to the features. But in orderto identify possible spatial variations the central areawas subdivided by treating quadrats associated withhearth 1 1 as a separate analytical unit. The "peripher-al" area consists of the surrounding quadrats contain-ing deposits of fire-cracked rock. Hearth 1 7 includesthose units closely associated with that feature, while"adjacent" refers to those units northeast of hearth 1 7that could represent a depositional zone related to thefeature. Ramah chert is the most dominant materialby frequency (64-79%) in all the subareas except for athearth 1 1, where black chert and Ramah chert consti-tute 40% and 45%, respectively. Otherwise, green slateis fairly restricted to the central area, a pattern similarto the distribution of green slate tools. When expectedfrequencies are calculated there is a clear over-repre-sentation of black chert at hearth 1 1 and of patinatedRamah chert in the periphery subarea. The latter sup-ports the toss-zone dumping interpretation. When thefive spatial categories are collapsed into three broaderunits (central/hearth 11, periphery, hearth 17/adja-cent), black chert remains over-represented in the cen-tral subarea and patinated Ramah chert is still over-represented in the periphery, but there is also a slightover-representation of unpatinated Ramah chert in thehearth 17/adjacent subarea.

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

125

Table 21: Area 2B Flake Raw Material Frequencies by Model Units

Central

H-11

Periphery

H-17

Adjacent

TOTAL

Weight (g) (%)

Quartz

131 (16.6)

32

(9.1)

60 (12.6)

88

(14.5)

21 (19.8)

332

1006 (56.7)

Ramah chert

505 (63.9)

1 59 (45.2)

365 (76.5)

476 (78.7)

72(67.9)

1 577

608 (34.3)

Patinated Ramah

36 (4.6)

2

(0.6)

32 (6.7)

16

(2.6)

6 (5.7)

92

30.4 (1.7)

Black chert

57 (7.2)

142 (40.3)

4 (0.8)

2

(0.3)

205

47.5 (2.7)

Cray Mugford chert

11 (1.4)

6

(1.7)

4 (0.8)

3

(0.5)

1 (0.9)

25

4.8 (0.3)

Green Mugford chert

1 (0.1)

1 (0.2)

2

0.2 (0.0)

White/patinated Mug

. 2 (0.3)

2

(0.6)

1 (0.2)

5

0.4 (0.0)

Slate—total

47 (5.9)

9

(2.6)

10 (2.1)

20

(3.3)

6 (5.7)

92

76.4 (4.3)

Beige

1

4

5

5

Green

1 5

3

1

1

20

31.1

Gray

6

3

1

10

3.9

Gray-banded

22

2

10

13

4

51

29.9

Red-brown

3

2

5

6.5

TOTAL

790

352

477

605

106

2330

Distribution of Red Ocher and Bone

Figure 61 illustrates the distribution of red ocher andbone fragments. Virtually all the red ocher stainsoccur within the central rock-free area. Besides thedistinct stains within the pit there are two other majorclusters of stains, one 1.0-1.5 m northwest of the pit,the other 0.5-1.2 m northwest of hearth 1 1. Smallerpatches occur east of hearth 1 1, near the southeast-ern extremity of Area 2B (76y line) and close to theoverlap zone with Area 2A. A total of 46 tiny calcinedbone fragments were found within the pit, primarilyon its western and northern sides near the red ocherpatches. Among these was a tiny piece of workedbone that appears to be a pendant fragment with rem-nants of a gouged hole and striations on each face(see Chapter 8). None of the bone fragments wereidentifiable to taxon.

Refitting

The only refit accomplished at Area 2B involved twofragments of a sandstone plate (possible grindstone)that lay only a few centimeters apart (Figure 58).

Feature-Centered Distributions, Size-Sortingand Cultural Formation Processes

The previous discussion provides a plausible basis forconcluding that there are two feature-centered distri-butions. The first is the pit-hearth complex, whichseems to be associated with a central drop-zone andperipheral toss-zone. The second is possible hearth1 7, which has a restricted distribution of Ramah chertdebitage and adjacent dumping areas for fire-crackedrock, but lacks further indications of a central dropzone and peripheral toss zone. If these interpretationsare reasonable, we might expect to find some evidencefor artifact size-sorting associated with the first distri-bution, but perhaps not with the second.

Tool size-sorting is difficult to quantify at Area 2Bbecause of the low frequencies. If consideration is lim-ited to the relatively large quartz block cores, there areonly two items and both are associated with thehypothesized central drop-zone (Figure 47). Quartzflake size distributions are of limited use since quartzoccurs in relatively low frequencies (332 flakes) suchthat size-sorting indices may not be very meaningful.

126

CHAPTER 6

Additionally, since most quartz flakes were either con-centrated in the central area, or were associated withpossible hearth 1 7 in the southern corner of Area 2B,drop/toss-zone comparisons are difficult. In any event,calculation of size-sorting indices for quartz flakes(Figure 62) results in low values for almost all of thequadrats, in principal indicating little size-sorting.Somewhat higher positive values suggesting a tenden-cy towards smaller flakes are associated with possiblehearth 17, but this may only indicate intensive reduc-tion. In sum, there is little evidence for size-sortingrelated to either maintenance activity or reductionstaging.

The best evidence for drop/toss-zone behaviorcomes from the distributions of fire-cracked rock andpatinated Ramah chert. As discussed previously, theassociation of thermally altered Ramah chert flakeswith the fire-cracked rock carpets south of the pit(Figure 42) is a clear indication that material wasremoved from the central hearth/pit area and rede-posited a short distance away.

Consumption of Lithic Materials andTechnological Organization

The total weight of tool and flake raw materials fromArea 2B is presented in Table 22 as a rough estimateof raw material consumption. The area is subdividedinto its two main behavioral units: the central pit-hearth area with its surrounding ring of fire-crackedrock, and possible hearth 17 and its adjacent area.Quartz dominates the central area with ca. 1.7 kgdespite a low frequency of both flakes and tools; only0.4 kg of Ramah chert is present. Quartz and Ramahare more evenly represented at the hearth 1 7 subarea.The total amounts of black chert and slate at Area 2Bare in both cases under 100 g. The other materials arerepresented by trace quantities.

Table 22. Area 2B Total Lithic RawMaterial Weights (Tools and Flakes).

Central

(g) (%)

H-17 (g) (%)

Quartz

1 707.0

(73.8)

272.0

(58 5)

Ramah chert

430.0

(1 8.6)

1 78.0

(38.3)

Patinated Ramah chert 23.1

(1.0)

7.3

(1 6)

Black chert

65.3

(2.8)

0.2

(0.0)

Gray Mugford chert

6.1

(0.3)

0.7

(0.2)

Green Mugford chert

0.2

(0.0)

White/patinated Mug.

0.4

(0.0)

Slate^total

79.8

(3.5)

6.6

(1.4)

Beige

5.0

Green

28.6

2.5

Gray

2.4

1.5

Gray-banded

27.5

2.4

Red-brown

6.3

0.2

Table 23 provides a breakdown of variables rele-vant to the technological organization of quartz andRamah chert at Area 2B. Given the paucity of quartzmaterials there is little that can be said concerning therelationship between cores and flakes. For Ramahchert the lack of points, bifaces, and preforms, despiteconsiderable numbers of biface-thinning flakes (BTFs),suggests the curation of finished products to otherlocations or discard elsewhere on the site. As notedpreviously, while most of the BTFs are located withinthe central "drop-zone", almost all of the large BTFs lieto the north and west of the pit-hearth complex, imply-ing differences in the spatial positioning of bifacereduction stages.

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

127

Table 23. Summary of the Quartz and Ramah Chert Reduction Systems at Area 2B.

QUARTZ

Tools

Block Cores

Bipolar

Flakes

Total Weight (g)

Central

6

2

2

223

1 707

H-17 3 3 109 272

RAMAH CHERT

Tools

Points Biface. PreformsFrags.

BipolarCores

Biface-Thinning

Flakes

TotalWeight (g)

Central

1 5

1

1

96

1099

453

H-1 7

5

53

5 70

185

* includes patinated flakes

Area 2B Conclusions

It is unlikely that the extensive deposits of fire-crackedrock at Area 2B accumulated within a dwelling struc-ture because such waste probably would be removedby regular maintenance activities. But the concentricdistribution pattern could be interpreted in two ways.The first alternative sees the configuration as similar toBinford's (1 983:153-159, 165-1 70) outdoor hearth orextensive activity area model. The space within a 1.8 mradius of the pit was used by individuals engaged incooking-heating practices involving thermally stressedrocks, as well as lithic tool production and mainte-nance activities. This central core was a drop-zone forflakes accumulating around knappers seated adjacentto the pit. Shattered rocks resulting from cooking-heat-ing within the pit were removed periodically anddumped behind the individuals working around thehearth, forming a roughly concentric toss-zone. Sincethe flake distribution southeast of the pit seems coter-minous with the edge of the fire-cracked rock, priorplacement of the rock determined the limit of the deb-itage. The spatial distribution of thermally alteredRamah chert— directly associated with the hearthsand as probable secondary refuse among the fire-

cracked rocks— is consistent with this hearth cleaningand peripheral dumping interpretation. The fire-cracked rock concentrations immediately adjacent tothe pit represent the last sequence of pit use, sinceone of the concentrations is partly superimposed onthe pit.

The second alternative interprets the concentricpattern as dwelling-related. The sharply bounded flakedistribution associated with the central hearth/pit fea-ture is seen as internal to a dwelling and bounded by atent wall, similar to the modules at Area 2A. This inter-pretation implies a 4 m wide dwelling running south-west to northeast. In this case, however, there is a sec-ond edge-effect in which the inner boundary of the fire-cracked rock is partly coterminous with the outerboundary of the flakes. This contact zone could implythat the fire-cracked rock was redeposited outside adwelling, partly along the outer edge of a tent wall.

The overall pattern is complicated by three fac-tors. First, it cannot be established whether or nothearth 1 1 and the central pit were used contemporane-ously and thus whether they constitute a paired activi-ty unit. Second, there may be another hearth (no.l 7) inthe southern corner of Area 2B. This feature appears to

128

CHAPTER 6

41x61y

68/ Area 2C: features and total flake distribution.

involve spatially restricted behavior with adjacent rockdumping activity, but without the development ofclearly marked drop-toss zones. Further excavation tothe southeast would be required to clarify this. Third,the nature of the distributions in the area of overlapwith Area 2A are unclear. Some of the fire-crackedrocks in the overlap area might have originated at pos-sible hearth 18 just north of the north lobe, but thecontribution of activities related to the lobe itself can-not be ruled out. Given the possibility of overlappingdeposits, as well as the limited excavation area, it isdifficult to regard one or the other of these alternativeinterpretations as more robust.

Area 2C

The boundary between Areas 2C and 2A (Figure 38)was partly defined by behavioral discontinuity. Theentire northwestern end of Area 2C exhibits a very lowdensity of flakes and tools compared with the southlobe at Area 2A. Indeed, there is a 6-7 m distancebetween the terminal edge of the south lobe and thenext major flake concentration at the southeastern endof Area 2C (Figure 33). The other discontinuity ischronological; the pit associated with hearth 1 0 (2 m

south of the south lobe) produced a radiocarbon dateof 6100+80 B.P.. At the extreme eastern end of Area2C hearth 14 produced an unacceptable date of1 600±80 B.P.. Although the lack of an acceptable datefrom the southeastern end of Area 2C means that con-temporaneity with Area 2A cannot be ruled out, thebehavioral discontinuity and the date from hearth 10suggest that Area 2C can be treated independently ofArea 2A.

Hearths 9,10,12 and 1 3 at the western end of thesubarea are all associated with an extremely low lithicdensity (Figure 68). Furthermore, their orientation andspacing seems rather regular, arranged in a rough rec-tangle 2 m by 2 m in size. Interestingly, this layout iscomparable in size and configuration with the "lobes"at Area 2A, such that the hearth grouping might beinterpreted as part of a dwelling module.Unfortunately, the sparse flake and tool distributionsprovide little additional information. The hearthsexhibit different forms, presumably indicative of differ-ent functions or practices, an attribute that was alsonoted at Area 2A. Hearths 12 and 13 are simple clus-ters of cobbles. Hearth 10 seems to be a compositefeature consisting of a small circular pit flanked by an

NUKASUSUTOK 5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

129

elongated pit. Hearth 9 was a large stone-floored fea-ture surrounded on three sides by inclined slabs, giv-ing the impression of a box-hearth used for controllingthe dispersal of debris or for heat reflection.

Hearths 1 4 and 1 5 at the eastern end of Area 2Cmay be another hearth pairing, since they are spaced 2m apart, similar to the Area 2A module pattern. Hearth14 consists of a large (1.2 m diameter) and diffusescatter of charcoal associated with a pair of largerounded rocks.

Hearth 1 5, only partially excavated, appears to bean elongated pit containing rocks and red ocher.Towards the southern boundary of the excavation(41x62-63y), three large rocks associated with char-coal and a flake concentration may be evidence foranother hearth, although the configuration is unclear.

The flakes at hearth 14 exhibit abrupt densitychanges on either side of the feature, creating a 1.2 mwide band very similar to the widths of the linear flakedistributions at the Area 2A lobes. The flakes associat-ed with hearth 1 5 suggest a similar pattern, but furtherexcavation is needed to evaluate this. It should also benoted that Area 2C is adjacent to a blow-out contain-ing rock clusters that probably represent hearths

(Figure 71). Thus, the eastern portion of Area 2C andthe adjacent deflated area could constitute connectedactivity areas.

The overall Area 2 /c-means cluster analysis (Figure37) identified two tool clusters in Area 2C, one relatedto hearths 9, 10, 12 and 1 3 (cluster 5), the other asso-ciated with hearths 14 and 1 5 (cluster 1). It seems rea-sonable to divide Area 2C into two broad analyticalsubunits based on the spacing of the hearth features,the marked differences in flake densities and the two/(-means clusters (Figure 38). Area 2C1 will refer to thenorthwestern portion of the area (units between 69-71 Y and 65Y) and Area 2C2 to the southeastern por-tion (units between 6r65Y). The analysis could bemore nuanced, however, with additional feature-relat-ed subdivisions.

Tool Distribution

Figures 47 to 58 depict the tool class distributions.Little can be said about the 2C1 distribution, exceptthat there is an unusually high proportion of schisttablets and fragments. One bar-shaped chlorite schistobject and one flat plate of phylite schist lay adjacentto hearth 9, the box-like feature. These implements

CHAPTER 6

Table 24: Area 2C Tool Classes by K-Means Cluster and Subarea.

CI

C-2 C-3 C-4 Outliers 2C1

2C2

TOTAL N (%)

Stemmed points

1 1

1 (1 0)

Bifaces

1

3 1 1

4

5 (S 2)

Biface preforms

1

1

2

2 (2 1)

Endscrapers

1

1 1

1

2 (2 1)

Stemmed flakes

1

1 (1 0)

Utilized flakes

6

17 3 1 1 7

24

31 (32.0)

Celts/adzes

2

1

3

3 (3 1)

Slate blanks

1

1

1 (1 0)

Ground slate flakes

3

17 1 12

20

22 (22 7)

Bipolar cores

1 1 1

1

2 (2.1)

Block cores

6

9 2 1

18

19 (19.6)

Disc cores

1

1

1 (1.0)

Hammerstones

1

1

1 (1.0)

Schist tablets/frags

2 3 4

2

6 (6.2)

TOTAL

21

53 4 5 5 19

79

97

might have been used in the polishing of ground slatetools, although there is a paucity of ground slate tools,slate blanks, as well as ground and unground slateflakes in the subarea. At 2C2 the distributions ofalmost all the tool types are closely associated withhearths 14 and 15. The exception is endscrapers(Figure 54), one of which is associated with hearth 1 3,the other which lies 1 m distant from hearth 15.Ground slate flakes (Figure 57) also cluster aroundHearths 1 4 and 1 5.

Of the 98 tools from Area 2C, 91 have point prove-nience. A /c-means analysis was run for Area 2C alone,producing slightly better cluster resolution than in theoverall Area 2 analysis. The 5-cluster solution seemedbest, isolating small clusters associated with hearths 9and 1 2 (four items in each) and separate clusters asso-ciated with hearths 14 and 15, but it also created afifth cluster west of hearth 14 that was diffuse andprobably not behaviorally relevant. Consequently, amodified version of this cluster solution was used(Figure 69) in which the fifth cluster was dissolved,with two of its members being reassigned by reason-

able proximity to cluster 2, while the other four mem-bers, plus an outlier of cluster 1, were placed in an"outlier" category, denoting lack of clear relation to thefeature-centered distributions. Table 24 presents thetool frequencies resulting from this cluster analysis.

The low tool frequencies hinder the identificationof statistically significant patterns, but at hearth 14(cluster 2) several types are prominent: bifaces, uti-lized flakes, ground slate flakes and perhaps tool man-ufacturing implements such as a hammerstone andschist tablets. A more general picture can be had bycombining clusters 1 and 2 with their adjacent outliers(Area 2C2) and comparing this with combined clusters3 and 4 (Area 2C1), with the addition of quadrat prove-nienced items. Low tool frequencies still plague thecomparison (Area 2C1= 19 items, vs Area 2C2= 81items) such that it is difficult to discern any statistical-ly significant differences. About all that can be said isthat Area 2C2 has high frequencies of utilized flakes,quartz block cores, bifaces, biface preforms, andground slate flakes and tool fragments. Notable, how-ever, is the relative lack of quartz bipolar cores (n=l)

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

131

Table 25: Area 2C Tool Raw Material Frequencies and Weights by Cluster and Subarea

r-i

r-4

C\ 1 it*! i ore

Quartz

ao

0o

1

^ \C-ZJ\J)

1 o J /

r\al 1 Idi 1 L11 c 1 L

Q

o

-)L.

1

1

1

^ ^ J OH;

Rlarl/ rhtartDldL K L 111; 1 I

1

1

? (■4'!

Q| atp—tnt;! 1jlaLc LULdl

f,

] 7

]

^ ^ V J ^ J /

J

11

1 en 81

Rl

(~. rod nv_i 1 cell

KJ

in R3'I'l

G r3.y

11

2

Vjldy UdilUcU

c

R o H - h rr\\A/nrxc u ui KJvv t \

2

3 n 61

r~. roon-nrav/ cnofl/ltiri

I

1 "^1

Schist

4

3

4 (664)

4 (30)

Other

1

2

3 (145)

TOTAL

23

54

4

5

5

19

79

in contrast to the abundance of quartz block cores andquartz debitage.

When tool raw materials and weights are consid-ered (Table 25), Area 2C2 has an overwhelming domi-nation of quartz by weight, but Ramah chert and greenslate are also important by both weight and frequency.

Flake Distribution

Point-plots are lacking for the westernmost portion ofArea 2C1. Fortunately, however, the quadrat countsfrom that subarea are so low that the information lossis not critical for assessing the spatial patterning.High frequencies of quartz flakes are associated withhearths 14 and 15 (Figure 39). Small numbers ofquartz flakes lie immediately north and west ofhearths 9 and 10; the southern and eastern sides ofthese features are virtually devoid of quartz. Hearths12 and 13 are also virtually devoid of quartz flakes.Ramah chert (Figure 40) exhibits virtually the samepattern as quartz except for a small cluster associat-ed with hearth 12. Virtually all the patinated Ramahchert (Figure 42) is associated with hearth 14. Smallclusters of black chert flakes (Figure 43) are foundadjacent to hearth 14 and directly associated with

hearth 1 2. Cray Mugford chert is virtually absent fromArea 2C. Slate flakes (Figure 44) of all color variantsare mostly associated with hearth 14. Table 26 con-trasts the flake raw material frequencies and weightsby the two subareas. By frequency there is little differ-ence between the subareas, but by weight Area 2C1has a relatively high proportion of Ramah chert.

A more nuanced view might be provided by abreakdown of flake materials by hearth feature,essentially paralleling the /(-means cluster analysis oftools. Quadrats were grouped by feature proximityand in relation to breaks in flake density; outlyingquadrats were eliminated (Table 27). The numbersfor hearths 9 and 10 are uncertain, since the 1 m^quadrats in this area cannot be as closely related tothe features as the 50 cm^ quadrats further south.Hearths 10, 12, 13 and 14 all display high percent-ages of Ramah chert, in contrast to hearths 9 and 1 5which have high percentages of quartz. Taking intoaccount the small sample sizes from some of thehearths and the incomplete excavation at the south-ern end of Area 2C, there is at least a suggestion ofvariations within each of the broader subareas usedpreviously.

132

CHAPTER 6

Table 26: Area 2C Flake Raw Material Frequencies and Weights by Subarea

FREQUENCY

WEIGHT

2C2 N (%)

^v-^ IN V/**/

2C2 N (%)

TDTAI N

1 Kj 1 rA Liny /o /

Quartz

94 (39.9)

630 (40.1)

^ O J J

2416 (87.1)

Ramah chert

1 1 5 (48.7)

825 (52.4)

1 J -7 V J 1 . -7/

293 (10.6)

Patinated Ramah

6 (2.5)

fin

ftp, R fil

7 4 en fi^

24

Black chert

13 (5.5)

1 11 1

yj. 1)

^8 rn c)^

2.4

(0.1)

Cray Mugford chert

3

(0.2)

1.3

(0.0)

1^ en 4^

Slate—total

8 (3.4)

44

(2.8)

37

(1.3)

'^R7 (^0 7)

Beige

3

9

4

22

26

Green

3

1 7

20

31

252

283

Gray

2

13

15

22

42

64

Gray- banded

3

3

14

14

Red-brown

2

2

4

TOTAL

236

1573

1809

Table 27: Area 2C Flake Raw Material Frequencies by Hearth Feature

H-9 N (%)

H-10 N (%)

H-12 N (%)

H-13 N (%)

H-14 N (%)

H-1 5 N (%)

Quartz

79

(82.3)

2 (10.0)

5 (7.0)

310 (28.8)

255 (71.0)

Ramah chert

6

(6.3)

15 (75.0)

55 (77.5)

1 5 (93.8)

671 (62.3)

96 (26.7)

Patinated Ramah

4

(4.2)

2 (2.8)

58 (5.4)

Black chert

2

(2.1)

2 (10.0)

7 (9.9)

1 (6.3)

6 (0.6)

Gray Mugford chert

1 (0.1)

Slate—total

5

(5.2)

1 (5.0)

2 (2.8)

31 (2.9)

8 (2.2)

Beige

3

5

2

Green

1

1 1

3

Gray

2

1 2

1

Gray-banded

2

1

Red-brown 1 1

TOTAL

96

20

71

16

1077

359

Red Ocher and Bone Distribution

Figure 61 shows the distribution of red ocher stainsand clumps as well as bone fragments. Some of thered ocher stains occur inside hearth 1 5, but most areconcentrated in two areas on opposite sides of hearth14. The patches on the southwest side are larger andtheir configuration is virtually identical to the shape

of the flake distribution present in the same area(Figure 68), suggesting their spatial extents were lim-ited by the same factors. The red ocher stains on thenortheast side of hearth 14 are smaller, but they alsofit fairly well with the accompanying flake distribu-tion. Together, these two patches are consistent withthe tendency for a bounded linear distribution of

NUKASUSUTOK-5: SPATIAL ANALYSIS

133

debitage running southwest-northeast across hearth14. Small clumps of red ocher lay within the boundsof hearth 1 4.

A total of 651 tiny and unidentifiable calcinedbone fragments occurred within and adjacent to hearth14; most of these were recovered by fine-sieving thecharcoal samples. Associated with hearth 1 2 were 294tiny and equally unidentifiable bone fragments.

Refitting

Only broken tools were considered for refitting. A totalof three items was refitted, but all the pieces lay with-in a few centimeters of each other. Thus, no connec-tion can be drawn between Areas 2C1 and 2C2 orbetween 2C and other parts of Area 2.

Feature-Related Distributions, Size-Sorting andCultural Formation Processes

The small amount of lithic material from Area 2C1 ren-ders difficult any analysis of size-sorting. At 2C2,quartz block cores are concentrated around hearths 14

and 15, although several are found in quadrats up to2 m southwards where they may have been cached orthrown. The distribution of large-sized tools tends tobe centered around hearths 14 and 15 (Figure 62); tosome extent this is correlated with a high frequency ofquartz cores. When quartz flake size distributions areconsidered using the size-sorting index (Figure 62)there are three units with predominantly small flakesdirectly associated with and adjacent to hearth 1 4, andtwo units with tendencies towards larger flakesbetween hearths 14 and 15. Three other units to thesouth also have tendencies towards larger flakes; eachof these units were associated with a quartz core.Thus, as at Area 2A, there is a tendency to find bothsmall and large flake units in what might be expectedto be drop zones around hearths. This may indicate alack of maintenance or a spatial repositioning ofquartz reduction from the initial reduction of blockcores in one place (producing larger debitage) to sec-ondary reduction of bipolar cores in another place(producing smaller debitage). The tendency of units

Table 28: Area 2C Total Lithic Raw Material Weights (Tools and Flakes). In Crams

2C1 (g)

2C2 (g)

TOTAL (g)

(%)

Quartz

575

5109

5684 (70.3)

Ramah chert

205

877

1082 (13.4)

Patinated Ramah

2.4

24

26.4

(0.3)

Black chert

7.8

2.4

10.2

(0.1)

Cray Mugford chert

1.3

1.3

(0.0)

Slate—total

6.5

407

439

(5.4)

Beige

4.8

25

29.8

Green

31

587

618

Cray

22

70

92

Cray-banded

16

16

Red-brown

1

5.6

6.6

Cray-green speckled

25

25

Schist

665

30.6

695

(8.6)

Other

145

145

(1.8)

134

CHAPTER 6

with larger flake sizes to be associated with unreducedquartz block cores may support this.

Consumption of Lithic Materials andTechnological Organization.

Given the paucity of material from Area 2C1 and theincomplete excavation of what seems to be a possibledwelling module at Area 2C2, there is not much pointin drawing particular conclusions concerning rawmaterial consumption and technological organization.The most relevant observation is that if Area 2C1 rep-resents a dwelling module then it indicates very littledeposition of lithic materials, in sharp contrast to Area2C2 and especially to the inferred dwellings at Area2A. Table 28 outlines the total raw material weights(tools and flakes) from the Area 2C subareas.

Variations in quartz and Ramah chert reductionpatterns between Area 2C1 and 2C2 are outlined inTable 29. Perhaps the most striking observation is the

almost complete lack of quartz bipolar cores (n=l) incontrast to an abundance of block cores. This mightindicate quartz reduction by free hand percussionrather than by the bipolar technique. A second bipolarcore is of Ramah chert. There is also a single small disccore of Ramah chert; its sharp edges and lack of crush-ing indicate that it was not a product of bipolar percus-sion; it is probably an extremely reduced tool frag-ment. Most of the Ramah chert biface-thinning flakes(Figure 63) are concentrated within a 1 m radius ofhearth 14. The distribution of large biface-thinningflakes (Figure 63) is similar.

As far as the other raw materials are concerned,the paucity of slate plates and blanks (n=l), combinedwith the modest representation of ground slate flakes,might indicate emphasis on tool maintenance ratherthan production. The extremely low frequency of blackand Mugford chert also suggests a similar mainte-nance pattern.

Module A Tool

Rectangular structure Flake

70/ Area 2C dwelling interpretations.

NUKASUSUTOK-5 SPATIAL ANALYSIS

Table 29: Summary of the Quartz and Ramah Chert Reduction Systems at Area 2C

QUARTZ

Tools

Block Cores

Bipolar

Flakes

Total Weight (g)

Area 2C1

2

1

94

575g

Area 2C2 20 16 1 630 5109 g

RAMAH CHERT

Tools Points

Biface. PreformsFrags.

BipolarCores

DiscCores

Biface-Thinning

Flakes

TotalWeight (g)

Area 2C1

7 1

1

1

16

121

207 g

Area 2C2

34

4 4

1

98

885

901 g

Area 2C Conclusions

Area 2C received insufficient excavation to draw manyrobust conclusions about spatial patterning. The visu-al impression is that the four form/function differenti-ated hearths at Area 2C1 may constitute a dwellingmodule in a pattern reminiscent of Area 2A.Unfortunately, the sparse lithics provide little addition-al contextual material to evaluate this. On the otherhand, the low density lithic distribution, combined witha 6100 B.P. radiocarbon date, militate against this con-figuration being part of a longhouse structure affiliat-ed with Area 2A. At Area 2C2 the hearths and linearflake distributions strongly suggest a dwelling modulesimilar to those inferred from the "lobes" at Area 2A(Figure 70). If the Area 2C2 hearth/flake configurations

represent dividers in a segmented rectangular struc-ture, then that structure would be aligned northwest-southeast, parallel with the beach front (Figure 70), incontrast to the perpendicular orientation at Area 2A.The area of sparse deposition between hearth 14 andhearths 1 2 and 1 3 could then be viewed as a flankingfloor space similar those inferred for the southern rec-tangular structure at Area 2A. It might even be possi-ble to suggest that the hearths at 2C1 (at least hearths1 2 and 1 3) are part of the same longhouse structure,although this would require that the longhouse is par-titioned into large segments of high and low deposi-tion intensity. Clarification of these alternatives canonly be had by extending the Area 2C2 excavationtowards the southeast.

CHAPTER 6

Nukasusutok-5, Area 2A, 1979, with Jack Contin and Chuck Curtis. (Photo: B. l-iood)

NUKASUSUTOK-5 SPATIAL ANALYSIS

138

CHAPTER 7

Nu kasusutoAreas 1 an

This chapter presents analyses of Areas 1 and 3 atNukasusutok-5. The treatment of Area 1 is brief sincethe size of the excavation field was small and therewere few features and formal tools. Area 3 is discussedmore in-depth, given the presence of unusual redocher features.

Area 1

Area 1 was a small 16 m^ excavation field at the edgeof the blow-out towards the eastern end of the site(Figures 21, 22, 71). On the southwest side of theexcavation was a cluster of rocks, half of which wereinside the bounds of the excavation, half outside.Measuring 1.5 m in diameter, the cluster consisted ofsmall cobbles and a few flat slabs. The feature wasentirely deflated and no tools, charcoal or red ocherwere associated with it, only a few flakes. To the north-west in the blow-out were rock clusters that may rep-resent three or four hearths. The most northerly ofthese was 1 m in diameter and consisted of eight cob-bles and one flat slab. It was accompanied by charcoalflecks and small granules of red ocher as well as byRamah chert, quartz, slate and black chert flakes. Theother features had no visible cultural material.

The in situ deposits showed that beneath the sur-face vegetation and humus there were fine mottledbrown sands extending to about 30 cm below the sur-face, where they contacted beach gravel. A thin, dis-continuous leaching zone was present. Lithic materialoccurred from just below the humus to about 25 cm

NUKASUSUTOK'5: AREAS 1 AND 3

below the surface. The area was excavated in 5 cmlevels, which were lumped together for analyticalpurposes.

Flakes

The total flake distribution is shown in Figure 71, whileFigures 72 to 74 depict the distribution of individualraw material types by plots and quadrat counts. Quartzis frequent in the eastern extension of Area 1 andoccurs in a major concentration near the center of theexcavation. There is also a dense concentration ofmostly fingernail-sized fragments beside a rock at37.30x 52.80y. This concentration was probably theresult of a single reduction event involving one ormore quartz cores. There is also a more diffuse ovalconcentration of quartz in 36x51-52y. Ramah chertfrequencies are modest over most of the excavation,but there is a higher frequency cluster in 36x51-52y,the same location as the diffuse quartz concentration.Only one flake of patinated Ramah chert and twobiface-thinning flakes of Ramah were identified. A fewblack chert flakes are present, mostly towards the cen-ter of the excavation, and only two slate flakes wererecovered. Table 30 summarizes the flake raw materi-al frequencies and weights.

Tools

The excavated tool distribution is shown by quadrat inFigure 75, while Table 31 outlines the implementclasses from the excavated area as well as those sur-

1 39

face collected from the blow-out by the SmithsonianInstitution. The single quartz bipolar core from Area 1is in the same quadrat as two quartz block cores. Thethird block core lies close to the concentration of smallquartz flakes in 37x52y. All the utilized flakes (exclu-sively Ramah chert) occur in the eastern extension ofthe excavation. One of the biface fragments (blackchert) is associated with the probable hearth on thewest side of the excavation, while the other (slate) liesto the north of the feature. The collection is so smalland unrepresentative that little can be inferred from it.

Table 30: Area 1 Flake Raw Materials byFrequency and Weight

N (%)

WT (g)

Quartz

1 1 73 (75.0)

3892 (96.1)

Ramah chert

376 (24.0)

151 (3.7)

Black chert

13 (0.8)

2 (0.0)

Cray Mugford chert

1 (0.1)

1 (0.0)

Cray slate

2 (0.1)

5 (0.1)

TOTAL

1 565

4051

Table 31. Area 1 Tool Class Frequencies.

Excavation Surface

N %

Bifacial points

1 4

5 (1 1.6 )

Flake points

4

4 ( 9.3)

Bifaces

1 1

2 (4.7)

Endscrapers

3

3 (7.0)

Flake knives

3

3 (7.0)

Utilized flakes

4 18

22 (51.2)

Bipolar cores

1

1 (2.3)

Block cores

3

3 (7.0)

TOTAL

10 33

43

Area 3

Area 3 lay 38 m west of Area 2, slightly downslope ona narrow, gently sloping terrace at 28 m asl. (Figure22). In 1979 shovel-testing on the terrace revealed aremarkable red ocher deposit, so an excavation area of

28 was opened. Three more features were

exposed, two of which had red ocher deposits (Figure76). Additional shovel tests along the terrace providednegative results except in one area 4.5 m southwest ofthe main excavation, where a Ramah chert biface basewas uncovered. An additional excavation unit 1 by 3 min size was opened at that spot, but only a few quartzflakes and a small fleck of red ocher were encountered.

The red ocher features were initially believed to beburials, but evaluation of this hypothesis was compli-cated by the presence of an almost impenetrableindurated soil horizon (cemented "hardpan") that laybeneath the entire surface of Area 3. During the 1980field season the cemented zone beneath two of the redocher features was pick-axed down to the underlyingbedrock, but no evidence for interments was found.The interpretation of these features remains problem-atic and is discussed further at the end of this chapter.

This section begins with a discussion of theunique pedological situation at Area 3. A description ofthe features is then provided, followed by a considera-tion of their artifact associations. After a discussion ofdating, some interpretive possibilities are presented.

Pedology

The soil profile from Area 3 (Figure 77) can be classi-fied within the Ortstein Ferro-Humic Podzol subgroup(Canada Soil Survey Committee, Subcommittee on SoilClassification 1 978). The profile has a thin humus hori-zon underneath a vegetation mat of lichen, crowberryand dwarf birch. A 2 cm thick light gray leaching hori-zon is underlain by a mottled red-brown horizon con-taining black-coated, cohering sand grains. In someplaces this changes abruptly into a platey-texturedsemi-cemented horizon, which in turn grades into anindurated horizon measuring up to 50 cm thick. Theindurated horizon lies directly upon bedrock which, inthe center of Area 3, was contacted at 80 cm below thepresent ground surface. Within the iron-consolidatedzone is a considerable amount of semi-decomposedroots. The extremely dark colouration of the sand

140

CHAPTER 7

40x55y

40x53y

0

Quartz flakes

0

36x57y

o

0

o

^ 9(9 • 0

CD

a...-

V/0 0

36x51y

Q0

Flake concentration

Flat rock

134

163

Quartz flakes

63

113

3

5

102

464

34

4

1

1

10

4

41

31

72/ Area 1: distribution of quartz flakes.

40x55y

40x53y

O

Ramah chert flakes

0 1

36x57y

O

.;-0

CPs

a-'

Q0

°Q 0 Flat rock

36x51y

p=i8

22

Ramah chert flakes

14

16

5

6

33

16

8

4

12

18

35

BTF=1

4

61

114

BTF=1

BTF= biface-thinning flakeP= patinated Ramah chert

73/ Area 1: distribution of Ramah chert flakes.

makes it very difficult to identify possible feature-relat-ed colour shifts.

Field investigations in 1979 determined that thiscemented soil horizon was present under most of thewestern end of Nukasustok-5, from Smithsonian TestPit C to the entire surface of Area 3. Although theappearance of the podzol profile itself was sufficientevidence to question Fitzhugh's (1978:77) suggestionthat this was fat-consolidated sand, the extensive spa-tial distribution of this pedological feature cast evenmore doubt on the interpretation. Samples of the Area

3 indurated horizon were analysed in the laboratoryfor total organic carbon using the Walkley-Black wetoxidation method (Jackson 1958:219-222). The resultsindicated the cemented horizon did not contain anymore organic carbon than samples from the surround-ing soil matrix or from Area 2. A sample of the indurat-ed horizon procured by the Smithsonian in 1975 fromTest Pit C was subjected to amino acid analysis byDavid Von Endt of the Smithsonian Institution. Noamino acids were identified in this sample (Fitzhugh,personal communication). In addition, the total iron

NUKASUSUTOK 5: AREAS 1 AND 3

141

Black chert flakes

Gray slate flakes

3

2

1

1

2

3

1

1

2

(a)

(b)

74/ Area 1: distribution of blacl< chert and gray slate flakes.

(a)

Utilized flakes

Bipolar cores

(b)

75/ Area I : distribution of utilized flakes, bipolar cores, block cores and bifaces.

content was determined by atomic absorption spec-trophotometry (Hood 1981; Appendix C). The Area 3profile exhibited an iron-depleted A horizon and iron-enriched B horizon consistent with podzolization. Thecemented soil horizon is therefore a natural pedologi-cal phenomena, not a cultural deposit.

As the discussion below will demonstrate,Maritime Archaic people engaged in some degree ofsub-surface activity at Area 3, so the genesis of theiron pan must have begun subsequent to the occupa-tion, which is suggested to date ca. 5000 B.P..Precisely when iron pan formation began is impossibleto determine without further analysis, but radiocarbondating the onset of such pedological features isplagued by complex problems related to how organic

carbon is incorporated into cemented horizons(Lascelles et al. 2000). An important question iswhether iron-pan genesis was a strictly local phenom-enon, perhaps a consequence of changes in topogra-phy and drainage related to marine shoreline displace-ment, or whether it was triggered by broader climaticchanges such as increased precipitation. Answeringthis question is problematic because the causes ofiron-pan formation are not well understood. Severalmechanisms have been proposed: translocation ofweathered iron minerals by a fluctuating water table,translocation of iron and aluminum bound up withorganic compounds (chelates), or inorganic transloca-tion and precipitation of iron (Anderson et al. 1982;Davidson 1987; Moore 1976).

142

CHAPTER 7

22xt21y

19xl21y

76/ Area 3: level I features.

20x119y

Features

The four features at Area 3(Figures 76, 78, 79) were clus-tered together, evenly spacedabout 2-2.5 m distant from eachother (center to center). Alongthe northeast edge of Feature 1was a sand hummock (Figure76), which when cross-sec-tioned revealed an upperleached zone underlain by mot-tled brown sand, then a char-coal layer overlying red ocher.This sequence indicates that thehummock covers the edge ofthe feature and thus must post-date it. The hummock is likely aproduct of aeolian action anddownslope movement. Each ofthe cultural features will bedescribed in turn.

Feature 1: Feature 1 consistedof an oval stain of red ocher,1.2 m in diameter and 4 cmthick at its center, which wascapped by a loose arrangementof small cobbles orientedtowards the center of the ocher(Figures 76, 80, 81). A thick lin-ear deposit of charcoal, 1.8 mlong and 40 cm wide, lay direct-ly on top of the ocher, crossingthe entire feature in a north-east-southwest direction. The subsurface beneathFeature 1 was excavated down to bedrock, whichrequired the assistance of a pick-axe to penetrate theindurated layer. The only subsurface feature identifiedwas a peculiar lens of yellow sand that lay ca. 30 cmbeneath the western edge of the red ocher deposit(Figure 82). This lens was 85 cm by 65 cm in size, with

23x115y

Thick red ocherI I Diffuse red ocher^ Small red ocher patchCharcoalHummock

18x115y

22x119y

Vegetation/peatI I Gray leached sandI I Brown mottled sand

Platey iron pan

Completely indurated iron panBedrock

77/ Area 3: soil profile.

an irregular depth ranging from 2.5 to 7 cm. Charcoalwas present on top of and within the upper portion ofthe sand, slightly off-center. A utilized flake of Ramahchert was associated with the sand. It is difficult toaccount for this lens. Its peculiar form indicates it wasnot a single decayed rock, although it might have con-sisted of several rocks of similar composition clustered

NUKASUSUTOK-5: AREAS 1 AND 3

143

78/ Area 3 overview, Feature 1 excavated.

79/ Area 3: vertical bipod photo, Feature 1 excavated.

together. It is unlikely to have been related to organicmaterial since the rapid decay of the latter would haveresulted in the lens having been cemented and discol-ored by the strong iron translocation processes.

Directly associated with the surface of Feature 1were; a small ground slate celt, a ground slate flake, afragment of a beveled ground slate tool, a flake knifeof Ramah chert, several fragments of a hexagonalcross-sectioned implement of ground slate ( possibly awoodworking tool), part of a slate blank, a bipolar core

and two utilized flakes. Therewere also flakes of quartz,Ramah chert and slate.

Two radiocarbon dateswere obtained from Feature 1.The first sample consisted ofcharcoal from the thick depositon top of the red ocher and itproduced a date of 2845±70B.P. (UCa-3869). This was unac-ceptably late, so a seconddate was run on charcoal fromLevel 2, beneath the red ocherdeposit. The result was closerto expectations: 5090±95 B.P.(SI-5534).

Feature 2: At the center ofFeature 2 (Figure 76, 79, 83)was a roughly circular arrange-ment of small cobbles and flatslabs, 75 cm in diameter. About30 cm to the northeast werethree flat slabs associated witha small red ocher stain thatcontained a pocket of charcoal.Several other rocks lay scat-tered to the west and south-west of the circular arrange-ment. The sub-surface ofFeature 2 was pick-axed downto bedrock. Underneath were a number of rocks; twolarge ones were situated on the southeastern edge ofthe feature while a series of small rocks was posi-tioned in an arc along its northwestern edge (Figure82). A patch of red ocher and charcoal lay directlyunderneath the main surface level concentration.Nearby were two small posthole-like concentrations ofyellow sand, similar to that found beneath Feature 1.Together, these features suggest a subsurface activityarea 1.6 m by 1.3 m in size.

144

CHAPTER 7

80/ Area 3: Feature 1.

Four tools were directlyassociated with the feature: twoflake points of Ramah chert, anendscraper of fine-grainedbeige IVlugford chert, and aquartz core. A substantialamount of quartz flakes wasalso associated with Feature 2(see below).

Feature 3: Feature 3 (Figures 76,79, 84) was similar in configura-tion to Feature 1. It consisted ofan oval red ocher stain, 1 m indiameter and 4 cm thick,capped by a flat rock slab andseveral smaller cobbles. The fea-ture was cross-sectioned andexcavated down to the top ofthe indurated horizon. This pro-cedure revealed a considerableamount of charcoal underneaththe ocher, beneath which was acluster of small cobbles andquartz chunks packed into anarea of 80 by 45 cm (Figure 82,85). Excavation of the induratedzone was not attempted. Toolsdirectly associated with the fea-ture included: a flake point ofRamah chert, a chlorite schist

tablet, a utilized flake, and a bipolar core. There wasalso a considerable quantity of quartz flakes. Tworadiocarbon dates were run on charcoal from Feature 3:2770±205 B.P. (UCa-3159) and 2805±70 B.P. (UCa-3870). Both were unacceptably recent.

Feature 4

This feature (Figure 76), left mostly unexcavated, con-sisted of a cluster of small cobbles that may haveextended beyond the limit of the excavation. No red

81/ Area 3: Feature I vertical bipod pinoto.

ocher was present, but a charcoal stain lay adjacent tothe cobble cluster.

Flake Distribution

Figures 86 to 88 depict the point-plotted and quadratdistributions of flake raw materials. The point-plottedflakes are presented in two levels, the first being thegray leached zone and upper portion of the red-brownsand (ca. 5-1 0 cm), the second consisting of the lowerred-brown sand and the underlying iron-consolidated

NUKASUSUTOK-5: AREAS 1 AND 3

145

22x121y

I9x121y

82/ Area 3 level 2 features.

horizon. The upper level quartzflakes cluster somewhat withFeatures 2 and 3, but have amuch more diffuse spread nearFeature 1. Two small clusters ofquartz flakes, representingeither individual reductionepisodes or intentional deposi-tion, lie between Features 1, 2and 3. Ramah chert flakes in theupper level have a diffuse over-all distribution but are clearlyassociated with Features 1 and3, which display the mostintense red ocher concentra-tions. Slate flakes from theupper layer are associated onlywith Feature 1. The lower levelquartz flakes are clusteredunderneath Features 2 and 3. AtFeature 2 they form an oval orcircular pattern more-or-lesscoterminous with the buriedrock cluster, while at Feature 3they lie immediately adjacent to(though rarely within) the sub-surface rock cluster. Lowerlevel Ramah chert is associatedexclusively with Feature 2.Three flakes were measured atca. 50 cm below the sand sur-face along the western edge of the feature. Almost allthe lower level slate flakes occur in a small concentra-tion adjacent to the cluster of rocks beneath Feature 3.

The lower level flakes, combined with the buriedrocks, indicate some degree of deposition below thesurfaces of Features 2 and 3. Beneath Feature 2 thisdeposition appears as a somewhat circular "basin" 1.7m in diameter and up to 40 cm deep, while beneathFeature 3 there is a basin 1.0 by 0.8 m in size and 1 5-20 cm deep. Feature 1 lacked indications of subsurface

F1

F3

23x115y

LI ocher features

18x115y

83/ Area 3: Feature 2.

flake deposition, as did the buried yellow sand lensthat seemed to be associated with the feature.

Table 32 tabulates the flake raw material varia-tions in relation to the features, based on the quadratcounts. The 1 m quadrats fit reasonably well with thefeatures, with the exception of 20x11 6/1 1 7y, which liebetween Features 1, 2 and 3 in an area of seemingoverlap. These units have been treated separately.Figure 89 shows the quadrat groupings used in theanalysis. The figures for Feature 4 are incomplete,

146

CHAPTER 7

Table 32: Area 3 Flake Raw Material Frequencies by Feature

F 1

F-2

F 3

F-4

OVERLAP

OTHER

TOTAL

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Quartz

120 (57.4)

704 (96.0)

405 (83.9)

18(66.7)

293 (86.7)

29 (63.0)

1 569 (85.5)

Ramah chert

79 (37.8)

28 (3.8)

69(14.3)

8 (29.6)

42 (12.4)

12 (26.1)

238 (13.0)

Patinated Ramah

1 (0.5)

1 (0.0)

Slate total

9 (4.3)

1 (0.1)

9 (1.9)

1 (3.7)

3 (0.9)

5 (10.9)

28 (1.5)

beige

9

1

1

3

4

17

gray

1

7

1

gray-banded 1 1

red-brown 1 1

TOTAL

209

733

483

27

338

46

1836

Table 33: Area 3 Tool Class Frequencies by Feature

F 1

F-2

F-3 Overlap F-4

Other

TOTAL N(%)

Bifaces

1

1 1

3

(4.5)

Biface preforms

1

1

(1.5)

Flake points

2

1

3

(4.5)

Scrapers/knives

1

1

2

(3.0)

Utilized flakes

4

2

4 2

1

1 3

(19.4)

Celts

1

1

(1.5)

Hexagonal slate tool

0.5*

0.5

1

(1.5)

Slate blanks

0.5

0.5

1

(1.5)

Ground slate flakes

6

3 1 1

3

14

(20.9)

Bipolar cores

1

1

1 1

1

5

(7.5)

Block cores

3

6

5 6

20

(29.9)

Disc cores

1

1

(1.5)

Schist tablets

2

2

(3.0)

TOTAL

18

13

17 9 3

7

67

.5 denotes a conjoining fragment

since it was not excavated fully. All the features exhib-it a high proportion of quartz, although Features 1 and4 also have moderate proportions of Ramah chert.Inspection of the chi-square expected frequencies forthis table (treating slate generically) indicates that

NUKASUSUTOK-5 AREAS 1 AND 3

Feature 1 has a higher than expected frequency ofRamah chert, while Feature 2 has a lower than expect-ed frequency of Ramah. Slate is notable for its paucity,although it is mainly associated with Features 1 and 3.Fine-grained cherts are absent.

147

84/ Area 3: Feature 3.

Tool Distribution

Figure 90 portrays the plottedtool distribution along with theresults of a /(-means clusteranalysis. A four cluster solutionseems best: cluster 1 is associ-ated with Feature 3, cluster 3with Feature 2 and clusters 2and 4 with Feature 1. There is astrong tendency for tools to beassociated with the features.Since Area 3 has some of thesame provenience problems asArea 2A (many bipolar coresand utilized flakes only prove-nienced to 1 m^ grids), furtheranalysis was conducted usingthe quadrat distributions of thetool classes (Figures 91 to 96).Quadrat groupings were thesame as used for the flakes(Figure 89). Table 33 presentstool class frequencies brokendown by their association withthe different features. The toolclass frequencies are low, butone might point to the associa-tion of flake points with Feature2, slate tool fragments withFeature 1 (one hexagonal cross-section fragment, possibly of a

woodworking implement, and ground slate flakes) andschist tablets and fragments with Feature 3. Variationsin tool raw materials (Table 34) are not particularlyinstructive, except insofar as Feature 1 is associatedwith quite a few items of Ramah chert (paralleling itshigher than expected frequency of Ramah chert flakes)and slate. In contrast to the paucity of slate flakes,slate tools or fragments thereof are fairly common.

The tool distribution can also be considered bydepth, which was recorded by depth below surface and

85/ Area 3: Feature 3 sectioned, showing rock cluster beneath the red ocher layer.

soil profile level. As with the flakes, two levels can bedistinguished: the upper level consisting of the grayleached zone and the top portion of the red-brownsand, the second consisting of the lower red-brownsand and the underlying iron-consolidated horizon. AtFeature 1,15 implements were associated with theupper level, while 4 occurred in the lower level. The lat-ter included a bipolar core of Ramah chert, two utilizedflakes of Ramah chert (one at ca. 43 cm below the sandsurface, directly associated with the yellow sand lens)

148

CHAPTER 7

Table 34. Area 3 Tool Raw Material Frequencies by Feature.

F-1

F-2

F-3

Overlap

F-4

Other

TOTAL

Quartz

3

7

5

6

1

22 (32.8)

Ramah chert

7

4

7

1

2

3

24 (35.8)

Slate total

8

1

3

2

1

3

18 (26.9)

beige

5

1

1

7

gray

.5*

.5

3

1

5

green

.5

.5

1

2

gray-banded 1 1

red-brown

1

1

1

3

Mugford chert

1

1 (1.5)

Schist

2

2 (3.0)

TOTAL

18

13

17

9

3

7

67

.5 denotes a conjoining fragment

and a flake knife of Ramah chert 1 0 cm above the yel-low sand lens. At Features 2 and 3, all the point-prove-nienced tools lay within the upper level.

Refits

It was possible to refit pieces of three tools at Area 3(Figure 90). One refit consisted of a hexagonal cross-sectioned ground slate implement (probable wood-working tool) that was broken into five fragments, fourof which refit within Feature 1, while one fragment laynear the northwest edge of Feature 2 (Figure 94). Aslate blank fragment associated with Feature 1 wasconjoined with a fragment from the east side ofFeature 2 (Figure 94). These two refits suggest abehavioral connection between Features 1 and 2.Finally, two pieces of a Ramah chert flake point refitover a short distance at Feature 2.

Consumption of Lithic Raw Materials andTechnological Organization

Table 35 summarizes the weights of flake and toolmaterials at Area 3. Quartz clearly dominates, withonly small amounts of other raw materials being repre-sented. Slate occurs primarily as tools; very little

occurs as flakes. Mugford chert is represented by a sin-gle tool (endscraper). Table 36 outlines the products ofthe quartz and Ramah chert reduction systems at Area3. Quartz is notable for a high frequency of block coresand relatively few bipolar cores. The Ramah chertassemblage is too small to draw any firm conclusions,but it might be noted that 1 0 of the 1 7 biface-thinningflakes (BTFs) were classified as "large" (>30 mm), anunusually high proportion. Figure 97 shows the distri-bution of BTFs by quadrat; three were associated withFeature 1, three with Feature 2 and 1 1 with Feature 3.Eight of the ten large BTFs were associated withFeature 3.

Dating

Table 37 summarizes the radiocarbon dates for Area 3.Only one of the four dates is reliable. The date of5090±95 B.P. was run on alder/birch and willow char-coal procured from the subsurface of Feature 1, thus itis contextually more secure than the overlying charcoaldeposit from which the 2845±70 B.P. date was derived.The latter sample and all the other later date samplescontained coniferous material (Dosia Laeyendecker,personal communication). Given that pollen (Short

NUKASUSUTOK 5: AREAS 1 AND 3

149

L-1 quartz flakes

22x121y

19x121y

23x115y

L-2 quartz flakes

22x121y

19xl21y

18x115y

23x115y

3

119

94

84

4

10

18

105

282

20

5

69

8

245

48

2

8

15

74

233

62

9

9

31

5

11

Quartz flakes

86/ Area 3 distribution of quartz flal<es. (a) Level 1. (b) Level 2. (c) Total.

1978:32) and macrofossil data indicate the first conif-erous forest did not migrate to the Nain area until4500-4200 B.P., and that there is no indication of LateMaritime Archaic lithic material at Area 3, the threethird millennium B.P. dates likely pertain to a post-occupation burn event. Consequently, the large char-coal concentration overlying Feature 1 was not part ofthe ritual practice involved in constructing the feature.

Relative sea-level dating is of little help. Accordingto the uplift curve presented in Figure 5, Area 3's ele-vation of 28 m asl. corresponds to ca. 6800 B.P., but

nothing in the lithic material suggests the locality isthat old. If we accept the 5000 B.P. radiocarbon date,then Area 3 was positioned far above its contemporaryshoreline, ca. 1 2 m asl.

The paucity of tool material at Area 3 providesonly a slim basis for typological dating. A stemmedflake point from Feature 2 is almost identical to onefrom Area 2A (Figures 1 13:a and 100:j, respectively).The presence of quartz block cores, flake points, anendscraper of Mugford chert and schist tablets is gen-erally consistent with the Area 2 assemblage and

CHAPTER 7

Table 35. Area 3 Total Lithic Raw Material Weights (Tools and Flakes). In Crams.

Total (n\ (%\

Qu3rtz

J OOD \0 1 .\Jl

1 nafin ^ ^q? a'*

r\arridll Lllci I

Dciyt: IvIuyiUlU LriclL

1 01

C 1 rito tnta 1

1 / . J \\J .D )

1 ? ? n 11

Be iQC

1 J . J

? ? ?

G r3,y

1 . C.

Cray-banded

0.2

0.2

Red-brown

1

68

69

Green

22

22

Schist

269 (6.1)

269 (2.4)

Table 36. Summary of the Quartz and Ramah Chert Reduction Systems at Area 3.

QUARTZ

Tools Block Cores Bipolar cores Flakes Total Weight

24 18 2 1569 10460

RAMAH CHERT

Tools Points Biface Frags. Preforms Bipolar Cores Disc Cores Biface-Thinning Flakes Total Wt

23 - 2 1 3 1 17 238 467

Table 37. Radiocarbon Dates from Area 3. Calibrated with OxCal 3.10 (Bronk-Ramsey 2005).

Provenience

B.P.

Calibrated BC 1&

Lab.No.

Comment

Feature 1, level 2

5090±95

3980-3770

SI-5534

alder/birch, willow

Feature 1, overlying

2845±70

UCa-3869

coniferous In undated feature sample

Feature 3

2770±205

UCa-31 59

birch and conifer in undated feature sample

Feature 3

2805±70

UCa-3870

birch and conifer In undated feature sample

points to a common Middle Maritime Archaic peri-odization.

Area 3 Conclusions

The Area 3 features, especially 1 and 3, bear at least asuperficial resemblance to Maritime Archaic mortuary

features. Burials at the Rattlers Bight cemetery(Fitzhugh 1 976a: 1 23-1 2 5, Fitzhugh 1978a:85,Fitzhugh 2006) consisted of red ocher-lined pits, 0.75-1 m in diameter, that were generally covered by flatslab rocks and layers of sand and rock fill. A similarpattern was documented at the Port au Choix cemetery

NUKASUSUTOK-5: AREAS 1 AND 3

151

L-1 Ramah chert flakes

22x121y

19x121y

. 0

Co

- o °

23x115y

18x115y

L-2 Ramah chert flakes

22x121y

19x121y

23x115y

18xl15y

Ramah chert flakes

6

5

6

3

9

8

3

7

1

7

53

4

26

16

2

5

1

58

8

8

2

87/ Area 3: distribution of Ramaii chert flakes, (a) Level I. (b) Level 2. (c) Total.

(Tuck 1976:12-13). However, the initial suspicion thatthe features discovered at Area 3 might be burialscould not be confirmed. Extreme post-occupation pod-zolization processes marked by extensive transloca-tion of iron and humic acids eliminated any possibilityof using variation in soil colour to identify sub-surfacepits. On the other hand, the clustered distribution ofrocks, flakes and a small number of tools beneath thesurface of features 1, 2 and 3 indicates deliberate andfocused sub-surface deposition. An initial alternativeinterpretation of the features was that they could be an

expression of mortuary ceremonialism without inter-ment: "cenotaphs" for comrades lost at sea withoutrecovery of their bodies (Hood 1 981:1 38) .

But accumulating knowledge of the northernMaritime Archaic indicates the culture was marked bysuch a varied array of ritual expression in material cul-ture that non-mortuary practices should also be con-sidered. For example, red ocher deposits are oftenassociated with hearths, either as flecks adjacent tothe features or as distinct deposits within hearth pits.This hearth association may be related to processing

152

CHAPTER 7

L-1 slate flakes

22x12ly

19x121y

23x115y

18xl15y

L-2 slate flakes

22x121y

19x12ly

23x115y

18x115y

Slate flakes

8=1

RB=1

8=1

G=1

8=3

8=7

8=3

8=1

8=1G8=1

G=7

8=1

8= beigeG= gray

G8= gray-bandedR8= red-brown

88/ Area 3: distribution of slate flakes, (a) Level I. (b) Level 2. (c) Total.

hematite by heat alteration and/or it may connectocher with transformation symbolism (cooking, ther-mal alteration). Traces of combustion in the form ofcharcoal were found at all the Area 3 features. Thecharcoal layer overlying Feature 1 may post-date thefeature, but there was also scattered charcoal withinand below the red ocher deposit. At Feature 2, a pock-et of charcoal occurred within the red ocher deposit,while at Feature 3 charcoal was concentrated beneaththe red ocher and above a concentration of small cob-bles and quartz chunks. Although the Area 3 features

are clearly not conventional hearths, their meaningshould be considered in terms of how their constitu-tive elements might signal metaphorical relations withthe domestic features. A more systematic documenta-tion of red ocher's relationship with hearths of differ-ent form/function would provide a better context forunderstanding the varied associations of the material.

One of the interesting aspects of the features istheir spatial patterning, which combines an alternatingor oppositional sequencing of forms with a possibledirectional orientation. The two features with thick

NUKASUSUTOK 5: AREAS 1 AND 3

153

89/ Area 3 quadrat groupings used in the analyses.

♦ Biface

* Flake point+ Bipolar core■ Block core

Disc core

• EndscraperFlake knife

• Celt

• Hexagonal state tool

18xl15y

o Slate blank

> Ground slate flake

■ Scfiist tablet

• Utilized flake

90/ Area 3: tool distribution and k-means cluster analysis.

oval deposits of red ocher (Features 1 and 3) lie oppo-site each other along an axis that is almost north-south. The other two features, which either lack redocher (Feature 4) or contain only a modest amount(Feature 2), lie opposite each other along an east-west

23x115y

22x121y

19x121y

Block and

D=1

18x115/

disc cores D= disc core

92/ Area 3 distribution of block cores.

axis. This may be merely coincidental and we have nomeans of ascertaining contemporaneity between thefeatures other than a couple of refits possibly connect-ing Features 1 and 2. Nonetheless, the nearly equidis-tant spacing of the features relative to each other sug-gests deliberate placement. The only patterning in lith-ic materials consonant with this spatial arrangement isthat the major red ocher features (1 and 3) tend to bemore strongly associated with Ramah chert and slate.Understanding these features and their contextualrelationships will require comparative data from otherMaritime Archaic sites.

154

CHAPTER 7

23x115y

22x121y

19x121y

1

1

1

1

ar cores

1

18x115y

95/ ,4refl 3; distribution of bipolar cores.

18x115y

22x121y

19x121y

ST=.5

SB=.5

ST=1C=1

SB=5

—;

ST=.5

tools

18x115y

ST= slate tool (fragment) SB = slate blank C = celt

94/ Area 3: distribution of slate tools.

23x115y

22x121y

19x121y

Ground slateflakes

18x115y

22x121y

19x121y

FK=1

Bl=1

Miscellaneoustools

FP=1

FP=2ES=1

FP=1

ST=1

ST=181=1

18x115y

FP = flake point ES=endscraper ST = schist tabletBl=biface FK= flake knife

96/ Area 3: distribution of other tool classes.

23x115y

22x121y

19x121y

Blface-thinningflakes total (large)

i(i;

2(1)

10(7)

1(1)

18x115y

97/ Area 3: distribution of Ramah chert biface-thinningflakes.

95/ Area 3: distribution of ground slate flakes.

NUKASUSUTOK-5: AREAS 1 AND 3

155

O f Z 3 5

98/ Nukasusutok-5: stemmed bifacial points, a: Area 1 surface: b: Area 2A: c: Area 2C1.

CHAPTER 8

NukasusutoMaterial Culture

The preceding chapters outlined the spatial patterningat Nukasusutok-5 and made general references to thematerial culture insofar as it was relevant to the spatialpatterning. The function of this chapter is to present adescriptive overview of the assemblages from eachsubarea. Each assemblage is broken down by tradition-al implement classes and the formal variation in theseclasses is summarized. A systematic consideration oftechnological organization at the site is presented inChapter 9.

DEFINITIONS

For the most part, the categories of lithic implementsused here follow the system developed by theSmithsonian Institution during the 1970s. There aredeviations, of course, and some categories need moreprecise definition. Consequently, a series of clarifica-tions is presented prior to describing the assemblages.

Bifacial Points and Flake Points

A bifacial point is retouched over most of its dorsaland ventral surfaces; it may be made on a flake or froma bifacial preform. A flake point is made on a flake andhas retouch limited to its margins, either bifacial, uni-facial or on alternating edges.

Bifaces and Biface Preforms

Biface denotes implements with bifacial retouch, eithera generic form that does not suggest a particular endproduct or an implement fragment that is not further

NUKASUSUTOK-5: MATERIAL CULTURE

identifiable. Biface preform denotes bifaciallyretouched implements that are assumed to representthe penultimate reduction stage for a specific imple-ment class.

Endscrapers, Flake Knives and Utilized Flakes

Endscrapers are small implements, generally trapezoidor triangular in form, with clearly defined abrupt angleretouch at one end and varying degrees of retouch ontheir lateral edges. Flake knives are flakes with fairlydistinct, continuous and moderate-to-abrupt retouchalong a lateral edge; this form might also be termed abacked knife or flake. The term does not exclude ascraper function. Utilized flakes bear traces of inten-tional retouch or use wear that is less distinct, gener-ally discontinuous and usually, though not always,shallow angled.

Bipolar Cores

This term replaces the problematic piece esquillee.The latter seems to have been introduced intoLabrador archaeology by McChee and Tuck (1975); acontemporary paper (Fitzhugh 1975:122) refers tothem as "quartz nuclei or wedges." There has been along debate in the lithic technology literature regard-ing bipolar cores and piece esquillee; since theseimplements constitute such a large part ofEarly/Middle Maritime Archaic assemblages the mainpoints of the discussion will be summarized here. Theheart of the debate is whether piece esquillee are

1 57

b c

99/ Nukasusutok-5 bifacial points and bifaces. a:stemmed point, Area 2A: b: stemmed point, Area 28;c: side-notched biface, Area 2A. d bipoint preform.Area 2C2, e bipoint. Area 2A. f biface, Area 2B.

tools or exhausted bipolar cores. MacDonald's(1968:88) discussion of Paleoindian lithics regardsthem as tools for wedging or slotting bone, antler orwood. LeBlanc (1992) provides evidence suggestingthis may be the case in some contexts. But most com-mentators have either regarded piece esquillee asbipolar cores or have tried to clarify the distinctionsbetween the two (e.g., Flenniken 1 981; Hayden 1 980;Kuijt et al. 1 995; Lothrop and Cramly 1982; Shott1989). When cryptocrystalline materials are involvedthe bipolar technique is seen as a method for reduc-ing small nodules that cannot be handled by directpercussion. In the case of vein quartz, however, thenon-isotropic structure and resultant blocky fracturerenders attempts at controlled flaking by direct per-cussion difficult. Consequently, the use of vein quartzis frequently associated with bipolar reduction tech-niques aimed at producing large quantities of deb-

a ^ c 6

100/ Nul<asusutol<-5: biface fragments and flake points,a-f: biface stems, all Area 2A; g: biface tip, Area I ; h-p:flake points, all Area 2A.

itage (e.g., Callahan 1987; Callahan et al. 1992;Flenniken 1981; Knutsson 1998). Some of this deb-itage is selected for further bipolar reduction. A vari-ety of flakes derived from this process can be usedexpediently for simple processing tasks or specificsize/shape variants might be selected for hafting,along the lines of Flenniken's (1 981 ;60-96) discussionof quartz "microliths" hafted in wooden handles andused for processing fish. At any stage in the reductionprocess bipolar cores could be recycled for use aswedges, scrapers, etc.

The term bipolar core is used here since most ofthe evidence from Nukasusutok-5 points in the direc-tion of such a reduction system for quartz. It shouldbe noted, however, that Ramah and Mugford chertssometimes were subjected to bipolar percussion toreduce small fragments, although a wedging functioncannot be disregarded.

CHAPTER 8

Block Cores

The term block core is adapted from Hayden et al.(1996) to denote unmodified or partially modifiedpieces of vein quartz. They are grouped into shape cat-egories, of which tabular blocks and water-rolled cob-bles are the best defined. The distinction betweenquartz core fragments and large flakes is ambiguous;a detailed analysis of the quartz reduction systemwould be necessary to provide a more nuanced classi-fication.

Ground Slate Flakes and Ground Slate ToolFragments

Ground slate flakes are pieces of debitage bearingtraces of grinding but without identifiable elements oftool edges or surfaces. Ground slate tool fragmentsexhibit features more clearly indicative of removalfrom specific tools, such as spalls from slate point lat-eral edges or adze bits, or lateral edges of an unclas-sifiable tool.

Slate Plates and Blanks

Slate plates are the unmodified or slightly retouchedraw materials used for slate tool production. Slateblanks are moderately retouched items that lack suffi-cient formal characteristics to be considered preformsfor specific tools.

AREA 1

Bifacial Points

Five bifacial points were found in Area 1, of which fourare from the Smithsonian surface collection. Two spec-imens are whole points while three are distal frag-ments. Both complete points are fabricated fromRamah chert. One is rather long (L=143.1 mm,W=38.4, TH=10.8), made on a large flake, with com-plete bifacial retouch proximally and distally, but withmedial retouch limited to the margins on its ventralside (Figure 98:a). It has rounded shoulders and aslightly contracting stem with a convex base. The sec-

NUKASUSUTOK-5; MATERIAL CULTURE

ond example (illustrated in Fitzhugh 1978: Figure 9n)is about half the length of the former and also has aslightly contracting stem with a convex base, but itsshoulders are more sharply angled. Of the three distalfragments, two are of Ramah chert and one of blackchert (Figure 100:g); only the latter specimen wasacquired from the excavation.

Flake Points

All four flake points were surface collected and aremade of Ramah chert. Two proximal fragments haveslightly tapered stems (one is illustrated in Fitzhugh1976: Figure 9s) and both are retouched bifaciallyalong their margins. The third specimen is a tip frag-ment. A very small flake point can be considered amicropoint (illustrated in Fitzhugh 1976: Figure 9q); ithas a short stem and is retouched on alternate sidesabove its shoulders and unifacially on the stem.

Bifaces

Two items are classed as bifaces. One is a medial frag-ment of black chert while the other is a bifaciallyworked piece of black slate (Figure 1 02:f); the latter isfrom the excavation.

Endscrapers

All three endscrapers were surface collected. One ismade of gray Mugford chert, the other two of green-ish-yellow Mugford chert. In plan they are trapezoidand each has a differently shaped working edge: con-cave, straight and convex. The working edge of onespecimen originally may have been oriented diagonal-ly. Two specimens exhibit small spurs on one distalcorner, in both cases formed by a tiny notch placed onthe lateral margin just below the corner. The straight-edged specimen is illustrated by Fitzhugh (1976:Figure 9r).

Flake Knives

The three examples of flake knives from the surfacecollection are all made from black chert.

1 59

Utilized Flakes

Area 1 has a total of 22 utilized flakes, of which 18were surface collected and four excavated. All but oneare made of Ramah chert; the exception is made ofblack chert.

Bipolar Cores

A single quartz bipolar core was found at Area 1.Block Cores

Three quartz block cores were recovered from theexcavation. One of these is an unmodified squarishblock, the second is a split tablet, while the third is asplit discoid.

AREA 2A

Bifacial Points

A total of 1 3 bifacial points or fragments thereof wasrecovered from Area 2A. Of these, 1 1 are classified asstemmed points, of which 10 are made of Ramahchert, one of quartz. The single whole example (Figure98:b) is made of Ramah chert and is completely bifa-cially flaked, with a slightly contracting stem and aconvex base that bears a remnant striking platform(L = 75.6 mm, W =30.5, TH =8.1). An almost identicalexample was found at Area 2C (Figure 98:c). Thequartz specimen (Figure 99:a) lacks most of its stemand exhibits angled rather than indented shoulders,one of which is unifacially retouched while the other isroughly fractured perpendicularly. The remaining nineexamples are all proximal stem fragments, perhapsdiscarded during the rehafting process. Four stemform variants might be identified: large, tongue-shaped with a thinned convex base (one specimen.Figure 100:a); small, almost straight-sided with astraight or slightly convex thinned base (two speci-mens, Figure 1 00:c, d); contracting sides with a convexor near-straight base (three specimens, Figure 100:e,f): contracting sides with a pointed base bearing a rem-nant striking platform (three specimens. Figure 1 00:b).

Of the remaining two bifacial points, one is anearly complete side-notched biface made of Ramahchert (Figure 99:c). It has few retouch flakes and onelateral edge is rounded by wear or grinding (L = 54.9mm, W =21.9, TH =8.3). The other item is a Ramahchert leaf-shaped bipoint (Figure 99:e) with a slightlyasymmetric form, abrupt retouch limited to its lateralmargins and numerous step fractures (L = 82.1 mm,W =23.0, TH = 9.2). A similar specimen was found inArea 2C (Figure 99:d).

Flake Points

All of the 1 0 flake points from Area 2A are made fromRamah chert. One is made on a small flake with astriking platform as a base and with abrupt lateraledge retouch (Figure 100:p), while the other hasslightly serrated bifacial retouch along its lateral mar-gins and a snapped-off base (Figure 100:o). Five ofthe others are complete. Two have symmetrically con-tracting stems with a striking platform at the base(Figure 100:i, j), while two more have asymmetricalstems (Figure 100:h, k). Metrics: xL = 39.8 mm, r =29.9-52.2; xW = 22.7 mm, r = 1 6.4-26.1; xTH = 3.8,r =2.7-4.8.

One of the three nearly complete specimens hasa snapped-off stem (Figure 100:m), another lacks astem but has part of a bulb of percussion at its base(Figure 100:n), while a third has a base and lateraledges constituted by snaps and a retouched tip. Aproximal fragment has a short asymmetrical stemformed by retouch around a basal striking platform(Figure 100:1). Marginal retouch patterns vary acrossthe specimens; several have alternating retouch,some bifacial, others unifacial. Two tiny specimensmeasuring under 20 mm in length can be consideredmicropoints.

Biface Preforms

All six of the implements classed as biface preformsare made of Ramah chert. One is whole (L = 61.2 mm,W = 42.1, W = 9.3), another nearly complete and there

160

CHAPTER 8

e f

101 / Nukasusutok-5: bi faces and preforms, a: hi face, Area2A; b-d: bifaces, Area 2C; e-f: point preforms, Area 2A.

are two distal and two proximal fragments. Five of thesix are of similar form and dimensions (Figure 1 01 :e,f; Figure 102:a, d, e), representing bifaces rangingfrom 60-80 mm in length and 25-35 mm in width, withconvex bases. They tend to be roughly flaked; oneexhibits numerous step fractures and another is onlyretouched on the margins of its ventral surface. One isthermally altered (Figure 102:e). All appear to be pro-jectile point preforms. The remaining specimen is anoval flake with retouch mostly limited to its margins; aproto-stem is formed by slight notching on alternatesides (Figure 1 02:g).

Bifaces

Of the 1 6 bifaces, one is made of quartz while the restare made of Ramah chert. The quartz implement has a"hand-axe"-like form (Figure 1 10:a) with alternate edgeflaking (L = 120.9 mm, W = 66.8, TH = 21.6). Eight of

102/ Nukasusutok-5: bifaces and preforms, a: biface.Area 2A: b-c: preforms. Area 2C; d-e: preforms. Area 2A:f: biface fragment, Area 1, g: preform. Area 2A, h; biface.Area 3; i: biface, Area 2C.

the Ramah chert specimens are distal portions of pro-jectile points, two of which exhibit impact fractures. Sixitems are lateral or proximal edge fragments. The lastexample is the base of a large asymmetric biface ofRamah chert (Figure 1 01 :a). Made on a large flake, thedorsal surface has large, broad flake scars removedover its entire surface while the ventral retouch is limit-ed to the margins (W = 51.9 mm, TH = 10.0).

Endscrapers

The Area 2A collection includes 16 endscrapers orfragments thereof, of which 1 1 are made of blackchert, four of gray Mugford chert and one of patinat-ed Mugford chert. Of the nine reasonably completespecimens (Figure 103:a-d, f, g, j), seven are trape-zoid in form, two triangular. There was a consistentselection of flakes in the 5-7 mm thickness range.Summary statistics are as follows:

NUKASUSUTOK-5 MATERIAL CULTURE

161

103/ Nukasusutok-5: endscrapers, flake knives, graversand linear flakes, a-d, f-g, i-l, n: endscrapers, Area 2A,e, m: endscrapers Area 2C, h: endscraper, Area 2B,o flake knife/scraper, Area 2A; p: graver (?), Area 2A;q-s linear flakes, Area 2A.

104/ Nukasusutok-5: stemmed flakes and flake knives,a-c stemmed flakes. Area 2A: d: stemmed flake/flakeknife. Area 2C, e-i flake knives. Area 2A.

Length: r = 1 7.9-31.4 mm,Width: r= 16.7-31.8 mm,

Thickness: r = 3.2-7.0 mm.

x = 22.8, sd = 4.3x = 22.2, sd = 4.3x=5.5, sd=1.4

Working edge shape is relatively straight in fivecases, convex in one, concave in one and concavo-con-vex in two. Edge angles range between 40-65 . Theamount of retouch on the lateral margins varies con-siderably. One example exhibits slight spurring onboth its distal corners due to lateral edge notching justbelow the corners (Figure 103:d) while a second hasspurring on one distal corner as a result of similar lat-eral edge notching (Figure 103:f). The two triangularforms (Figure 103:a, i) are very close in size and bothhave concavo-convex working edges. One specimenhas a slight spur on its right distal corner (Figure103:i), while the other has a short, straight, retouched

edge with considerable use damage on its right distalcorner (Figure 103:a). Two specimens exhibit otherforms. One is made on a thin flake and has a relative-ly long convex working edge terminated by a smallnotch at one end (Figure 103:1) while the other is amore irregular fragment with a fairly straight workingedge (Figure 103.n). The remaining items are lateraland distal edge fragments.

Flake Knives

Of the seven flake knives, four are made of Ramahchert, two of quartz and one of black chert. Three ofthe Ramah chert specimens are whole or near com-plete (Figure 104:f-h). They are made on flakes withlengths in the 42-51 mm range and all have convexedges with edge angles ranging from 50-70'. OneRamah chert specimen and the black chert example

162

CHAPTER 8

105/ Nukasusutok-5: bipolar cores arid disc core, a-d, f-h:bipolar cores, Area 2A; e: bipolar core, Area 2C, I: blockcore with bipolar percussion. Area 2A: J: disc core. Area 2C.

(Figure 104:i) are fragments. Of the two quartz imple-ments, one has fine retouch along a straight edge andventral step fractures on one corner (Figure 103:o),such that it is unclear whether it should be classed asa flake knife or a scraper. The other quartz specimenis uncertain. An eighth flake knife of Ramah chert isillustrated in Figure 104:e. It is from the northern endof Area 2A, but was eliminated from the analysisbecause of uncertain provenience.

Utilized Flakes

Of the 97 utilized flakes, 88 (90.7 %) are made ofRamah chert, five (5.2 %) of quartz, three (3.1 %) ofblack chert and one (1.0 %) of gray Mugford chert.

Bipolar Cores

Area 2A has a total of 57 bipolar cores. Some examplesare illustrated in Figure 105:a-c, f-h. Given this relative-

ly large sample size, a detailed attribute analysis wasconducted on 56 specimens (one was missing at thetime of analysis) to determine if the material couldreveal underlying patterning. The approach was mod-eled after Lothrop and Cramly (1982). Somewhat sim-plified, the main variables considered were:

1) raw material

2) number of axes of percussion (one, two,indeterminate)

3) length of each axis of percussion

4) thickness

5) edge surfaces (as seen laterally): straight,convex, concave, irregular, flat platform,indeterminate

6) edge shape (as seen vertically, i.e., fromabove the platform): straight, bowed,wavy, irregular, indeterminate

7) edge damage (combinations thereof):crushing, sharp, faceted, step fractured

Figure 106 provides a graphic depiction of thevariables. A major problem in recording and evaluatingthe results is the absence of any positional criterion(such as proximal/distal) to distinguish consistentlybetween the first and second axes of percussion.Another difficulty is the fragmentary state of manyspecimens, which prevents complete measurements orhinders the comparison of edge characteristics onopposite sides of an implement. The following summa-ry of the results is based on data derived from an arbi-trarily defined first axis and from specimens for whichmetric variables could be considered as completemeasurements. Edge A is the first edge of the axis.Edge B is the opposite edge.

Raw Materials: quartz = 34 (60.7%), Ramah chert = 18(32.1%), gray Mugford chert = 2 (3.6%), black chert = 2 (3.6%).

Number of Axes of Percussion: 1 = 28 (50.0%), 2 = 18(32.1%), indeterminate =10(1 7.9).

NUKASUSUTOK-5: MATERIAL CULTURE

163

Axis 1

Thickness

A2-

Core Orientation

Axis 2

straight Convex

Edge Surface

Concave

Irregular

Flat Platform

StraightEdge Shape

Bowed

Wavy

Irregular

{T\ (T\ ff^

Step Fractured

Crushing

Edge Damage

Sharp

Facetted

/06/ Bipolar core analysis variables and attributes.

Axis 1 Length:n = 32, r= 15.7-38.6 mm, x= 27.21, sd = 5.82

flat platform = 2 (3.6%), indeter-minate = 2 (3.6%)

Axis /, Edge A Shape: straight=8 (14.3%), bowed = 18 (32.1%),wavy = 23 (41.1%), irregular = 1(1.8%), indeterminate= 6(10.7%)

Axis 1, Edge A Damage:(instances of each type in sam-ple; specimens can have combi-nations of damage types);crushing = 41 (73.2%), sharp =

6 (10.7%), faceted= 27 (48.2%),step fractured = 20 (35.7%)

Axis I, Edge B (opposite)Surface: straight = 7 (12.5 %),convex = 7 (12.5 %), concave =3 (5.4%), irregular= 4 (7.1%), flatplatform= 1 (1.8%)

Axis 1, Edge B Shape: straight =

7 (1 2.5 %), bowed = 4 (7.1%),wavy= (9 (16.1%), irregular =1 (1.8%)

Axis I, Edge B Damage:(instances of each type in sam-ple; specimens can have combi-nations of damage types);crushing = 23 (41.1%), sharp = 6(18.8%), faceted = 12 (37.5%), step fractured = 9 (28.1%)

Axis 2 Length: n = 27, r = 9.4-47.2 mm, x = 23.97, sd = 9.08

Thickness: n=47, r = 3.9-23.4 mm, x = 1 0.93, sd= 4.60

Axis I, Edge A Surface: straight = 1 6 (28.6%), convex =25 (44.6%), concave = 8 (14.3%), irregular = 3 (5.4%),

Cross-tabulations were run between the nominalvariables surface, shape and damage for Axis 1, Edge A(the best sample size) to investigate attribute combina-tions. Only the combination of edge surface and edgeshape exhibited interesting patterning, with a slight ten-dency (when expected values were calculated) for con-

164

CHAPTER 8

vex edge surfaces to be associat-ed with wavy edge shapes.

Area 2A Bipolar Core Sizes

20

16

E

inina>c

u

8 -

0

10

15

Bivariate metric analysisprovides more interestingresults. Figure 107 is a scatterdiagram of Axis 1 lengthagainst thickness, coded for dif-ferent raw material types. Thereis a slight tendency for threegroups in the plot: (1) speci-mens <20 mm long and <8 mmthick, (2) those from 21-34 mmin length and between 6-14 mmthick, and (3) those >30 mmlong and >12 mm thick. Ramahchert specimens cluster in theshorter/thinner area of the plot

while quartz is spread out more broadly, although witha clear break between "medium" and "large" groups.The Mugford and black chert specimens lie in the mid-dle. The contrasts between quartz and Ramah chertlikely indicate differences in the sizes of the raw mate-rials when bipolar reduction commenced: quartzreduction began with block cores and large flakeswhile Ramah chert bipolar cores are probably theresult of recycling broken tool fragments.

By way of comparison, Flenniken (1981:48)divides his Northwest Coast quartz bipolar cores intothree size categories, although he provides no his-togram or scatter plot data on the shape of the distri-butions. Lothrop and Cramly's (1982:16) mostly chertpieces esquillees exhibit a unimodal size distributionsuggestive of a continuous reduction process.Although the non-unimodal size distribution at Area2A may simply be an artifact of sample size or reflectstages of core exhaustion (MacDonald 1968:86), itcould also be related to purposeful selection of coresizes for the production of different types of flakes.For example, Flenniken (1981:43-46) identifies whathe terms "microliths" as deliberate products of thebipolar reduction of quartz. This category may be

A Ramah■ Quartz• Chert

20 25 30Length (mm)

35

40

45

107/ Area 2A bipolar core size distriiyution.

more a reflection of the investigator's expectationsand sorting procedures than of prehistoric intentional-ity, but it is clear that careful bipolar reduction canproduce at least some fairly regular columnar or linearflakes, although they will likely constitute a small pro-portion of the total debitage. The quartz debitage fromArea 2A (and the other subareas) contains little thatresembles deliberately produced linear or columnarflakes. Consequently, it is more likely that discontinu-ities in the bipolar core size distribution are the resultof selectivity in the size of shatter chosen for furtherbipolar reduction.

It is difficult, however, to see the smallest bipolarcore size group as the result of reduction aimed at pro-ducing flakes since flakes produced from these coreswould be extremely small and cores under 20-25 mmare difficult to hold between the fingers without risk-ing injury during bipolar percussion. If any of the bipo-lar cores were used for splitting/wedging functions itwas perhaps these.

Block Cores

Area 2A produced a total of 37 quartz block cores,which can be divided into five sub-groups. The first

NUKASUSUTOK-5; MATERIAL CULTURE

165

f

108/ Nukasusutok-5 slate and schist tools, a: ground slatepoint, Area 2A. b flake adze. Area 2A, c: reworked flakeadze. Area 2A, d slate blank. Area 2A. e celt/adze blank.Area 2A, f: schist whetstone, Area 2A.

group consists of 1 1 tabular or sub-tabular cores,unmodified except for one or two flakes removed (e.g.,Figure 1 10:b). Summary statistics are as follows:

Length: r = 58.3-1 21.4 mm, x=82.1, sd = 20.1Width: r = 41.4-70.3 mm, x = 56.6, sd = 1 1.6

Thickness: r = 1 5.7-46.7mm, x=31.7, sd = 9.06

The second group consists of five quartz beachcobbles marked by various degrees of water-rolling.Four are battered and two of these were split in half.The remaining specimen has only a single flakeremoved. Their size range is slightly smaller than fortabular cores. Summary statistics are as follows;

Length: r = 29.8-63.5 mm, x=52.2, sd = 1 3.4Width: r = 25.1-52.6 mm, x=43.1, sd = 12.1

109/ Nukasusutok-5: ground slate tools, a: adze, Area 2A;b-c: celts, Area 2C.

Thickness: r = 22.7-35.2 mm, x=30.3, sd= 5.8

The third group consists of 1 3 cores with traces ofbipolar percussion. Some of these could be calledbipolar cores, but they are distinguished from the lat-ter because of their size and their place at the initialphase of the reduction process. Figure 110:d illus-trates an example with crushing on its long sides andon a flat platform at one end; the opposite end haslarge step fractures. The core is broken across itswidth, but there was clearly an attempt to split itlengthwise using bipolar percussion. Summary statis-tics are as follows:

Length: r= 53.1-1 22.8 mm, x= 72.4, sd=18.9Width: r= 35.2-70.9 mm, x=51.5, sd=10.2Thickness: r= 25.5-43.7 mm, x= 33.0, sd= 6.1

166

CHAPTER 8

/10/ Nukasusutok-5: quartz biface and cores, a: biface,Area 2A: b: tabular block core, Area 2A: c: core/hammer-stone, Area 3; d: block core with bipolar percussion,Area 2A.

111/ Nukasusutok-5: slate and schist implements, a-c:ground slate point tips. Area 2A, d: ground slate tool frag-ment (point stem''). Area 2A; e schist tablet. Area 3: f:ground slate tool fragment. Area 2A: g schist tablet.Area 3.

The fourth group consists of two specimens, onediscoid the other lenticular in form. The former hasthree or four flakes removed while it is uncertainwhether the latter has been culturally modified. Finally,the fifth group consists of 5 cores with irregularshapes and the following summary statistics:

Length: r = 50.2-82.2 mm, x = 66.2, sd = 13.2Width: r = 40.2-65.9 mm, x=52.1, sd = ll.lThickness: r = 30.4-48.6 mm, x=36.6, sd = 6.9

Ground Slate Points

Portions of four ground slate points were found at Area2A. Three of the four are distal fragments while one ismost of a medial portion. Two of the distal fragmentshave broad flat blades (Figure 1 1 1 :a-b); one is made ofgreen slate the other of beige slate. The third distal

fragment is narrower with a lenticular cross-section(Figure 1 1 1 :c) and made of gray slate. The medialspecimen is made of green slate and consists of thelower portion of the point's blade and the upper partof its stem (Figure 1 08:a). Its blade element is very thinand flat (W= 22.6 mm, TH= 3.5); the stem is formed bya slightly rounded constriction.

Ground Slate Adzes

Three examples, all made of green slate, suggest twotypes of slate adzes. The first (Figure 109;a) is a largetriangular form with bifacially retouched margins anda plano-convex cross-section (L= 105.6 mm, W= 53.0,TH= 1 3.3). Very fine polishing at the bit end extends40-70 mm back from the working edge. The bit has anedge angle of 60 and exhibits very little evidence ofwear. The poll end of the tool has a small surface

NUKASUSUTOK-5. MATERIAL CULTURE

167

ground to an angle of 60°; this may be a trace of a sec-ond reworked bit or a hafting modification. The secondexample (Figure 1 08:b) is a small trapezoid adze madeon a flake with a remnant striking platform at its pollend (L = 64.5 mm, W = 33.9, TH = 6.5). The implementhas light dorsal retouch on its lateral margins, a bitangle of 35 and polishing limited to within 1 2-1 8 mmof the working edge. The third specimen (Figure 1 08:c)is probably a reworked flake adze similar to the lattertype. It consists of a triangular flake with fine abruptretouch on the distal end, slight retouch on its lateraledges and polishing remnants on one distal corner andone lateral edge. Its maximum width (33 mm) is verysimilar to that of the previously described flake adze.

Slate Blanks

Three items are classified as slate blanks. One is a tri-angular celt or adze preform of green slate (Figure108:e), bifacially flaked over its entire surface, withpreliminary grinding of a few facets near the bit end(L = 62.9 mm, W = 42.7, TH = 1 7.0). The second is acelt or adze preform of gray slate made on a thinslate plate (Figure 1 12:b). The implement is unifacial-ly retouched on its lateral margins and widest end;two step fractures at the wide end are ground slight-ly (L = 82.4 mm, W = 49.0, TH = 1 0.7). The third itemis a bifacially flaked fragment of green slate (Figure1 12:d).

Slate Plates

Of the nine slate plates or fragments thereof, six aremade of green slate, two of red-brown slate and one ofbeige slate. All but one are thin plates of slate withvarying amounts of edge retouch (e.g., Figure 1 1 2;a, e,f). The remaining example is a thicker ovoid piece withbifacial retouch on one edge and extensive step frac-turing on the opposite edge (Figure 1 12:c).

Ground Slate Flakes and Tool Fragments

Of the 49 items categorized as ground slate flakes, 24(49.0 %) are made of gray slate, 1 6 (32.7 96) of green

slate, four (8.2 %) of gray-banded slate, two (4.1 %) ofred-brown slate, two (4.1 %) of indeterminate colorslate and one (2.0 %) of greenstone. Seven of thesespecimens are edge-struck flakes from tools; four havemedial ridges while three have convex surfaces. Twoitems are classed as ground slate tool fragments. Oneis a piece of gray slate with one edge ground perpen-dicularly and two other edges bifacially flaked (Figure1 1 1 :f), apparently a reworked implement fragment.The other is a piece of green slate with rounded later-al edges suggestive of a ground slate point stem(Figure 1 1 1 :d),

Hammerstones

A single hammerstone was recovered, consisting of asmall water-rolled cobble with battering concentratedat one point.

Whetstones

The single whetstone (Figure 108:f) is a thin bar ofdense gray schist (L = 87.2 mm, W = 30.7, TH = 5.2).The working edge runs the length of one side of thetool, with wear on both faces but mostly on one. Theopposite lateral edge is ground perpendicularly.Several linear incisions made by a pointed tool are vis-ible on one face of the implement as well as on theperpendicular non-working edge. These do not seemto constitute decoration.

Schist Tablets and Ground Schist Fragments

Three schist tablets and two fragments of groundschist were recovered. The three tablets are all madeof chlorite schist. Two (Figure 1 1 3:a, b) are rectangu-lar with somewhat battered lateral edges suggestiveof deliberate shaping (L = 117.4 mm, 100.1 mm;W = 67.1, 56.4; TH = 31.8, 21.2). Both have onesmoothed surface, possibly from grinding. The thirdtablet (Figure 113:d) is a knife-shaped bar with noobvious modification (L = 165.0 mm, W = 44.6,TH = 1 7.2), so it is uncertain whether the implementis a cultural affordance.

168

CHAPTER 8

Graver (?)

An unusual tool made of black chert may be a graver(Figure 103:p). It resembles an endscraper with over-size spurs extending from each distal corner (L= 37.4mm, W= 18.4, TH= 4.9). The left distal spur is shapedlike a screwdriver tip while the right spur tapers to aperforator-like point. The concave distal edge exhibitsscraper-like wear traces and parts of both spurs alsoexhibit use-wear. Another possibility is that the speci-men is an effigy.

Stemmed Flakes

Three Ramah chert implements are classified asstemmed flakes because they exhibit more systematicretouch than utilized flakes and a tendency towardsstem definition, but they do not resemble flake points.One is a roughly triangular flake (L= 55.7 mm, W=39.2, TH= 4.3) with a short stem formed by alternatingunifacial retouch on a slightly indented left shoulderand more sharply defined right shoulder (Figure104:a). The lateral margins of the "blade" have finebifacial retouch limited to the margins. The second(Figure 104:b) is a proximal fragment with a stemformed by a single dorsal flake removal on each side;the lateral edge margins above the stem have fine bifa-cial retouch. The third specimen (Figure 104:c) is a tri-angular flake with dorsal retouch distally and on onelateral edge (L= 36.0 mm, W= 41.2, TH= 3.5).

Linear Flakes

Two items are classified as linear flakes. One is madeof Ramah chert (Figure 103:r) and has a short blade-like form with two medial "arrises," dorsal polishing onits distal end and dorsal utilization wear on its lateralmargin (L= 38.7 mm, W= 14.0, TH= 3.4). This speci-men may be a product of columnar fracturing duringbipolar reduction. The other example is a medial frag-ment of gray Mugford chert (Figure 1 03:q); one lateraledge is retouched ventrally along its entire length, theother is retouched dorsally along half its length (L=28.4 mm, W= 14.6, TH= 2.3). A third linear flake frag-

ment of Ramah chert is illustrated (Figure 103:s), butit was dropped from the analysis because of uncertainprovenience.

AREA 2B

Bifacial Points

The single bifacial point from Area 2B is a proximalfragment made of quartz (Figure 99:b). The specimenis crudely flaked bifacially and has a contracting stem.One lateral edge has an angled rather than indentedshoulder while the other bears only a slight indenta-tion indicative of a tentative shoulder (W= 26.4 mm,TH= 1 3.5).

Flake Points

The single Ramah chert flake point is an uncertainspecimen bearing limited unifacial retouch, some ofwhich seems designed to taper the flake near its tipand even out one lateral margin.

Bifaces

The only biface (Figure 99:f) is the distal or proximalfragment of a thin, very finely flaked, asymmetricbiface of Ramah chert (W = 45.3 mm, TH = 7.6). Thequality of flaking suggests the implement is a finishedproduct ("bifacial knife"), but it might be a preform fora lanceolate bipoint such as those illustrated in Figure99:d, e. Comparison of the biface with the latter twopoints suggests a reduction process in which the sym-metric lateral edge was "keeled" against the hand whilethe asymmetric edge was reduced towards the bipointform. This technique might have minimized the risk ofbreakage when producing the narrow lanceolateforms.

Endscrapers

The single endscraper (Figure 103:h), made of grayMugford chert, is trapezoid with a slightly concave dis-tal edge and a unifacially retouched lateral edge (L=15.1 mm, W= 21.1, TH=9.9, edge angle= 60 ).

NUKASUSUTOK-5: MATERIAL CULTURE

169

/12/ Nukasusutok-5 slate plates and blanks, a, c, e-f:plates, Area 2A: b, d: blanks, Area 2A.

Flake Knives

Both examples are fragmentary and made of Ramahchert.

Utilized Flakes

Of the 21 utilized flakes, 17 (71.4 %) are made ofRamah chert, four (1 9.0 %) of black chert, one (4.8 %)of slate and one (4.8 %) of quartz.

Bipolar Cores

Of the six bipolar cores, five are made of quartz, oneof Ramah chert. Most of these are fragmentary, so nosummary metrics can be presented.

Block Cores

Two quartz block cores were recovered. One is a sub-tabular specimen, unused except for the possibleremoval of two flakes, the other is unused and prism-

/ / 3/ Nukasusutok-5: schist tablets, a-b, d: Area 2A;c: Area 2C.

shaped (L= 78.2, 1 1 5.8 mm, W= 56.0, 90.6, TH= 39.0,70.3).

Ground Slate Flakes and Tool Fragments

Of the five ground slate flakes, four are made of greenslate and one of gray slate. A sixth flake, made ofgreen slate, is an edge fragment from a celt or adze.

Grindstones (?)

Two conjoining fragments of a sandstone plate werefound at Area 2B. It is uncertain whether this was a cul-tural affordance, but it could have served as a grind-stone for slate tools.

Bone Pendants

A small fragment of a bone pendant was recoveredfrom the fine-sieved charcoal sample taken at hearth1 1, dated 6040±90 B.P.. Ca. 9 mm in length and 2.4

170

CHAPTER 8

/14/ Nukasusutok-5: fragment of bone pendant, Area 2B.(Length 9 mm).

mm in thickness, the artifact has a gouged hole, flat-tened and rounded edges, one incised line and twosmall notches on one face, and a single incised line onthe other face (Figure 1 1 4).

AREA 2C

Bifacial Points

The single bifacial point is from Area 2C1 (Figure 98:c).Made from Ramah chert, it is nearly complete, finelyflaked, exhibits a contracting stem, rounded shouldersand has a biconvex cross-section (W= 28.2 mm, TH=8.5). It is virtually identical to a specimen from Area 2A(Figure 98:b).

Biface Preforms

The two biface preforms are made of Ramah chert andare complete. One could perhaps be classed as an

/ / 5/ Nukasusutok-5: Area 3 flaked implements, a-c: flakepoints: d: endscraper: e: biface preform; f: disc core; g:biface fragment; h: flake knife.

unfinished lanceolate bipoint (Figure 99:d), but here itis treated as a preform since its asymmetric shaperesults from retention of a small portion of unfinishededge (L= 91.1 mm, W= 28.6, TH= 1 1.8; biconvex cross-section). As noted above, it is possible that Figure 99:f-d-e illustrates a reduction sequence. The other exam-ple is made of thermally altered Ramah chert andexhibits a lanceolate form with a striking platform atits base (Figure 102:c); it was broken about one thirdof the way down from its distal end (L= 48.2 mm, W=19.1, TH= 7.0; biconvex cross-section). The breakoccurred during the final tip-to-base retouch sequencesince the tip is well retouched but the medial and prox-imal portions are still roughly flaked.

Bifaces

All five biface fragments are made of Ramah chert.Two large fragments (Figure 101:c, d) are similar in

NUKASUSUTOK-5: MATERIAL CULTURE

171

form: asymmetric with slight stemming or notchingand plano-convex cross-sections resulting from exten-sive retouch on their dorsal surfaces but only margin-al retouch on their ventral sides (W = 41.1, 45.5 mm,TH = 10.7, 13.3). Figure 101;d might be a stemmedpoint preform, but both could conceivably be earlystages in the production of bipoints using the asym-metric reduction technique described previously. Athird specimen is the proximal fragment of a largebiface made on a flake (Figure 1 01 :b), with a remnantstriking platform on its proximal end and retouchlimited mostly to its lateral edges (W = > 60 mm,TH =10.3). Another implement is the distal end of alarge thick biface, possibly a quarry blank (Figure102:i). The last example is a lateral edge fragment ofthermally altered Ramah chert.

Endscrapers

One of the two specimens is made of black chert, theother of Ramah chert. The black chert implement(Figure 103:e) is trapezoid in form, has double concav-ities on its working edge and abrupt dorsal retouch onits lateral margins (L = 22.4 mm, W = 23.8, TH = 9,0).The Ramah chert specimen (Figure 103:m) is problem-atic since Maritime Archaic endscrapers are almostnever made from this material. The implement has astem created by unifacial retouch along its lateral mar-gins (dorsally on one edge, ventrally on the other). Thedistal "ears" produced by the stemming have dorsalretouch and the distal edge itself is broken, with twonotch-like flakes removed and the subsequent imposi-tion of slight edge retouch (L = 36.7 mm, W = 31.5,TH = 7.7). Polishing is present on the distal corners.

Utilized Flakes

Of the 31 utilized flakes, 26 (83.9%) are made of Ramahchert, four (1 2.9%) of quartz and one (3.2%) of black chert.

Bipolar Cores

Only two bipolar cores were found at Area 2C; one ismade of quartz, the other of Ramah chert.

Block Cores

Of the 1 9 block cores, 1 8 are made of quartz, one ofgray quartzite. Of the quartz cores, 1 1 were tabular inshape. Of these, eight were unused except for minorflaking, four may have been fractured off larger blocksand two have traces of bipolar percussion on their longends. Four have slightly rounded cortex suggestive ofwater-rolling. Five cores were prism shaped. Three ofthe latter are virtually unused while 2 exhibit traces ofbipolar percussion. Two cores are simply fragments ofblocks. The gray quartzite core is a fragment of awater-rolled cobble split by bipolar percussion. A fewflakes removed on one edge might indicate use as anexpedient scraper. Summary statistics are as follows:

Length: r = 48.7-97.7 mm, x = 74.9, sd = 15.8Width: r = 31.9-88.9 mm, x = 56.5, sd = 15.5Thickness: r = 19.1-70.4 mm, x = 33.5, sd = 12.5

Disc Cores

The single example of a disc core is made of Ramahchert (Figure 1 05:j). It is a small bifacial disc with sharpedges and no evidence for crushing that might indicatebipolar reduction (L = 40.0 mm, W = 39.6, TH = 27.5).

Ground Slate Celts

Two celts were found at Area 2C, one complete and theother near-complete; both are made of green slate.One is a large sub-triangular specimen (Figure 109:b)with bifacial flaking along its lateral edges and onits poll end (L = 148.3 mm, W = 60.2, TH = 19.7).Polishing is limited to an area 38-48 mm back from thebit edge. The bit has little damage besides somecrushing and small flakes removed from near the mid-dle of the working edge. Near the poll end some of theflake facets are polished, presumably hafting-related.Red ocher stains are visible on the celt surface. Thesecond example (Figure 109:c) is a small, presumablysub-triangular, celt with bifacial retouch on both later-al edges, one of which has a thin perpendicularlyground facet (L = >82.0 mm, W = 39.2, TH = 1 2.4). One

CHAPTER 8

face of the tool is mostly polished and flat; the otherface is completely polished, but the edge portion hascanted grinding that produces a ridge running parallelto the lateral edge.

Ground Slate Celt/Adze

One artifact of greenstone is the proximal (poll) frag-ment of a celt or adze (Figure 108:d). It is bifaciallyflaked and the lateral edges have slight perpendiculargrinding. The poll edge is slightly ground on one sideand one medial flake facet is slightly ground.

Slate Plates

The lone slate plate, of indeterminate slate color (dueto weathering), has fine flaking along one edge and anarea of possible edge grinding.

Ground Slate Flakes and Tool Fragments

There are 22 ground slate flakes, of which eight(36.4%) are made of green slate, six (27.3%) of beigeslate, three (1 3.6%) of gray slate, three (1 3.6%) of red-brown slate and two (9.1%) of gray-banded slate. Oneflake is an edge-struck fragment from a tool.

Hammerstones

The single hammerstone is a small egg-shaped cobblewith slight crushing at one end.

Schist Tablets

Two schist tablets were found. One is a large rectan-gular tablet of chlorite schist (Figure 113:c) withbattered edges and one smoothed surface sugges-tive of use in grinding (L = 171.0 mm, W = 67.7,TH = 27.1). The other is a thin triangular tablet ofphyllite schist; it is uncertain whether this was acultural affordance.

Schist Fragments

Six fragments of schist were collected, of which twodisplay grinding indicative of cultural modification.

Stemmed Flakes

One Ramah chert implement is classified as a stemmedflake (Figure 104:d). Made on a long flake, it has lightdorsal retouch on one lateral edge while a slight stemshoulder is formed by ventral retouch (L = 82.9 mm, W= 36.8, TH = 5.3). Perhaps it could also be classifiedas a flake knife.

Red Ocher Nodules

The vicinity of hearths 1 4 and 1 5 produced eight smallred ocher nodules, weighing a total of 52 g. Three tinynodules near hearth 12 weighed 0.4 g.

AREA 3

Flake Points

All three flakes points are made of Ramah chert. Oneis almost complete with a contracting stem (Figure115:a); the margins of its lateral edges and stem areretouched unifacially on alternate sides and the bladeelement is slightly serrated (L = 43.1 mm, W = 22.0,TH = 2.2). Another specimen is a proximal fragmentwith a stem element formed by a retouched shoulderon one lateral edge and a shallow notch on the oppo-site edge (Figure 1 1 5:b). A striking platform is retainedat the base of the stem and the blade margins areretouched on alternate sides (W= 21.4 mm, TH= 2.9).The third example (Figure 1 1 5:c) is missing part of itsbase and has slightly serrated bifacial retouch limitedto its margins (L= 28.4 mm, W= 18.7, TH= 3.1).

Biface Preforms

The single example is made of Ramah chert and is aproximal fragment with a convex base (Figure 1 1 5:e).

Bifaces

All three biface fragments are made of Ramah chert.Two are edge fragments with deep flake scars, reminis-cent of quarry blanks (Figure 1 02:h, 1 1 5:g), while thethird is the lateral edge of a smaller biface.

NUKASUSUTOK-5: MATERIAL CULTURE

173

Endscrapers

The single endscraper from Area 3 (Figure 115:d) ismade of an unusual extremely fine-grained beigechert, presumably from Cape Mugford. It has a straightdistal edge (50' angle) and distinct polishing on its lat-eral edges (L = 19.0 mm, W = 19.1, TH = 2.8).

Flake Knives

The single flake knife (Figure 1 1 5:h) is made of Ramahchert and has two distinct retouch areas, both dorsal;the lateral edge angle is 60 while the proximal edge is20* (L = 54.8 mm, W = 35.1, TH = 9.2).

Bipolar Cores

A total of five bipolar cores was found at Area 3; twoare made of quartz, three of Ramah chert.

Block Cores

Of the 20 quartz cores, seven are tabular in form, sixare made from rounded water-rolled cobbles, three aresquarish or prism-shaped, two conical, two semi-dis-coidal and one irregular. Three tabular specimens areunused or exhibit minimal modification; two wereprobably split with bipolar percussion and two otherswere fractured. Two of the tabular cores are slightlywater-rolled. Of the rounded cobbles, three bear tracesof bipolar percussion while a fourth is heavily battered,suggesting use as a hammerstone or resistance torepeated efforts at bipolar reduction (Figure 110:c).One squarish and one conical core show traces of bipo-lar percussion. Summary statistics are as follows:

Length: r = 38.2-93.9 mm, = 70.8, sd = 12.4Width: r = 36.9-86.1 mm, = 56.5, sd = 12.2Thickness: r = 24.0-72.2 mm, = 40.9, sd = 11.2

Disc Cores

The single disc core (Figure 115:f) is a small Ramahchert specimen with bifacial flaking and severe stepfractures on both faces (L = 44.7 mm, W = 39.3,TH = 18.8).

/16/ Nul<asusutol<-5: Area 3 slate Implements, a: groundslate hexagonal shaft; b: celt, c: ground tool fragment; d:blank.

Ground Slate Celts

The single example is a red-brown slate specimen thatwas probably sub-triangular in form prior to being bro-ken longitudinally (Figure 1 16:b). The remaining later-al edge is bifacially flaked. Polishing is concentratednear the bit but also occurs elsewhere on the tool. Thepoll end has a bevelled ground surface, either aremnant bit or hafting modification (L = 86.2 mm,W = 32.0, TH = 1 5.7).

Hexagonal Ground Slate Tool Fragment

Figure 116:a illustrates a hexagonal shaft of polishedgreen slate that tapers longitudinally. The tool wasbroken into several pieces that were spread betweenFeatures 1 and 2. Retouch on the ventral surfaces ofsome fragments indicate the implement was flakedafter it was broken. The shape and thickness of theobject (W = >26.2 mm, TH = >1 2.0) suggest it is not a

174

CHAPTER 8

projectile point but possibly the shaft of a more robusttool such as a small gouge.^

Slate Blanks

The single slate blank is a conjoined specimen madeon a plate of gray slate (Figure 1 1 6:d). It is sub-rectan-gular in form and bifacially retouched along threeedges; the fourth edge bears a remnant of the originalflat plate edge (L= 99.6 mm, W= 52.2, TH= 8.0).

Ground Slate Flakes and Tool Fragments

Of the 1 3 ground slate flakes, seven (53.8%) are madeof beige slate, four (30.8%) of gray slate and one each(7.7%) of green and red-brown slate. One flake is a toolfragment with a ground, heavily battered bevel (Figure1 16:c).

Schist Tablets and Fragments

Two schist tablets were recovered. One is a small knife-shaped bar of chlorite schist (Figure 1 1 1 :e) that appearsworn, although not necessarily by cultural modification(L = 81.9 mm, W= 28.6, TH = 6.7). The other is anunmodified plate of phyllite schist (Figure 1 1 1 :g); itsassociation with Feature 3 suggests it was a culturalaffordance (L = 1 1 7.3 mm, W = 1 01.9, TH = 1 0.2).

Red Ocher Nodules

Tiny fragments of red ocher were associated with twofeatures. Nearby Feature 2 were nine fragments weigh-ing a total of 3.2 g. Adjacent to Feature 3 were threefragments, weighing 14.2 g.

THE NUKASUSUTOK-5 ASSEMBLAGEIN A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

As discussed more fully in Chapter 9, significant prob-lems are encountered when comparing Maritime

Archaic assemblages. Raised beach sites that havebeen reoccupied repeatedly, like Nukasusutok-5, havehorizontal stratigraphy and potential palimpsestdeposits. Consequently, surface collections, test pitsand limited excavations that do not define behavioral-ly relevant units (such as dwelling modules) may pro-duce an unrepresentative material of limited value forinter-assemblage comparisons. Nonetheless, somegeneral observations should be made regarding theposition of the Nukasusutok-5 assemblage relative toother material from northern and central Labrador.

Since the radiocarbon dates from Nukasusutok-5are spread between 6000-5000 B.P. it is hardly surpris-ing that the material shares similarities with both theNaksak Complex of northern Labrador (7000-6000B.P.) and the Sandy Cove Complex (5200-4500 B.P.) ofthe central coast. Nukasusutok-5 and Naksak sitesshare lanceolate bipoint projectiles, side-notchedbifaces, convex-based bifaces, endscrapers, small celtsand a high frequency of bipolar cores (cf., Fitzhugh1978:Figures 6-9). They differ, however, in thatNukasusutok-5 lacks nipple-based points but has a dis-tinct inventory of flake points. Nukasusutok and theSandy Cove Complex have in common tapered stempoints, convex-based bifaces and copious use ofquartz reduced by bipolar techniques. They differ inthat Nukasusutok has more extensive use of Ramahchert while Sandy Cove lacks endscrapers.

The general stylistic sequence of Maritime Archaicprojectile points goes from early triangular and nipple-based types (7500-6000 B.P.) to more sharply shoul-dered, tapered stem forms (6000-3500 B.P.). Only twoprojectile points from Nukasusutok-5 are reasonablyassociated with the 6000 B.P. component. The speci-men from near hearth 1 1 at Area 2B, dated 6040±90,probably has the best context; it is quartz and has atapered stem angled with the blade rather than clear

^In contrast, an Early Maritime Archaic gouge from Koliktalik-1 in the Main area has a relatively cylindrical cross-section(Fitzhugh 1978: Figure 6j) and Late Maritime Archaic gouges have triangular or rectangular cross-sections (Fitzhugh 1978:Figure 5m, Tuck 1976; Plate 33).

NUKASUSUTOK-5: MATERIAL CULTURE

shoulders (Figure 99:b). A larger but similar quartzpoint (Figure 99:a) was associated with the south lobeat Area 2A, which has one radiocarbon date of5670±1 75 B.P.. A point from Area 2C1 was found ca. 2m from hearth 1 0, dated 6050±80; it is made of Ramahchert and has a tapered stem with rounded shoulders(Figure 98:c). The latter point is virtually identical toone from the southern lobe at Area 2A (Figure 98:b),dated ca. 5600 B.P.. The several stem fragments fromthe site (Figure 100) provide no information on shoul-der form. The rounded shoulder points fromNukasusutok-5 (Figure 98:b, c) are very similar to apoint from Karl Oom lsland-3 in the Nain area, dated6080±380 B.P. and 6120±120 B.P. (Fitzhugh 1 985:83,1990:301). Considered as a whole, the Nukasusutokpoints and stem fragments bear a general resemblanceto those from the Cull Arm-1 site in the Nain area,dated 5605±160 B.P. and 3285±80 B.P. (probablymulti-component; Fitzhugh 1978:66, 78), as well asslightly later sites in other regions: Okak-2 in Okak Bay(4765±85 B.P., 4905+80 B.P.; Fitzhugh 1978:66, 78)and Sandy Cove-2 at Hamilton Inlet (no radiocarbondates; Fitzhugh 1 972:92, 288).

In conclusion, elements of the lithic assemblagesfrom the various subareas at Nukasusutok-5 resemblethose from Naksak Complex sites dated ca. 6000 B.P.,although there are also similarities with later sites inother regions. Initially, the latter tendencies ledFitzhugh to disregard the ca. 5500 B.P. radiocarbondates and place Nukasusutok-5 in the 5000-4500 B.P.range, based on "...typological convergence towardRattlers Bight point styles and greater use of Ramahchert at the expense of quartz and Sandy Cove similar-ities..." (Fitzhugh 1978:77). This placement has beenrepeated more recently (Clark and Fitzhugh1992:196). It should now be clear from the largerexcavated assemblage and additional radiocarbondates that there is no basis for such a dating otherthan the problematic 4645+65 B.P. assay from Test PitC at the western end of the site. The excavated assem-blage from Nukasusutok-5 can therefore constitute abaseline for defining a late Naksak phase in the 6000-5000 B.P. time range.

-r 1,0

FP

SP

SB

-- 0.5

-1.5

Axis 1 (68.3%) h-

OTH

-1.0^PI ^-0.5 •

SC

UF,

A Tool class• Area

2B

PR

Bl 0.5 i^H-

CO

1.0 1.5

ST

CA

2C

A ---0.5

TM

-1.0 Axis 2 (22.0%)

/ / 7/ Correspondence analysis plot of tool classes and Nukasusutok-5 subareas.1 76 CHAPTER 8

NuLasusutok-^: Inter-Area

Co

arisons

elusions

The previous chapters have described and interpret-ed each of the subareas at Nukasusutok-5. Whileeach subarea stands on its own as an analytical unit,they will now be compared to consider the implica-tions of intra-site variation. Evaluation of intra-sitevariation is based on comparisons of tool assem-blages, lithic raw materials, technological organiza-tion and behavioral inferences drawn from spatialpatterning. Area 1 is omitted, since the scale ofinvestigation was too limited to draw conclusions.Areas 2A and 2B contained spatial configurationsthat were not completely exposed by excavation, buttheir assemblages will be considered nonetheless.The chapter ends with some observations on the sig-nificance of Nukasusutok-5 for understanding pat-terns in Early/Middle Maritime Archaic assemblagestructure.

INTER-AREA COMPARISONSTool Assemblages

The first characteristic to be compared is variation intool assemblages. Table 38 outlines the tool classpercentages at each subarea, showing obvious differ-ences in the proportions of utilized flakes, bipolarcores, block cores and slate tool fragments. Figure1 1 7 displays a correspondence analysis plot based onthe frequency data. The first dimension accounts for68.3% of the variation and distinguishes Areas 2C

and 3 on the right, pulled by block cores, from Area2A on the left, pulled by bipolar cores. The seconddimension, which accounts for 22.0% of the variation,contrasts Area 2B on the bottom, pulled by its highpercentage of utilized flakes, with assemblages inwhich block cores are frequent and flake points havea modest significance: Area 3 in particular and Area2A to a lesser extent. Thus, the subareas are distin-guished mainly in terms of lithic reduction and expe-dient tool variables. The more form-invested toolclasses do not occur in high enough frequencies todraw reliable inferences about intra-site patterning.

Tool Raw Materials

Table 39 provides a percentage comparison of toolraw material frequencies between the subareas.Quartz tools occur in similar percentages across theArea 2 subareas while Area 3 has a slightly higherproportion. Ramah chert is also fairly even acrossthe Area 2 subareas, but is slightly less frequent atArea 3. Mugford and black cherts occur in relativelylow percentages over most of Area 2, with the excep-tion of Area 2B, which has a high proportion of blackchert. Area 3 is notable for containing only a singletool of Mugford chert. Slate varies slightly, with sim-ilar proportions in Areas 2A and 2C, a higher propor-tion in Area 3 and lower percentage in Area 28.Schist is most frequent at Area 2C. Thus, the differ-ences between the subareas are fairly minor.

NUKASUSUTOK-5: INTER-AREA COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Table 38. Inter-Area Percentage Comparison of Tool Classes.

PT

Bl

PR FP

SC

UF

SP

CA

SB

ST

BC

CO

TM

OTH

TOTAL

2A

3.8

4.7

1.8 2.9

6.5

28.4

1.2

0.9

3.5

1 5.0

16.7

10.9

2.1

1.8

341

2B

2.4

2.4

2.4

7.2

50.0

14.3

14.3

4.8

2.4

42

2C

1.0

5.2

2.1

2.1

32.0

3.1

1.0

22.7

2.1

20.6

7.2

1.0

97

3

4.5

1.5 4.5

3.0

19.4

1.5

1.5

22.4

7.5

31.4

3.0

67

PT: points (bifacial), Bl: bifaces, PR: preforms (biface), FP: flake points, SC: scrapers (endscrapers andflake knives), UF: utilized flakes, SP: slate points, CA: celt/adze, SB: slate blanks (unmodified plates andblanks), ST: slate tool fragments (ground slate flakes and unidentified tool fragments), BC: bipolarcores, CO: block cores (quartz), TM: tool manufacturing (hammerstones, schist tablets, whetstones),and OTH: other (stemmed flakes, linear flakes, graver).

Table 39. Inter-Area Percentage Comparison of Tool Raw Materials.

Area 2A

Area 2B

Area 2C

Area 3

Quartz

23.5

21.4

23.5

32.8

Ramah chert

46.3

47.6

38.8

35.8

Mugford chert

2.3

2.4

1.5

Black chert

5.3

9.5

2

Slate

20.5

16.7

24.5

26.9

Schist

1.5

8.2

3.0

Other

0.6

2.4

3.1

Total

341

42

98

67

Flake Raw Materials

The next comparison is flake raw material percent-ages, as summarized in Table 40 and visualized in astacked column graph (Figure 118). There are mod-erate differences in the proportions of quartz andRamah chert between the Area 2 subareas, butquartz almost totally dominates at Area 3, associat-ed with a high frequency of block cores. Areas 2Band 2C have more patinated (thermally altered)Ramah chert. Area 28 has a high percentage of blackchert, while Area 3 has little slate and entirely lacksMugford and black chert.

Technological Organization

Organizational studies of lithic technology in"Americanist" archaeology have treated lithic pro-curement and use as embedded within a regionalsettlement system (e.g., Andrefsky 1998:189ff.;Bamforth 1991; Binford 1979; Nelson 1991; Odell1996; Parry and Kelly 1987). Although a regionalscale of analysis is impossible here, given theabsence of detailed information on other MaritimeArchaic lithic assemblages, the discussion is con-ducted with this broad scale in mind. Anotherperspective connects social agency theory with

178

CHAPTER 9

Table 40. Inter-Area Percentage Comparison of Flake Raw Materials.

Area 2A

Micd £.0

Area 3

Qudrtz

1 d P

Oj.d

rvdiilall Li Ici I

fin 1

fi7 7

rdLlllaLcU rvdillctll

1 7

^ Q

^ fi

n n

Mugford chert

0.7

1.4

0.2

Black chert

0.7

8.8

1.3

Slate

5.4

3.9

2.9

1.5

Total

8248

2330

1809

1828

Nukasusutok-5 Flake Raw Materials

100 %90%80 %70 %60 %50 %40 %30 %20 %10%0%

0 Slate■ Black chert

□ Mugford chertn Paiinafed Ramah chertS Ramah chert

□ Quartz

Area 2A Area 2B Area 2CSubarea

Area 3

/ 18/ Stacked column graph of Nukasusutok-S flake raw materials by subarea

Leroi-Courhan's concept of chame operatoire tofocus on technology as sequences of choices struc-tured by cultural schemas (e.g., Chilton 1999;Dobres 2000; Gamble 1999; Karlin and Julien 1994;Perles 1992; Schlanger 1994; Stark 1998). Thisapproach is used implicitly here at the site-specificlevel, with an assumption of linkages to the regionalscale through the settlement system. Chapters 6-7deployed certain organizational concepts as part ofthe descriptive framework for the spatial analysis, sothe subareas will now be compared more explicitlyfrom this perspective. Each lithic raw material is

treated separately since theyare used in different kinds ofreduction systems.

Quartz

Quartz is ubiquitous inEarly/Middle Maritime Archaicassemblages in central andnorthern Labrador, but largelygoes out of use after 4500 B.P..It is widely dispersed as veins inthe Precambrian bedrock,including two outcrops identi-fied on Nukasusutok Island, oneon a hill north of Nukasusutok-5. Archaeologically, quartzoccurs primarily in the form of unmodified or minimal-ly retouched flakes, block cores and bipolar cores, butit was also used occasionally for crude projectilepoints. The quartz reduction system began with thecollection of small quartz blocks, either tabular piecesderived from the bedrock or water-rolled pebbles frombeach deposits; both are in evidence at Nukasusutok-5. The spatial analysis of Area 2A suggested that un-or minimally modified blocks were cached in the mid-dle area between the two behavioral modules, whilemost reduction occurred within the modules.Reduction was accomplished by both freehand and

NUKASUSUTOK-5: INTER-AREA COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS

Table 41. Variation in Elements of Quartz Technology at Nukasusutok-5.

No. Tools Block Cores Bipolar cores Flakes

Area 2A 80 37 34 2588

Area 28 9 2 5 332

Area 2C 22 1 7 724

Area 3 24 1 8 2 1569

bipolar percussion, but the lacl< of partially retouchedcores intermediate between the minimally modifiedblocks and bipolar cores indicates that reduction pro-ceeded rapidly from a raw block to an exhausted bipo-lar core. The desired product of the reduction processwas flakes, since very few visibly retouched imple-ments are found. A wide variety of these flakes couldhave been used expediently for simple cutting/scrap-ing functions or specific size/shape variants mighthave been selected for hafting, along the lines ofFlenniken's (1981:60-96) discussion of quartz"microliths" hafted in wooden handles being used forprocessing fish. Flakes might also have been selectedfor further bipolar reduction to produce even smallerfragments. At any stage in the reduction process bipo-lar cores could have been recycled for use as scrapers,wedges, etc.

At Nukasusutok-5, quartz reduction characteris-tics vary slightly between the sub-areas. Table 41 com-pares aspects of quartz technology at each subarea,with the exception of the small assemblage from Area1. The subareas at Area 2A are combined, so some ofthe spatial variation is masked. For all subareas, blockand bipolar cores constitute ca. 80% or more of thequartz items classed as tools. Thus, as already notedabove for Area 2A, quartz was rarely used to producerecognizable retouched implements; the primary goalwas flake production, although the cores could havebeen put to secondary uses. Areas 2A and 2B have rel-atively high proportions of bipolar cores relative toblock cores and total tools, while Area 3 has few bipo-lar cores and Area 2C none. While these observationsmay be affected by incomplete excavation at Areas 2B

and 2C, there is at least a hint that bipolar reductionwas less significant at Areas 2C and 3.

If bipolar reduction was less prominent at Areas2C and 3, these subareas might also exhibit quartzflake size distributions with a better representation oflarger sizes than the other subareas since bipolarreduction could lead to more thorough reduction ofquartz than the freehand percussion technique. Theline graphs of quartz flake size distributions (Figure1 1 9) do not provide much support for this. Area 3 hasthe lowest percentage of material in the <10 to <20mm categories (i.e., fewer small flakes) and a slightlyhigher percentage in the 35-40 mm category. Area 2Chas the highest percentage of material in the 1 0-1 5mmcategory (small flakes) and a slightly elevated percent-age in the 25-30mm category. Area 2A, which haslarge numbers of bipolar cores, has the lowest percent-age of flakes in the smallest <1 0mm category, but thehighest in the 15-20 mm and 20-25 mm categories.Thus, by themselves, the quartz flake size distribu-tions are not very clear indicators of differences inreduction patterns. More detailed analysis of quartzfracture patterns (cf., Callahan et al. 1992; Knutsson1998) is necessary to fill out this picture.

Ramah Chert

Ramah chert was derived from its bedrock sources 300km to the north in the Ramah Bay region (Gramly 1 978;Lazenby 1980). The material could be quarried direct-ly from the bedrock or easily picked up as large blocksor plates in stream beds or from loose talus slopes.These blocks were processed at or near the sourcesinto biface blanks of varying sizes, which were then

180

CHAPTER 9

transported south. The blankswere modified as needed bybifacial reduction into therequired tool form.

Consequently, Ramah chertdebitage in the Nain region con-sists mostly of biface-thinningand other secondary retouchflakes, with little trace of pri-mary reduction flakes bearingcortex. "Stage 1" quarry blanksseem to be rare in the Nain area,but smaller bifacial point pre-forms are frequent. Ramahchert was used primarily forprojectile points throughout thetime span of the MaritimeArchaic, although flakes frombiface reduction were selectedfor use as expedient tools (uti-lized flakes, flake knives, flakepoints). In contrast to Dorset,the Maritime Archaic almostnever used Ramah chert forendscrapers. In sum, this is aclassic example of a curatedbiface technology (cf., Kelly1988; Parry and Kelly 1987).

Table 42 compares ele-ments of Ramah chert technolo-gy between the subareas. Area3 stands out for its generalpaucity of Ramah chert, yet italso has: a) a relatively high pro-portion of tools to flakes, and b)a high proportion of largebiface-thinning flakes (BTFs),perhaps linked to the presenceof possible quarry blank frag-ments among the bifaces.These variations may be minor.

Quartz flake size distribution

35,0 -1

<10 <20 <30 <40 <50 <60 <70 <80 <90 <1005 mm classes

/ / 9/ Quartz flake size distribution at Nukasusutok-5.

Ramah chert flake size distribution

45,0 T

<10 <20 <30 <40 <50 <60 <70 <805 mm classes

i 20/ Ramah chert flake size distribution at Nukasusutok-5.

Fine-grained chert flake size distribution

<10 <15 <20 <25 <30 <35 <40 <45 <505 mm classes

121/ Fine-grained chert flake size distribution at Nukasusutok-5.

NUKASUSUTOK 5 INTER-AREA COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS

181

Table 42. Variation in Elements of Ramah Chert Technology at Nukasusutok-5.

Tools

BifacialPoints

Bifaces

Preforms

RetouchedFlakes*

Utilizedflakes

BipolarCores

BTFs(N/large)

Flakes

Area 2A

1 58

12

1 5

6

1 7

88

19

637/88

4957

Area 2B

20

1

2

1 5

1

149/8

1669

Area 2C

41

1

5

2

1

25

2

114/14

1006

Area 3

23

1

2

4

13

3

17/10

238

'includes flake points, flake knives and stemmed flakes

Table 43. Variation in Elements of Fine-Crained Chert Technology at Nukasusutok-5.

Tools Endscrapers Util./ret. flakes Bipolar Cores Flakes

Area 2A 26 16 5 4 122

Area 2B 5 1 4 237

Area 2C 2 1 1 19

Area 3 1 1

but they parallel other behavioral differences linked tothe presence of the red ocher features. Otherwise, thelarge number of BTFs at Area 2A is clearly associatedwith the substantial numbers of bifacial points, bifacefragments and preforms. The bifacial tool componentvaries from highs of 21 % and 1 9.5% at Areas 2A and2C, respectively, to lows of 1 3% and 5% at Areas 3 and2B, respectively. The proportion of expedient tools(retouched and utilized flakes) is high in all the assem-blages, ranging from 63% to 85% of all Ramah chertimplements. It is notable that Ramah chert occasional-ly was subjected to bipolar reduction, but this was asecondary technique implemented on broken tools orflakes produced by direct percussion. It is unclearwhether the purpose was production of small flakes tomaximize the use-life of the material or a specific func-tion such as wedging/splitting.

Figure 120 charts the size distribution of Ramahchert flakes at the four subareas. The distributionshave generally similar profiles except for the smallest

<10 mm flake size category. For the latter. Areas 3and 2A have relatively low percentages (17.2% and24.4%, respectively) while Areas 2C and 2B have high-er percentages (39.2% and 36.6%, respectively). Allareas were screened with the same mesh size, but thedifferences could indicate some kind of collection biassince the low-percentage areas were both excavatedin 1979 and the high percentage areas in 1992-93.Reviewing the results for quartz (Figure 1 1 9), the Area2A excavation from 1 979 also exhibits a slightly lowerpercentage in the smallest size class than the othersubareas, which might support the case for collectionbias. Looking more closely at the line graph, Areas 2Band 2C have almost identical profiles from the 1 5-20mm class onwards. Area 3, however, has a consistent-ly higher representation of the larger flake sizes from1 5-20 mm onwards, while Area 2A is intermediate. Ifwe hypothetically assign a slightly larger number offlakes to the smallest size class to compensate for col-lection bias it is likely that Area 3 would still have a

182

CHAPTER 9

relatively low percentage in the smallest size class andthe overall profile would remain similar. Although thedifference may, therefore, be "real," the small samplesize from Area 3 (238 flakes) should also be takeninto account.

Fine-Grained Chert

The term fine-grained chert refers to both Mugfordcherts of varied colour (gray, green, beige, patinated)as well as black chert, some of which was derived fromthe Mugford sources (Cramly 1978; Lazenby 1980),some of which might have been from sources in SagiekBay (Chapter 2). These cherts occur as thin tablets thatare transportable without the systematic preliminaryreduction used for Ramah chert. Nonetheless, not asingle core of the material occurs at Nukasusutok-S.Fine-grained cherts were used almost exclusively forthe production of small endscrapers, although onebiface fragment is present in the Nukasusutok-5 col-lection. A few utilized flakes and bipolar cores are alsopresent. As noted in the comparison of flake and toolraw materials (Tables 39, 40), fine-grained chertsoccur in rather low percentages. The low frequency ofthese items is underlined in Table 43, which combinesthe Mugford and black cherts. Only Area 2A has a sub-stantial number of tools, while Area 2B has twice asmany flakes but substantially fewer tools. This mightbe interpreted as a high rate of tool discard at Area 2A,contrasted with more production or retouch at Area 28combined with less discard, or curation of finishedproducts to other localities. The almost completeabsence of fine-grained cherts at Area 3 reinforces theimpression that this subarea differs from the others infunction, meaning and chronology. It should beemphasized, however, that low overall frequency offine-grained chert need not signify minor cultural ororganizational significance. Considerable effort wasexpended to acquire a material that was used mostlyfor a single purpose: endscrapers.

Figure 121 shows the size distribution for fine-grained chert flakes at Area 2. Again, the portion exca-

vated in 1979 (Area 2A) has a lower percentage ofmaterial in the smallest size class. Areas 2A and 28parallel each other closely, while Area 2A exhibits aslight peak in the 20-25 mm size class. Overall, thereis a strong skewing towards small flakes of 10-15 mmor less, which implies emphasis on secondary and ter-tiary retouch rather than any form of core reduction. Insum, the flake size distribution, the small size of thefinished tools (endscrapers) and the lack of cores sug-gest that fine-grained cherts were curated as finishedtools or flake preforms.

Slate

The most likely source for the slates is the CapeMugford region. Several colour and texture variantswere used. In contrast to the fine-grained cherts, itappears that raw plates of slate were often transport-ed "as is" from the sources then reduced as needed.This is suggested by the presence of several minimal-ly worked plates in the Nukasusutok material. Theseraw materials were then roughed into blanks and pre-forms by direct percussion. The latter were thenground into finished tools, possibly with schist tablets.

Table 44 outlines elements of the slate technolo-gy system at Nukasusutok-5. Area 2A was the obviouscenter for slate reduction. A considerable number ofraw slate plates and tool blanks were present, eithercached as raw materials or discarded during the man-ufacturing process. The frequency of ground slateflakes, in some cases clearly edge-rejuvenation flakes,attests to the reworking of finished or partly finishedtools. Attempts to refit these flakes to the tools foundin the subarea were unsuccessful, suggesting the"cores' were removed from the site. Combined with thelow frequency of finished tools, this could imply main-tenance of curated implements. Areas 2C and 3 exhib-ited only modest indications of tool production andmaintenance while Area 28 had the fewest indicatorsof slate reduction. The flake size distribution for slateis portrayed in Figure 122. The line graph profiles areextremely variable, most likely an expression of ran-

NUKASUSUTOK 5: INTER-AREA COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS

183

Slate flake size distribution

<30 <40

5 mm classes

122/ Slate flake size distribution at Nukasusutok-5.

dom variations in small samples rather than meaning-ful patterning.

the social composition of thegroups. But the differencescould also be the result of "fall-out" from activities positionedat different points on the pro-curement and reduction cycle;that is, a consequence of rawmaterial availability and contin-gent organizational constraintsrather than a direct reflection ofsite-function requirements orsocial variables. Sorting outthese alternatives requires situ-ating Nukasusutok-5 within theregional and supra-regional contexts of MaritimeArchaic settlement and procurement systems.

SUMMARY

The Maritime Archaic inhabitants of Nukasusutok-5organized their lithic technology into two primary sys-tems: a) a highly expedient component using an abun-dant local raw material (quartz), and b) a highly curat-ed component involving non-local materials. The latterconsisted of different reduction systems for each ofthe materials involved. The Ramah chert systeminvolved the transport of large bifaces that were: a)reduced along a core-tool trajectory to produce "highperformance" form-invested tools (points, bifaces),while b) debitage from core reduction was employedfor expedient tools (utilized flakes etc.). Fine-grainedcherts were transported as small tablets, flakes or fin-ished tools, with a strong focus on a specific imple-ment— endscrapers— and little expedient flake use.Slate was transported as raw plates, blanks and fin-ished tools; production and maintenance involved atime-consuming grinding process after initial reduc-tion. The subareas at Nukasusutok-5 differ slightly inthe emphasis placed on these organizational systems.These differences may signal choices made inresponse to site-function considerations or variation in

CONCLUSIONS

Nukasusutok-5 is one of the few Early/Middle MaritimeArchaic sites that has been excavated sufficiently toprovide a reasonably representative sample for under-standing spatial patterning and assemblage composi-tion. As such, it is difficult to place the site in a broad-er systemic context because there are insufficient com-parable assemblages to work with. By way of conclu-sion, a number of points that could be pursued infuture research are discussed.

In the last major synthesis of northern MaritimeArchaic culture-history, Fitzhugh (1978:72) groupedmost of the Early/Middle Maritime Archaic sites in theNain region into the "Naksak Complex," although herecognized that this entity was problematic:

Many of these sites are deflated or partlyeroded, with artifacts found on the surfaceand in buried deposits. Local topographicconditions rendered some sites useful forlong periods, while others were occupiedbriefly. Until these factors can be analyzed itseems better to acknowledge the probable

184

CHAPTER 9

Table 44. Variation in Elements of Slate Technology at Nukasusutok-5.

Tools'^

Ground flakes/fragments

Plates/blanks

Schist

Flakes

Area 2A

7

51

1 1

5

443

Area 2B

6

92

Area 2C

3

24

1

6

52

Area 3

2

1 3

1

3

20

■ Points,

celts/adzes

"lumped" nature of this complex (Fitzhugh1978:72).

Fitzhugh goes on to refer to "considerable typo-logical variation" at some sites, particularly those situ-ated in topographical locations that could be used overlong periods of time, and he mentions sites of differ-ent character and dating that may form the basis fordefining additional archaeological complexes, such asthe Nukasusutok and Gull Arm Croups (Fitzhugh1 978:72-77). This sense of barely ordered variability isunderstandable since the data base was derived most-ly from surface surveys and small test excavations, andradiocarbon dates were scarce. But ordering that vari-ability will be difficult without a better understandingof individual site structure.

Nukasustok-5 illustrates some of these problems.It is located in a protected harbour on a prominenttombolo beach that was a magnet for settlement from6000 B.P. to 4500 B.P. and perhaps later. Area 2revealed three or four occupation components repre-senting at least two chronological phases (ca. 6000B.P. and 5500 B.P.). Components of these two phasesoverlapped slightly at the junction of Areas 2A and 2B.Within Area 2A two behavioral modules that might rep-resent dwelling features were identified. The moduleswere similar in spatial organization but varied some-what in tool and flake raw material contents. Area 2Cmight have contained a similar dwelling module. Area2B exhibited a different behavioral pattern consistingof a central pit-hearth complex ringed by deposits of

fire-cracked rock. This pattern was interpreted aseither an outdoor feature with a concentric drop-tosszone or a dwelling module with fire-cracked rock dis-carded outside along a tent wall. The Area 2 subareasdisplayed slight differences in their frequencies of tooltypes and lithic raw materials and in their technologi-cal organization, but the chronological distinctionssuggested by the radiocarbon dates were not paral-lelled by clear differences in tool typology. The proba-bly later occupation at Area 3 (5000 B.P.) was not somuch typologically different as it was behaviorally dis-tinct from the Area 2 occupations.

At the intra-site level of analysis, theNukasusutok-5 material underlines: a) the importanceof excavating and analysing entire behavioral units soas to provide a meaningful baseline for comparison,and b) the need to acquire several such samples fromlarge, complex and chronologically diverse sites inorder to understand both their chronological positionand their role in the regional settlement system. At theinter-site level, the variability uncovered in theNukasusutok-5 material raises problems as to what isan adequate unit of inter-assemblage comparison. Thesubareas cannot simply be lumped together and com-pared with some other composite of assemblages orwith more discrete assemblages. To be meaningful,comparisons and culture-historical integration must bebased on behaviorally distinct assemblages, such asthe possible dwelling modules at Area 2A.

Another implication of the present analysis isthat comparisons based on traditional tool typology

NUKASUSUTOK-5: INTER-AREA COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS

185

may be of limited value for understanding settlementsystems and social process. It may be more useful toinvestigate other dimensions of variation such as pat-terning in different lithic reduction systems, as dis-cussed in this chapter. The intra-site analysis ofNukasusutok-5 suggests that assemblages could bescaled in relation to which components of lithicreduction systems are present or absent and in rela-tion to the articulation between expedient and more"organized" components of the technologies.Unfortunately, such analyses cannot be undertakenuntil such a time as a sufficient number of appropri-ate assemblages become available.

The analysis of Nukasusutok-5 also contributes tothe empirical and methodological aspects of MaritimeArchaic dwelling structure studies. At Area 2A it waspossible to identify two behavioral modules thatmight be dwelling remains. Two alternative interpreta-tions were suggested: (1) each module represents asmall tent structure of 4 by 3 m in size; the spatialorganization of activities at each structure was highlysymmetrical and the dwellings had a common orienta-tion to a large central rock, and (2) each module wasa component of a larger rectangular segmented struc-ture of 4 by 6-1- m in size; although the spatial organ-ization of the modules was highly symmetrical themodules were integrated into the rectangular struc-tures in slightly different ways. Both interpretationswere problematic, however, since the multiple hearthfeatures could indicate re-occupation events ratherthan discrete dwellings. Consequently, although the"longhouse model" provided a framework for identify-ing spatial patterning, the meaning of that patterningremained ambiguous. More detailed investigations ofEarly/Middle Maritime Archaic sites will be necessaryto clarify how the Area 2A patterns fit into the rangeof variation in Maritime Archaic site structure.

The methodological strategy outlined in Chapter3 involved playing off a model-based analysis versusmodel-independent pattern recognition techniques.

The model-based analysis focused on hearth-centereddistributions that could be viewed within the segmen-tal or modular framework of the longhouse model.Qualitative visual analysis of flake distributionsproved to be the crucial element in identifying behav-ioral modules. Other lines of evidence were thenexplored within this postulated modular framework,largely through the use of simple cross-tabulationtechniques. K-means cluster analysis was used as amodel-independent exploratory technique to identifytool groupings by physical proximity rather than bysorting them into preconceived behavioral modules.This proved useful for mapping hearth-centered distri-butions at the micro-level and for pointing to possiblevariations in the lithic materials associated with eachfeature, but the sample sizes in each cluster were toosmall to have much statistical significance. The clus-ter analysis could not provide a basis for combininghearth-centered distributions into larger behavioralunits; ultimately, this had to be accomplished by qual-itative means and within model assumptions. A differ-ent model-independent technique, correspondenceanalysis, was used to explore patterning in flake rawmaterials at Area 2A. The results were consistent withthe model-based analysis.

Overall, the analysis showed that relatively sim-ple qualitative and quantitative methods are capableof detecting meaningful patterning at MaritimeArchaic sites lacking in traces of architecture thatwould facilitate the definition of analytical units. Butthis patterning would have been difficult to identifyif the flake distributions had not been plotted sys-tematically in the field. Consequently, future analy-ses of Maritime Archaic (and other) sites shouldpoint plot debitage distributions so as not to misspatterns that would be indistinct in quadrat sum-maries. Spatial data should be as high resolution aspossible, otherwise it may be difficult to identifybehavioral modules such as those that were crucialto the present analysis.

186

CHAPTER 9

Edward Flowers and Sam Saimat looking for basking seals on the sea ice near Dog Island, April 1994.

NUKASUSUTOK-5: INTER-AREA COMPARISONS AND CONCLUSIONS

187

123/ Nukasusutok-l2: overview towards the southwest.

CHAPTER 10

Nukasusutolc-lZ: Earlt)/Middle Dorset Axial Structures

6

Nukasusutok-12 (HcCh-14) was discovered during a1979 survey when a well preserved axial structure(Structure-1) was observed almost completely exposedin a blow-out. The few tools noted on the surface indi-cated a Dorset affiliation, but the feature bore a strik-ing resemblance to Pre-Dorset axial structures and itseemed to differ from Middle and Late Dorset tent ringstructures recorded in northern Labrador by theTorngat Archaeological Project (e.g., R. Jordan1980:611). An Early Dorset affiliation was suspected,so the site was investigated further in 1980. It wasrevisited briefly in 1992.

The site is situated at the head of a shallow bighton the south side of Nukasusutok Island, west of WyattHarbour (Figure 1 6). It lies at an elevation of 5.5-7.5 masl. at the western end of a narrow east-west trendingpass between steep rocky hills. At the time of occupa-tion, higher sea level would have resulted in a well-pro-tected cove extending considerably further inland thanat present, providing an excellent location for boatlandings. Lithic material occurs sporadically over anarea of roughly 1500 m^, at least half of which iswholly or partially deflated, the rest is covered withlichen and crowberry. Two axial features (Structures 1and 2) were clearly visible near the middle of thebeach, while traces of a third (Structure 3) lay towards

the southern side of the pass, and a fourth (Structure4) was identified in a test pit on the northern edge ofthe pass beside a rock-fall (Figures 123 and 124).Three test pits (TP 1-3) in a small area on the southside of the pass revealed a rich tool deposit, but notrace of structural remains. It is possible that addition-al structures are present at the site, deeply embeddedin the gravel. Most of the site is underlain by aeoliansands and gravel, but two large clay boils are locatedon a low ridge in the center of the main deflated areanear Structure 2. The three test pits (TP 1-3) on thesouth side of the pass exposed a thick basal claymixed with small cobbles.

The 1980 fieldwork consisted of the completeexcavation of two axial features (Structures 1 and 2)and the excavation of seven test pits, two of whichrevealed the presence of additional structures. The twoexcavated structures will be presented first, followedby the test units.

STRUCTURE 1

Structure 1 was the lowest feature identified at thesite, located at ca. 6.5 m asl. in the middle of the beachpass. When discovered in 1 979 the feature was almostcompletely exposed in a sand-gravel blow-out. A totalof 23.25 m^ was excavated to expose entirely the

^Nukasusutok-1 2 was described previously in Hood (1 986). This chapter is based on the earlier report, but the material hasbeen reworked, supplemented with tool descriptions and reinterpreted. It should be regarded as the "authoritative" account.

NUKASUSUTOK-1 2 EARLY/MIDDLE DORSET AXIAL STRUCTURES

189

oQo-^ .

rock fall OVO^O

1

124/Nukasusutokl 2 sitemap.

Structural components and recover any buried lithics.The structure consisted of a ca. 6 m long axial featurealigned NNW-SSE, running obliquely to the beach front(Figures 1 25 and 1 26). Excavation at the southern endof the structure required the removal of 25 cm of lam-inated aeolian sand and thin humus horizons toexpose a 2 cm thick black humus zone that appearedto correspond with the floor level of the feature. Thishumus level was limited to the outer periphery of theexcavation, mostly outside what were interpreted astent anchor rocks. Consequently, the structure tookthe appearance of an axial feature bisecting a 3.5-4.0m wide sub-rectangular patch of gravel. Although it ispossible this gravel patch is a partial consequence ofdeflation, its orientation relative to the feature sug-gests a thin sod layer may have been removed to pro-vide a gravel floor for the dwelling or that it was tram-pled away during the occupation.

The axial feature was 5.0 m long and 0.75-l.Omwide. It was constructed of parallel rows of thick flat-topped rocks embedded in the gravel end-to-endlengthwise, but was disturbed at its northern end.Several rocks on the eastern edge of the feature wereslightly displaced to the west and on the western edge

some of the axial rocks were missing. At both ends ofthe feature were high large rocks, morphologicallyunlike those composing the feature itself. These end-rocks lay perpendicular to the feature's long axis andformed the feature terminus, although they wereplaced slightly back from the feature and did not forma continuous alignment with it. There were no trans-verse partitions or paving stones inside the axial bor-der rocks, but at each end of the feature were theremains of hearths. Just south of the feature's centerlay two thin flat slabs, one of schist. Both slabs werenotched on one longitudinal edge and modified to beflat on the other edge. These were presumably soap-stone vessel support rocks. To the north of the fea-ture's center were a broken, blubber-stained, fire-cracked rock and a thin slate slab with a battered andnotched edge, probably the remains of additional ves-sel support rocks.

The only tools associated with the structure werethe proximal portions of two Ramah chert microblades(W= 1 2.4, 1 2.4 mm, TH= 4.5, 2.8). One of these wassurface collected from near the terminus rocks at thenorth end of the feature, the other was excavated fromwithin the black humus zone at the southern boundary

190

CHAPTER 10

1x6y

5x6y

1x1y

o

(7

5x0y

Gravel floor edgeBurned fat-stained rockSchist slabF Flat rockN Notched rock• Microblade

of the excavation. The latterspecimen may not be associat-ed with Structure 1 since sever-al rocks at the humus zone levelof this end of the excavationmay be part of another buriedfeature. No flakes were found inStructure 1.

125/Nukasusutok-l2: Structure 1.

126/ Nukasusutok-12: Structure 1, view towards the south.

NUKASUSUTOK 1 2 EARLY/MIDDLE DORSET AXIAL STRUCTURES

191

]27/ Nukasusbttok-l 2 Structure 2.

STRUCTURE 2

Structure 2 (Figure 127 and128) was located near the cen-ter of the beach, about 28 meast of Structure 1 and adjacentto the large clay boils. Its eleva-tion was no more than a meterabove Structure 1 and it was ori-ented at an oblique angle to thebeach front, running NE-SW.The structure consisted of anaxial feature 4.0 m long and ca.0.7 m wide, constructed of thickflat slabs embedded in the sur-face gravel end-to-end length-wise. The feature boundaryrocks were displaced at the cen-ter of the alignment for a distance of 1.5 m and thescatter of rocks at both ends of the feature indicated agreater degree of disturbance than at Structure 1. Thesouthern end of the feature was bounded by two highlarge terminus rocks, structurally continuous with thefeature, but the northern terminus was indistinct.

The axial feature contained at least two and pos-sibly three hearth areas, one at each end of the align-ment and perhaps another in the middle. At the south-ern end of the feature two thin, flat, notched and blub-ber-encrusted schist slabs lay fallen between the fea-ture boundary rocks near a concentration of crumbledschist fragments. A third notched and burned fat-encrusted schist slab was wedged vertically against awestern boundary rock. These notched slabs wereprobably used as soapstone vessel supports and frag-ments of a near-complete soapstone vessel were foundnearby. Several small horizontally placed flat slabsinside the feature may be the remnants of a floor pave-ment. At the northern end of the alignment were a pairof fallen notched and burned fat- encrusted schistslabs that lay near a concentration of crumbled schistfragments and a soapstone vessel sherd. Several hori-zontal flat slabs, one of which was levelled with a shim

10x10y

12K8y

^ Axial passage border rock

Burned fat-stained rockCD Schist slabF Flat rockN Notched rock

rock, may be the remains of an internal floor pave-ment. In the disturbed center of the feature were threeblubber-encrusted rocks, a stray notched schist slaband a soapstone vessel sherd. These may be theremains of a third hearth, but considering the degreeof disturbance they could have been thrown there fromthe other hearth areas.

The overall dimensions of the structure were diffi-cult to determine given the absence of obvious perime-ter anchor rocks and the lack of axial terminus rocksat the north end of the passage. But judging from theartifact distribution and the position of possibleperimeter rocks the structure may have been aboutfive meters long and four meters wide.

Spatial Patterning

Unlike lithic sterile Structure 1, Structure 2 contained74 tools. The original spatial analysis of the distribu-tion patterns (Hood 1986) was complicated by artifactprovenience problems related to missing records.During re-analysis only 53 of the 74 tools could bepoint-plotted with certainty; most of the missing itemsare microblades. Additionally, some of the point-plot-ted microblades could not be related back to specific

192

CHAPTER 10

128/ Nukasusutok-12: Structure 2, view towards the southwest.

catalogued implements, which made it difficult to dis-tinguish reliably between utilized and unutilizedmicroblades. Although the missing information couldskew the analysis somewhat, it is necessary to workwith what is at hand. A nephrite flake and a slate flake

7x1 Oy

J L.

lOxlOy

129/ Nukasusutok-12: Structure 2 tool distribution and k-means cluster analysis

were also included in the analysis, bringing the num-bers to 76 total, and 55 plotted items.

The point-plot of tools (Figure 129) indicatesthat most were concentrated within a 1-1.5 m dis-tance of the axial feature. Following the bilateral

organization model, a simple

cross-tabulation analysis waspresented in the original sitedescription (Hood 1986:64),dividing the proveniencedtools into spatial units associ-ated with the feature or lyingto the east or west of it. Arevised version of this table ispresented in Table 45. Most ofthe tools are located close tothe feature or on its easternflank. There is little clear pat-terning in tool class distribu-tions besides the limitation of

♦ Biface

A Endblade

0 Endblade preform

• Microblade

* Nephrite flake

B Side-nolched biface

■ Slate bitace

• Slate flal>e

^ Soapstone vessel sfierd

f& Tip-fluting spall

+ Utilized nake

NUKASUSUTOK-1 2: EARLY/MIDDLE DORSET AXIAL STRUCTURES

193

Table 45. Nukasusutok-12: Structure 2 Tool Classes in Relation to the Bilateral Axial Feature Model.

iviia

tdSl

west

Prov. N (%)

No Prov.

TOTAL N (%)

Triangular endblades

z

")

Z

4

(7 3^

4

Endblade preforms

3

(5.5)

3

(3.9)

Side-notched bifaces

11

1

(1.8)

1

(1.3)

Slate bifaces

11

1

(1.8)

1

(1.3)

Ramah chert bifaces

1

1

(1.8)

/I

5

(6.6)

Tip-fluting spalls

11

-)

c

3

(5.5)

D

6

(7.9)

M icroblades

1 3

1 7

D

36 (65.5)

1 D1 D

49 (64.5)

utiiizeo TiaKes

11

1

(1.8)

1

2

(2.6)

Slate flakes

1

1

(1.8)

1

(1.3)

Nephrite flakes

1

1

(1.8)

1

(1.3)

Soapstone vessels

3

3

(5.5)

3

(3.9)

TOTAL

22

24

9

55

21

76

Table 46. Nukasusutok-12: Structure 2 Tool Classes by Front/Back Divisions.

Front

Back

Middle

TOTAL N (%)

Triangular endblades

4

4

(7.3)

Endblade preforms

3

3

(5.5)

Side-notched bifaces

1

1

(1.8)

Slate bifaces

1

1

(1.8)

Ramah chert bifaces

1

1

(1.8)

Tip-fluting spalls

1

2

3

(5.5)

Microblades

20

16

36

(65.5)

Utilized flakes

1

1

(1.8)

Slate flakes

1

1

(1.8)

Nephrite flakes

1

1

(1.8)

Soapstone vessels

2

1

3

(5.5)

TOTAL

31

23

1

55

endblade preforms to the eastern flank and soap-stone vessels to the axial feature. A division betweenfront (north), back (south) and middle subareas inTable 46 indicates that the only clear difference isthe presence of all endblades and endblade preformsin the front subarea. In neither case are there indica-tions of gender-based activity variation.

/(-means cluster analysis was used for a modelindependent analysis of the point plotted tools; a fivecluster solution seemed most reasonable (Figure129). Two of the clusters (1 and 3) have centroidsclosely associated with the hearths at opposite endsof the axial feature in what might be termed hearth-tending positions. Cluster 2 lies slightly back from

194

CHAPTER 1 0

Table 47. Nukasusutok-1 2: Structure 2 Tool Classes by K-Means Cluster.

C-1

C-2

C-3

C-4

C 5

TOTAL

Endblades

3

1

4

Endblade preforms

2

1

3

Side-notched bifaces 1 1

Ramah chert bifaces 1 1

Slate Bifaces

1

1

Tip-fluting spalls

1

2

3

Microblades

7

12

4

8

5

36

Utilized flakes 1 1

Slate flakes 1 1

Nephrite flakes 1 1

Soapstone vessels

1

1

1

3

TOTAL

14

1 5

8

10

8

55

7x10y

lOxlOy

5x9y

Sx4y

RCW8_

S=1

0

GM= 2

RC= 3

RC= 18CR= 1

_ o

RC=4Q= 1N= 1

^0

12x8y

CR Crystal quartz

GM Green Mugford chert

N Nephrite

O Quartz

RC Ramah chert

S Slate

9x4y

130/ Nukasusutok-12: Structure 2 flake distribution.

the northernmost hearth, but seems positioned inrelation to that feature. Clusters 3 and 4 lie in similarpositions on opposite sides of the middle of the axialfeature where there was uncertain evidence for athird hearth. Each of these clusters is located equidis-tant from, and thus equally accessible to, the hearths

at the ends of the axial align-ment. From a different per-spective, clusters 3 and 4 couldbe arm's length discard areasassociated with the hearth-tending positions at each endof the axial alignment. Overall,there is a hint of behavioralsymmetry at the two hearths.

The tool associations foreach cluster are compared inTable 47. Given the low fre-quencies in each cell the distri-bution is difficult to evaluate,but there is a slight over-repre-sentation of microblades incluster 2, adjacent to the north-ern hearth. Inspection of individual tool type distribu-tions provides little to supplement the foregoingobservations other than revealing a tendency for end-blades and endblade preforms to be located towardsthe south and tip-fluting spalls towards the north. Inother words, deposition of the preforms and finished

NUKASUSUTOK-1 2 EARLY/IVIIDDLE DORSET AXIAL STRUCTURES

195

tools is not associated witln deposition of the by-prod-ucts of tine manufacturing process. Tlie refits of a tip-fluting spall and a soapstone vessel are spatially prox-imate, providing little information on material move-ments at Structure 2.

In contrast to the relatively large tool assemblage,only 55 flakes were found, almost exclusively smallsecondary retouch flakes of Ramah chert. Their distri-bution by 1 m^ units is displayed in Figure 1 30 (someflakes are missing because of uncertain provenience).The majority of flakes are distributed outside the axialfeature, but within a 1 m distance from it. Their con-centrations correspond well with the clusters identifiedin the tool analysis.

Tool and flake raw materials are outlined by fre-quency in Table 48 and by weight in Table 49. By fre-quency, Ramah chert dominates both tools and flakes.The weight figures for tools are distorted by soap-stone, but if the latter Is excluded then Ramah chertconstitutes 86% of the flaked tool materials. Theweight figures for flakes are misleading; what seems tobe a dominance of quartz is mostly the result of a sin-gle quartz nodule that is heavier than the 48 smallRamah chert flakes. The single flake of white chert isfossiliferous with a carbonate cortex and is not fromthe Newfoundland west coast. It appears to be ofnorthern Quebec or Eastern Arctic origin.

Table 48. Nukasusutok-1 2: Structure 2Tool and Flake Raw Material Frequencies.

Tools N (%)

Flakes N (%)

Ramah chert

65 (87.8)

48 (87.3)

Gray Mugford chert

1 (1.8)

Crystal quartz

5 (6.8)

1 (1.8)

Quartz

2 (3.6)

Slate

1 (1.4)

1 (1.8)

White chert

1 (1.8)

Nephrite

1 (1.8)

Soapstone

3 (4.1)

Table 49. Nukasusutok-12: Structure 2 Tooland Flake Raw Material Weights. In Crams.

Tools g(%)

Flakes g (%>

TOTAL g (%)

Ramah chert

107.9 (23.2)

9.9 (34.1)

117.8 (23.8)

Gray Mugford chert

0.1 (0.3)

0.1 (0.0)

Crystal quartz

2.9 (0.6)

0.03 (0.1)

2.93 (0.6)

Quartz

14.0 (48.2)

14.0 (2.8)

Slate

14.6 (3.1)

0.5 (1.7)

15.1 (3.1)

White chert

n.a.

Nephrite

4.5 (1 5.5)

4.5 (0.9)

Soapstone

340.0 (73.1)

340.0 (68.8)

Tool Assemblage

Endblades All but one of the four Ramah chert end-blades are fragments. The single complete specimen(Figure 131:c) is small (L=19.6 mm, W= 14.2, TH= 2.9)with a very slight basal concavity and tiny tip-flutingspalls (L= 2.5, 3.5 mm) on the dorsal surface. A proxi-mal fragment (Figure 1 31 :d) is only slightly larger, witha straight base (W = 1 7.1 mm, TH = 3.1). The other twospecimens are distal fragments of larger endblades (L= >28, >35 mm). One (Figure 1 31 :e) has two tip-flutingspalls (L = 14.0, 16.0 mm) on its dorsal surface whilethe other broke during removal of the first spall.

Endblade Preforms The three preforms are madeof Ramah chert. One is complete, triangular andstraight-based (Figure 131:a), with fine retouch on itsventral side and large flake scars on its dorsal side(L = 35.5 mm, W = 24.9, TH = 5.5). The blunt tip wasretouched ventrally to form a platform from which twotip-fluting spalls were removed dorsally (L = 1 6.8, 1 9.0mm). The other two preforms are distal fragments.One (Figure 1 31 :b) has a distal platform from which asingle flute was removed down the center of the dor-sal side (L= 26.8 mm), probably a production failure,while the other (Figure 1 31 :f) has a convex distal endwith faint retouch for platform preparation.

Side-notched bifaces: The single example (Figure131:h) is the proximal fragment of a Ramah chertbiface with broad side-notches positioned towards the

196

CHAPTER 10

131 / Nukasusutok-12: implements from Structure 2.a, b, f: endblade preforms: c-e: endblades, g: biface blank;h: side-notched biface: i: ground slate biface: j-o: micro-blades.

medial portion of the tool such that the implementresembles a "box-based" biface. The basal edge is bifa-cially flaked and convex in form. There is slight grind-ing on the base as well as in one of the notches (W=24.7 mm, TH= 5.7, notch HT= 12.0, 14.6, notch L=7.1, 7.5, notch W= 2.2, 2.0).

Slate Bifaces: The distal fragment of a black slatebiface is either the tip of a lance or a large knife (Figure1 31 :i). Each face of the tool has a flat medial surface,but only one face is polished. The lateral edges arebevelled for a width of 6-9 mm on each face, but thereis also fine secondary bevelling ca. 0.7 mm wideextending along the immediate working edge.

Bifaces: All five of the bifaces are made of Ramahchert. One (Figure 131:g) is a complete asymmetricblank (L= 82.0 mm, W= 42.6, TH= 16.4). Two are dis-tal fragments, of which one convex-tipped implementmight be an endblade preform while the other might

be a tip-fluted endblade fragment. The remaining twospecimens are lateral and proximal fragments.

Tip-fluting spalls: All five tip-fluting spalls aremade of Ramah chert and all are primary removalspalls. Three of them could be considered relativelylarge (>25 mm in length). Metrics for the three com-plete specimens: L= 16.4, 27.1, 27.5 mm, W= 15.6,1 1.2, 9.3, TH = 1.3, 3.1, 1.8.

Microblades: The raw materials of the 49 microb-lades (MNI = 24, based on proximal ends) are over-whelmingly Ramah chert (n = 44, 89.8%), with fiveexamples made of crystal quartz (1 0.2%). Retouched orutilized microblades constitute 40.4% of the total. Ofthese, only three items exhibit traces of hafting: onecrystal quartz specimen has bilateral notching (Figure128:o), while another has a constricted stem, and oneRamah chert implement has a bilateral constriction.Two microblades may have been the result of core-trimming. Using only proximal portions and specimensfrom which reliable measurements could be taken(n=l 5), the average width of the Ramah chert microb-lades was 1 2.3 mm. Platform angles were measured tothe nearest 5", resulting in a range from 75-90 (n=23),with a distribution across the four angle classes as fol-lows: 75 = 4 (1 7.4%), 80 = 1 2 (52.2%), 85 = 1 (4.3%),90" = 5 (26.1%). Of the 22 proximal specimens uponwhich platform preparation technique could be identi-fied, 17 (77.3%) had plain platforms, four (18.2%)retouched platforms, and one (4.5%) had a crushedplatform.

The size of microblade fragments may be theresult of random breakage patterns, but in somecases microblades might have been snapped deliber-ately for use in particular tasks. For the Ramah chertspecimens, length measurements of proximal frag-ments (n=22) cluster into two groups, ca. 1116 mmand 21-31 mm, while the medial fragments (n=l 3)exhibit a marked clustering between 14-20 mm. Thedistal fragments are relatively few (n=7) and exhibit awide range of values. These groupings may simplyresult from the mechanics of tool breakage, but they

NUKASUSUTOK 12 EARLY/MIDDLE DORSET AXIAL STRUCTURES

197

seem consistent enough that deliberate action shouldalso be considered.

Utilized flakes: The two examples are both madeof Ramah chert.

Soapstone vessels: Three vessels were identifiedfrom a total of 5 sherds. One vessel is '/< complete(Figure 1 32), shallow (depth= 31.5 mm), with one longside slightly curved and the other markedly bowed outso as to produce an asymmetric form with a lengthover 103 mm and a width ca. 66 mm. Wall thicknessvaries from 2.7 mm at the rim to 7.1 mm near thebase. The rim is flattened with slightly rounded edges.The interior bottom exhibits striations and gougemarks indicative of an attempt to thin the vessel, aprocess that produced a small hole in one corner of thevessel bottom. The vessel weighs 71 g. A second ves-sel (Figure 133:a) is represented by a wall fragmentwith a small rim portion (TH= 3.1-5.7 mm). The thirdspecimen is a wall sherd (TH= 3.3-5.7 mm) from a fair-ly deep vessel (>70 mm) featuring a flattened rim withround edges and an encrustation of burned fat on boththe mner and outer surfaces (Figure 1 33:b).

Discussion

Structure-2 is a double or perhaps triple-hearthaxial feature. The distribution of lithic material androcks indicate the feature was associated with a rela-tively large tent (ca. 5m long by 5-5 m wide). The lith-ic materials were concentrated within 1.0-1.5 m of theaxial feature, suggesting sleeping areas further outtowards the tent walls. Cluster analysis of the toolssuggests a degree of behavioral symmetry in the useof space at each end of the axial feature, with hearth-related activities or deposition, although most of thelithics occur on the west side of the feature. A slightfront/back distinction noted in the clustering of allendblades and endblade preforms at the front (northend) of the axial feature is the only hint of spatial dif-ferentiation by gender, if one invokes the stereotype ofmale association with harpoon technology. This weakinference need not contradict the possibility that the

132/ Nukasusutok-12: soapstone vessel from Structure 2.

133/ Nukasusutok-12: soapstone vessel fragments fromStructure 2.

behavioral symmetry between the hearths, in combina-tion with the assumed size of the dwelling, might indi-cate the presence of two domestic units within thestructure.

Seen in terms of what did and did not "fall out" ofthe technological organization system, the tool anddebitage samples suggest a relatively short duration ofoccupation and a limited range of activities. Mostprominent among what fell out of the system were: (1)a substantial rate of microblade production and (2) amodest deposition of endblades, endblade preformsand tip-fluting spalls. The former may be related tovarious expedient tasks while the latter indicates

198

CHAPTER 1 0

a b c

134/ Nukasusutok-12 implements from Structures 3and 4. a: side-notched biface, Structure 3, b: endblade,Structure 3; c: burin-like-tool preform, Structure 3;d, e: side-notched bifaces, Structure 4, f: endbladepreform, Structure 4; g: microblade, Structure 4.

preparation for and/or implementation of sea mammalhunting activities. What did not fall out of the systemwere flakes and domestic processing tools. The smallquantity of Ramah chert debitage and its near-exclu-sive secondary retouch flake character suggests limit-ed modification of curated implements such as theendblade preforms and the biface blank. The scarcityor absence of domestic processing tools such as bifa-cial knives, scrapers and burin-like tools indicates thateither activities associated with these implements werenot undertaken or that such items were less likely toenter into the archaeological record at this locality.

STRUCTURE 3

A 1 m^ test pit 25 m south of Structure 1 (Figure 1 24)revealed the probable remains of a third axial featureconsisting of cobbles and flat slabs. The test pit andlater surface collection in the area produced nine tools:

a tip-fluted endblade, a tip-fluting spall, a side-notchedbiface, a burin-like tool preform and four microblades.A total of 17 flakes was collected, of which 15 wereRamah chert, one crystal quartz and one schist.

The Ramah chert endblade (Figure 1 34:b) is com-plete, with a fairly straight base and some medial basalthinning (L= 42.7 mm, W= 1 8.2, TH= 5.6). The tip-flut-ing was placed dorsally and the scars are relativelyshort (L= 13.0, 16.5 mm). The single side-notchedbiface of Ramah chert (Figure 134:a) is also completeand displays a slightly asymmetric blade, a biconvexcross-section, a straight bifacially thinned base andslight edge grinding above one of the notches (L= 57.6mm, W= 30.5, TH= 5.8, notch HT= 9.2, 9.0, notch L=5.4, 6.6, notch W= 2.2, 2.1).

The burin-like tool preform (Figure 1 34:c) is com-plete and made on a long flake of nephrite. One later-al edge has a bifacially flaked wide notch or stem whilethe opposite edge bears a slight trace of a notchformed by dorsal retouch. The implement has a slightbasal concavity and it is unground (L= 48.5 mm, W=1 9.8, TH= 5.8, notch L= 1 3.4, notch W= 1.9).

All four microblades are made of Ramah chert;two are retouched distal fragments while the other twoare uncertain proximal fragments.

STRUCTURE 4

Ten meters north of Structure 1, adjacent to a rock-fallbeside the north hill-face, a 1.5 by 1.0 m test pitrevealed part of a fourth axial feature (Figure 124).Several thick flat-topped rocks and a flat slab wereassociated with burned sand, charcoal, red ocherpatches and a considerable quantity of Ramah chertdebitage, some of which was thermally altered. Toolsrecovered from the test unit Include two side-notchedbiface bases, one primary tip-fluting spall, one tip-flut-ed endblade preform, three microblades and two uti-lized flakes. The debitage collection consists of 253unaltered Ramah chert flakes (78.3 g by weight), 77thermally altered Ramah chert flakes (29.5 g), onequartz flake (0.6 g), and one schist flake (0.4 g).

NUKASUSUTOK-l 2: EARLY/MIDDLE DORSET AXIAL STRUCTURES

199

Table 50. Nukasusutok-12: Test Pits 1-3 Tool Class Frequencies.

TPl

TP2

TP3

Surface

TOTAL

Triangular endblades

1

z

3 (4.3)

Side-notched bifaces

->

1

4 (5.8)

Bifaces

1

1

2 (2.9)

Burin-like tools

1

1 (1.4)

Tip-fluting spalls

1

z

oO

1

12(1 7.4)

Microblades, unutilized

I

7

zU

29 (42.0)

Microblades, utilized

i.

1

-7/

1 0 (1 4.5)

Microblade cores

11

1 (1.4)

Utilized flakes

1

2

3 (4.3)

Ground schist flakes

2

2 (2.9)

Ground nephrite flakes

2

2 (2.9)

TOTAL

7

14

46

2

69

Both the side-notched biface bases are made ofRamah chert. One (Figure 1 34;d) has a single pair ofwide notches and a slightly concave base (W= 30.4mm, TH= 8.2, basal depth= 3.0, notch HT= 6.0, notchL= 13.1, notch W= 3.0). The other (Figure 1 34:e) hastwo pairs of notches and a straight base (edge A notchHT= 6.0, 1 4.6 mm, edge B notch HT= 5.9, 13.1, edgeA notch L= 2.9, 4.2, edge B notch L= 3.6, edge A notchW= 1.6, 1.8, edge B notch W= 1.6)

The endblade preform (Figure 1 34:f) is made on aflake of thermally altered Ramah chert and appears to bea production failure (L= 55.3 mm, W= 22.9, TH= 5.8). Itretains a striking platform proximally, has bifacialretouch limited to its margins and a single ventral tip-flute that encompasses the entire tip of the implementand terminates in a step fracture. The margins of the flut-ing scar were retouched slightly subsequent to spalling.

All three microblades are made of Ramah chertand are medial fragments. One is retouched. A largespecimen is illustrated in Figure 1 34:g. The two uti-lized flakes are both made of Ramah chert.

Two radiocarbon dates were run from a sample ofconifer charcoal associated with the structural rocks.The first assay produced a date of 930±64 B.P. (Sl-

5536). Since this result indicated a Late Dorset dating,which seemed inconsistent with the tool collection,the sample was resubmitted and subjected to nitra-tion pre-treatment to remove uncharred cellulose. Thesecond date was 1110±80 B.P. (SI-5822), marginallyolder than the first and equally inconsistent with thetool collection.

TEST PITS 1 3

Seven meters south of Structure 3 was a vegetatedarea that was probed with three 1 m^ test pits (Figure1 24). Test Pits 2 and 3 adjoined each other while TestPit 1 lay 1 m to the northwest. Test Pits 2 and 3 pro-duced a surprisingly dense concentration of Ramahchert debitage and tools in a matrix of brown sand andcobbles superimposed on a soft clay deposit lying 1 5cm below ground surface. No features could be dis-cerned in the morass of cobbles and clay. The areamight have contained a midden or structure that wasbadly disturbed by severe clay movement. Table 50provides an overview of tool frequencies, distributedacross the three test pits.

The tool collection from these test units ismarked by a large number of microblades (56.5%) and

200

CHAPTER 10

contains a microblade core fragment. Altliough trian-gular endblades are only modestly represented, a fair-ly large number of tip-fluting spalls are present,including eight primary removal spalls. The lattermight indicate a focus on endblade production fromcurated preforms. Tool and flake raw materials aresummarized by frequency in Table 51 and by weightin Table 52. Both tool and flake materials are dominat-ed by Ramah chert.

Table 51. Nukasusutok-1 2: Test Pits 13 Tooland Flake Raw Materials by Frequency.

Tools N (%) Flakes N (%)

Ramah chert 62 (89.9)

21 1 (87.2)

Crystal quartz 1 (1.4)

1 (0.4)

Cray Mugford chert

1 (0.4)

Creen chert 1 (1.4)

Nephrite 3 (4.3)

2 (0.8)

Schist 2 (2.9)

27(11.2)

Table 52. Nukasusutok 12: Test Pits 13 Tooland Flake Raw Materials by Weight. In Grams.

Tools g (%) Flakes g (%)

TOTAL g(%)

Ramah chert 128.5(91.3) 107.3(76.0)

235.8 (83.7)

Cp/stal quartz 0.6 (0.4) 0.5 (0.4)

1.1 (0.4)

Cray Mugford chert 1.7(1.2)

1.7 (0.6)

Green chert 2.8 (2.0)

2.8 (1.0)

Nephrite 6.8(4.8) 11.7(8.3)

18.5 (6.6)

Schist 2.0(1.4) 19.9(14.1)

21.9 (7.8)

Tool Assemblage

Endblades: All three triangular endblades are made ofRamah chert. A complete tip-fluted specimen (Figure136:a) has a slightly concave base and appears to befluted on its dorsal side (L= 21.1 mm, W= 14.6, TH=3.2, basal depth= 1.0, tip-fluting L= 10.6, 14.0). Aproximal fragment (Figure 136:b) is bifacially flakedwith a slightly asymmetrical concave base; it is impos-sible to determine if it was tip-fluted (W= 13.1 mm,

3 5

135/ Nukasusutok-12 implements from test pits, surfaceand Structure 1. a: biface, TP-1. b: endblade, TP-1, c:endblade preform, TP-4, d-e: utilized flakes, TP-4, f:ground slate point/knife base, surface; g: microblade,surface; h) microblade. Structure I.

TH= 2.8, basal depth= 1.0). Another proximal frag-ment (Figure 1 35:b) is bifacially flaked (completely onthe dorsal side, marginally on the ventral side) and hasa straight to slightly convex base with slight basal thin-ning (W= 22.9 mm, TH= 3.5).

Tip-fluting spalls; All of the 12 tip-fluting spallsare made of Ramah chert. The seven whole or nearcomplete specimens range in length from 12.3-36.4mm and two size groups are represented: 12.3-13.6mm and 21.5-36.4 mm. Four of the five fragmentaryspecimens clearly fall into the larger size class. Theselarge and small classes may indicate the tip-fluting ofdifferent sizes of preforms or endblades (cf., Plumetand Lebel 1 998). None of the intact finished endblades

NUKASUSUTOK 1 2 EARLY/MIDDLE DORSET AXIAL STRUCTURES

201

a b c d

136/ Nukasusutok-12: implements from test pits,a, b: endblades, TP-3; c-e: side-notched bifaces,TP-3; f: burin-like-tool, TP-3: g: ground schist, TP-3;h: microblade core fragment, TP-2; i-l: microblades,all TP-3.

from Nukasusutok-1 2 exhibit tip-flutes with a lengthcorresponding to the larger group, although one pre-form from Structure 2 does. Eight of the spalls are pri-mary, four are secondary.

Side-notched bifaces All four bifaces are proximalfragments and all exhibit a single set of notches.Three of the four are made from Ramah chert while thefourth is made from a green chert (either Mugford orNewfoundland). One of the Ramah chert implements(Figure 1 36:c) is from a fairly large biface and displayswide side-notches and a slightly concave bifaciallythinned base (W = 33.4 mm, TH = 6.9, notch HT = 5.3,9.5, notch L = 13.0, 12.6, notch W = 3.0, 3.0, basal

depth = 2.0). A second Ramah chert example (Figure136:e) lacks one basal corner and has a biconvexcross-section and a slightly concave base with basalthinning (W = 20.3 mm, TH = 4.4, notch HT = 7.3,notch L = 5.4, notch W = 1.2). The third Ramah chertspecimen was missing when the collection was re-analysed in the early 1990s but it is illustrated else-where (Hood 1 986:Figure 5:1). The implement is small-er and narrower than the other bifaces and exhibitspredominantly unifacial dorsal retouch and a straightbase (base W = 1 3.8 mm, TH = 2.8, notch HT = 3.2,3.4). It roughly resembles a Croswater "box-based"endblade, although it has a bifacially thinned base incontrast to the abrupt unifacially retouched bases ofthe latter. The green chert specimen (Figure 1 36:d) hasa straight bifacially thinned base (base W = 30.0 mm,TH = 6.2, notch HT = 5.4, 5.1).

Bifaces Both examples are made of Ramah chert.One is the distal portion of a large implement over 78mm long and at least 37 mm wide, presumably a largeknife or lance point (Figure 1 35:a). The other is a smalldistal fragment.

Burin-like tools: The single specimen of nephriteis complete but for a portion of its proximal end(Figure 1 36:f). Polishing traces on the proximal edgessuggest a bilateral slightly constricted stem with aunilateral notch just below the bevelled portion of onelateral edge. The distal end is straight and symmetri-cally bevelled to a cutting edge. The distal lateraledges are ground flat and the dorsal and ventral sur-faces are flat and fully ground and polished (L = >29.0 mm, W max = 16.3, W distal = 12.7, TH = 4.3,notch HT = > 16.0).

Microblades: All but one of the 39 microbladesare made of Ramah chert; the single exception is crys-tal quartz (a few examples are illustrated in Figure1 36:i-l). All specimens are fragmentary: 1 8 proximal,1 5 medial and six distal. Traces of utilization orretouch are found on 10 (25.6%). An MNI count of 17can be formulated for the non-utilized specimens andan MNI of two for the utilized implements. One of the

202

CHAPTER 1 0

utilized specimens has proximal retouch (unilateralconstriction) that may indicate hafting. In anothercase, a medial fragment has bifacial retouch on one ofits snap surfaces that could indicate preliminaryretouch for a projectile base. Additionally, a distalfragment is completely retouched on its ventral sur-face, which may also indicate an intended use as aprojectile. The average width of 1 5 proximal frag-ments is 12.5 mm.

Platform preparation is primarily plain (n= 6) orretouched (n= 5), while one example each occurs forgrinding, crushing and indeterminate. Platform angleswere distributed as follows; 60° = 1, 65° = 3, 70' = 1,75° = 2, 80° = 5, 85 = 1 and 90° =1. A major propor-tion of the proximal fragments (1 0 of 1 7) have lengthsin the range of ca. 13-28 mm; the medial fragmentlengths exhibit greater spread, but eight of 1 7 rangebetween ca. 1 2-25 mm. This is broadly consistent withthe pattern observed at Structure 2.

Microblade cores: The single Ramah chertmicroblade core (Figure 136:h) is a core-face frag-ment that bears negative scars of five long (ca. 75mm) microblades. Three of these microblades werestruck from a core platform that was broken off whenthe core face was detached. This detachmentoccurred when the core was turned over and struckon a flat basal surface used as a platform for theattempted removal of microblades from the oppositedirection. Secondary retouch on the edges of the corefragment suggest it may have been re-used as anexpedient scraper.

Utilized flakes: All three specimens are made onlarge (52-62 mm diameter) flakes of Ramah chert. Inone case virtually all edges of the flake exhibit fineutilization retouch combined with blunting ofexposed facets; the implement may be an expedientscraper.

Ground schist flakes: The two specimens are bothsmall (ca. 17 and 28 mm long); one is illustrated inFigure 1 36:g. Schist was likely used to grind nephriteburin-like tools and perhaps slate implements.

Ground nephrite flakes: Two of the three flakesare small (L= 1 5.0, 24.6 mm) with limited areas of dis-tinct grinding. A third specimen is a larger linear flake(L= 72.9 mm) with faint traces of polishing on itsfacets but no obvious grinding.

Discussion

These three test pits provide little indication as to thefunction of this part of the site. Any features oncepresent were obliterated by fluctuating movements ofthe underlying clay deposit. Nonetheless, the largequantity of tools and flakes recovered from these unitssuggests the presence of a dwelling structure or mid-den. The most striking aspect of the assemblage is thehigh frequency of microblades and tip-fluting spalls.The former suggest a high rate of expedient tool pro-duction while the latter suggest an emphasis on end-blade production— a "gearing-up" for hunting. Thelack of scrapers is notable.

TEST PITS 4 AND 5

Two other 1 m^ test pits were excavated within in situdeposits 1 0 m east of Structure 1. Test Pit 5 was ster-ile but the central portion of Test Pit 4 contained partof a shallow depression, measuring 45 by 60 cm,which contained red ocher stains and charcoal. A smallnotched schist slab with adhering burned fat wasrecovered from the deposit. A second small charcoalpatch lay beside the north wall of the test unit.Charcoal from the central depression was submittedfor radiocarbon dating. A first run produced a date of1 000±75 B.P. (SI-5535), which seemed much too late inrelation to the tool material from the site. The samplewas re-run following nitration pre-treatment, resultingin a date of 1 660±90 B.P. (SI-5821).

Test Pit 4 produced 10 tools, all of Ramah chert;an endblade preform, a tip-fluting spall, six microb-lades, and two utilized flakes. The endblade preform(Figure 135:c) is made on a crudely retouched Ramahchert flake and is only retouched marginally— bifacial-ly at the tip, mostly dorsally on the lateral edges—

NUKASUSUTOK-1 2: EARLY/MIDDLE DORSET AXIAL STRUCTURES

203

while the base is thinned dorsally from a snap edge (L=36.4 mm, W= 19.3, TH= 4.0). The tip-fluting spall is alarge medial fragment (L >30.0 mm) of a primary spall.The six microblades are comprised of four medial andtwo proximal fragments. Two medial fragments arecompletely retouched on their ventral surfaces, possi-bly for use as projectiles. One of the utilized flakes hasunifacial dorsal retouch along all its margins and aslight stem at one end (Figure 135:e), while the otherhas unifacial dorsal retouch along two lateral edges(Figure 135:d). A total of 50 flakes was collected, ofwhich 47 (94.0%) were of Ramah chert, one (2.0%) ofcrystal quartz, one (2.0%) of black chert, and one(2.0%) of nephrite.

SURFACE COLLECTIONS

Two implements not directly associated with struc-tures were surface collected. A complete retouchedmicroblade (L= 47.9 mm, W= 13.1, TH= 3.7) lay 3 mwest of the 1 xl y marker at Structure 1 (Figure 1 35:g).The proximal portion of a ground slate point or knife(Figure 1 35:f) was found 6 m south of the 5x5y mark-er at Structure 2. The tool is made of green slate andhas a constricted stem formed by a pair of wide side-notches. The base is straight with narrow, symmetri-cally ground bevelling. Above each notch is a slighttrace of edge bevelling with surfaces running in slight-ly different directions. The medial faces of the imple-ment are largely unground (TH= 4.9 mm, notch HT=4.5, 3.5, notch L= 14.2, 1 5.5, notch W= 3.5, 2.5).

OVERALL ASSEMBLAGECHARACTERISTICS ANDTECHNOLOGICAL ORGANIZATION

Consideration of technological organization atNukasusutok-12 is complicated by rather divergenttool and debitage sample sizes and differences in therepresentativeness of the samples.

As far as tools are concerned, only Structure 2 andTest Pits 1-3 have sufficient numbers to work with.Although Structure 2 has very little debitage, the com-

plete excavation of the feature constitutes a fairly rep-resentative sample. The material from Test Pits 1-3 hasa reasonable number of tools and flakes, but is a lim-ited area sample from an uncertain context. The testunit at Structure 4 produced a few tools and a modestdebitage collection, but the sample cannot be consid-ered representative. Given these limitations the discus-sion can only hope to point out some tentative dimen-sions of technological organization at the site.

The most striking characteristic of theNukasusutok-12 assemblage is the absence of pro-cessing tools common in other Dorset sites: endscrap-ers and sidescrapers. This absence implies that eitherthe activities in which these tools were used (skinscraping and wood working) were not conducted at thesite or that the implements were highly curated as partof a hafted tool kit. Instead, microblades are the pre-dominant implement type, suggesting a high frequen-cy of production for use in expedient tasks. The pro-portion of microblades with traces of utilization variesfrom 25% at Test Pits 1-3 to 40% at Structure 2.Structure 2 had a modest number of endblades, end-blade preforms and tip-fluting spalls, while Test Pits 1-

3 had a substantial number of tip-fluting spalls, includ-ing several primary removal spalls (but no endbladepreforms). In both cases a focus on endblade produc-tion is suggested. As far as the debitage is concerned,Structure 2 was notable for a very small amount offlakes (and thus a high toolTlake ratio), while Structure

4 and Test Pits 1-3 had a relatively larger quantity offlakes suggestive of more emphasis on tool productionand maintenance.

Considered in isolation these observations areperhaps not that significant, but their relevance isclearer when placed in a comparative context withother Dorset lithic assemblages. The only availablematerial for such a comparison is Nagle's (1 984, 1 986)analysis of Dorset Ramah chert use. Nagle concludedthat distance-decay processes associated with "down-the-line" exchange from the Ramah chert sources hada significant effect on the nature of Dorset lithic

204

CHAPTER 10

assemblages, particularly with regard to tool size andfrequency. Preforms for bifaces and endblades areboth smaller and less frequent with distance from thesource areas and debitage also decreases in size andfrequency. But frequency and size may also respond toother variables. Microblade production can generateeither a few or many implements in a single productionsequence, so the frequency of microblades may bemore closely linked to the situational factors behindindividual production events than to the raw materialsupply. The same could be said for the frequency oftip-fluting spalls. Size differences in endblades mayhave more to do with intended functions— such as sealversus walrus hunting— than with raw material avail-ability (Nagle 1986:98).

One of the questions Nagle (1984:295, 315-316,434) addressed using Nain Middle Dorset material waswhether winter semi-subterranean houses were "gear-ing-up" sites where tools were produced for use duringother periods of the annual round while sites fromother seasons were marked by strategies of tool main-tenance and conservation (i.e., curation behavior). Heconcluded that the evidence supported his general lineof reasoning, but that inter-assemblage differenceswere not substantial:

While sites occupied in the late fall andwinter may have been the focus of themajority of flaked stone manufacturingactivities in preparation for the ensuingyear, it appears that for the most partDorset knappers were routinely makingmany new tools throughout their entireseasonal round. Yearly lithic needs wereevidently planned carefully, and sup-plies budgeted reasonably well (Nagle1 984:434).

How does the material from Nukasusutok-1 2 fitinto this picture? Table 53 compares the tool assem-blages from Structure 2 and Test Pits 1-3 at

Nukasusutok-1 2 with five of the Nain region Dorsetassemblages analysed by Nagle (1 984:Appendix A).Koliktalik-1 (highlighted in the table) consists of twosemi-subterranean winter houses (Cox 1978:107,110-111; Fitzhugh 1976:138-140; Nagle 1984:217-228; Spiess 1978), St. John's lsland-3, L-4, is an outerisland mid-winter hunting camp containing a tent ringwith an axial pavement (Nagle 1984:228-230; Spiess1 978:55), Black Island ! A has a possible tent struc-ture (Nagle 1984:230-232), and Dog Bight L-3 lackeda discernable structure but is assumed to be a tentsite (Fitzhugh 1976:138; Nagle 1984:209-210). DogBight L-3 is Early Dorset, while the rest are MiddleDorset. The proportions of tool types at Nukasusutok-12 are most similar to Dog Bight L-3, with high per-centages of microblades and tip-fluting spalls, exceptthat endscrapers and burin-like tools are better repre-sented at Dog Bight. The other two tent-dwelling siteshave very different profiles. St John's lsland-3 has highproportions of endblades, endscrapers and burin-liketools, but relatively few microblades. This emphasison sea mammal hunting and processing activities isconsistent with the location of the site near the ice-edge and traces of walrus hunting in the small faunalassemblage (Spiess 1978:55). Black Island-IA is dom-inated by tip-fluting spalls, suggesting final-stage"gearing-up" for hunting. The variation in these tentdwelling assemblages probably reflects differences inthe situational variables affecting lithic use in eachcase. In contrast, the winter house assemblages fromKoliktalik are heavily loaded with processing/mainte-nance tools such as bifaces, endscrapers and burin-like tools. Given the frequency of endblade preformproduction at Koliktalik and their scarcity at all thetent dwelling sites, it seems likely there was a spatialstaging in production, final retouch and use in achaine operatoire marked by a high degree of cura-tion. But it should be kept in mind that there are sig-nificant formational differences between the tent andhouse assemblages, since the latter are accumulationsresulting from multiple occupation phases ("coarse-

NUKASUSUTOK 1 2 EARLY/MIDDLE DORSET AXIAL STRUCTURES

205

Table 53. Comparison of Main Region Dorset Lithic Assemblages.Semi-Subterranean Houses Highlighted in Gray.

Nukasusutok-12

Nukasusutok-12

Dog Bight

St. John's lsl.-3

Black IsL-la

Koliktalik-1

Koiiktalik-1

S-2

TP 1-3

L-3

L-4

H-1

H-2

Bifaces

6 (8.7)

D \y.o)

11 '?\

1U VO.

334 \L£..Z>)

1 7tr ri 7\1 / J

Biface Preforms

1 (1.4)

1 \j \\J. 1)

Endblades

4 (5.8)

11 ?\

^.Hj \ 1 D.^J

or HA Q^

Endblade Preforms

3 (4.3)

-7A {A Q\

Z 1 (3./)

Tip-Fluting Spalls

6 (8.7)

1 2 (1 9.7)

45 (1 3.0)

15 (12.7)

33 (55.9)

252 (16.8)

43 (7.5)

Endscrapers

4 (1.2)

1 1 (9.3)

3 (5.1)

66 (4.4)

46 (8.1)

Microblades

49 (71.0)

39 (63.9)

266 (76.7)

41 (34.7)

11 (18.6)

419 (28.0)

165 (28.9)

Burin-Like Tools

1 (1.6)

8 (2.3)

9 (7.6)

98 (6.5)

35 (6.1)

TOTAL

69

61

347

118

59

1498

570

grained" assemblages in Binford's [1980:17] sense)and the former are probably the result of more dis-crete events ("fine-grained" assemblages). Organiza-tional dynamics are difficult to infer from coarse-grained assemblages.

Another dimension of variability is debitagecharacteristics. Table 54 outlines the Ramah cherttoohflake ratio for the Nain area sites (derived fromNagle 1984; Appendix A). Although theNukasusutok test pits cannot be considered a repre-sentative sample, their ratio is consistent with theother Dorset sites, whether tent sites or the semi-subterranean houses at Koliktalik. Structure 2, onthe other hand, stands out for its unusually highratio of tools to flakes. Compared with the otherlocalities. Structure 2 reflects an extremely low rateof lithic reduction combined with a high rate of tooldiscard. This ratio suggests little emphasis on toolreplenishment or "gearing up" strategies, presum-ably related either to an anticipated ease of toolreplacement or the absence of domestic processingand maintenance activities which might place high-er demands on raw material use.

The organization of lithic reduction may also bereflected in flake size distributions and the frequencyof biface-thinning flakes. Although the Nukasusutok-12 assemblages are not ideal for size analysis givensmall samples (Structure 2) and samples of uncertainrepresentativeness (test pits), size distribution datafor Structure 2 (completely excavated). Structure 4(test-pitted) and Test Pits 1-3 are presented in Figure137. Table 55 displays the frequency of biface-thin-ning flakes. Structure 2, which had only 48 Ramahchert flakes, is distinguished by a high proportion offlakes in the <1 5 mm and <1 0 mm categories and lowfrequencies in the <20 mm and larger categories, sug-gesting emphasis on late stage retouch rather thanmulti-stage reduction. The low frequency of biface-thinning flakes suggests limited reduction of pre-forms. Structure 4 and Test Pits 1-3 have slightly high-er percentages of flakes in the <20 to <30 mm rangeand both have relatively large numbers of biface-thin-ning flakes, indicating greater reduction of preformsthan at Structure 2. Although the sampling problemsneed to be kept in mind, these data suggest spatialdifferences in reduction patterns at Nukasusutok-12.

206

CHAPTER 1 0

Nukasusutok-12 Ramah Chert Flake SizeDistribution

-S2 \

-S4

-TP1-3

<5

<10 <15

<20 <25 <305 mm classes

<35 <40 <45

13// Nukasusutok-12: Ramah chert flake size distribution.

Table 54. Ramah Chert ToohFlake Ratios for Dorset Sites in the Nain Area

Tools

Flakes

ToohFlake Ratio

Nukasusutok-1 2 S-2

63

38

1.66

Nukasusutok-12 TPl-3

62

210

0.3

Dog Bight L-3

339

1021

0.33

St. John's lsland-3 L-4

127

669

0.19

Black Island 1A

51

479

0.1 1

Koliktalik-1 H-1

2536

16281

0.16

Koliktalik-1 H-2

1038

7712

0.1 3

Table 55. Distribution of Biface-ThinningFlakes at Nukasusutok-12.

Biface-Thinning Flakes

Structure 2

4

Structure 4

30

Test Pits 1-3

53

The Ramah chert debitage size distribution hasgreater value when compared with other Dorset sitesin the Nain region. Comparison necessitated re-sortingthe Nukasusutok-12 debitage in accordance with the

size category system used byNagle (1984:261-262): category4 (>% < '/j inch), category 3(>'/: inch, < 1 inch), category 2(>1 inch, < 2 inches). Nagleeliminated a fifth category(<'/i inch) as unreliable, so thesame was done for Nukasusu-tok-12. Four of the previouslydiscussed Dorset componentswere used in the comparison;Koliktalik-1 houses 1 and 2, St.John's lsland-3, L-4, and DogBight L3 (data from Nagle 1 984:Appendix B). In the comparisonby frequency (Figure 1 38),Structure 2 at Nukasusutok-12has a profile similar to all theother Dorset sites, being domi-nated by category 4 debitage(>% inch <'/j inch). In contrast,Structure 4 and Test Pits 1 -3 aredistinctly different from all theother components in their highproportions of larger category 3flakes (>'/j inch, < 1 inch). Whenthe proportions from the threeNukasusutok-12 componentsare averaged, the site has adeviant profile with a high proportion of class 3 flakes.In the comparison by weight (Figure 1 39), Structure 2'sprofile of balanced classes 4 and 3 most closely resem-bles Koliktalik House 2, while Structure 4 and Test Pits1-3's profiles with high class 3 proportions are mostsimilar to St. John's Island. The averaged Nukasusutokprofile is also very close to St. John's Island. Althoughthe intra-site variation at Nukasusutok-12 should bekept in mind, it is interesting that its greatest similari-ties are with St. John's Island, since both sites are sea-sonal hunting camps associated with axial structures.

NUKASUSUTOK-12: EARtY/MIDDLE DORSET AXIAL STRUCTURES

207

Ramah chert size distribution by frequency,Nagie categories and Nain Region Sites

100

90 -807060% 50403020100

tL

I

□ Cat4

□ Catsm Cat2

S2 S4 TP1-3 KKH1 KKH2 DBL3Component/Site

StJI N12av

138/ Nain region Dorset site Ramah chert size distributions by frequency, usingNagle's (1984) categories.

The preceding discussion positions Nukasusutok-12 relative to other Nain area Dorset assemblages,drawing out some general similarities and differ-ences, but it is confined by the vagaries of theNukasusutok sample and by the limited comparativebase. Nonetheless, the Nukasusutok-1 2 assemblagemight be characterized as representing a huntingcamp marked by a high production of expedientmicroblades, the final stage reduction of harpoonendblades, as indicated by tip-fluting spalls and end-blade preforms, and the reduction of biface pre-forms, as implied by the biface-thinning flakes. Thesize/weight distribution of the Ramah chert debitagesuggests that Nukasusutok-12 reduction patternsare most similar to another outer island hunting

camp, St. John's lsland-3, L-4,although the tool assemblagesof the two sites differ in thatNukasusutok-1 2 has a higherrate of microblade productionbut a lower rate of endbladediscard. If, as Nagle (1 986:98)observed, variation in microb-lade frequency is conditionedby highly contingent individualproduction decisions, then itmay be that the contrasts inendblade discard are theonly significant differencesbetween the sites.

To conclude, partly follow-ing Nagle's (1984, 1986) obser-vations one might say the nature of any individualDorset assemblage is a product of the articulation ofthree dimensions: (1) general constraints imposed bythe structure of the Ramah chert delivery system onthe form and quantity of raw materials circulating with-in different regions, (2) production decisions linked tospecific situations, and (3) social and symbolic con-text. At this point we have a strong set of inferencesconcerning the first point, a good start on but stillinadequate understanding of the second, and ratherlittle penetration of the third.

CHRONOLOGY

Table 56 outlines the radiocarbon dates from Structure4 and Test Pit 4. As noted previously, the first run

Table 56. Radiocarbon Dates from Nukasusutok-12.

Location

First Run

Second Run

Lab Nos.

16 Calibration of Second Run

(nitration pre-treatment)

(OxCal 3.10)

Structure 4

930±64 B.P.

1 1 10+80 B.P.

SI-5536, 5822

AD 780-1020

Test Pit 4

1000±75 B.P.

1660±90 B.P.

SI-5535, 5821

AD 250-540

(both samples of conifer charcoal)

208

CHAPTER 10

706050403020100

S2

dates did not correspond withwhat was expected on the basisof tool typology (2200-2000B.P.), so the samples were run asecond time with nitration pre-treatment to remove uncharredcellulose. Although this result-ed in a significantly earlierassay for the sample from TestPit 4, the result for Structure 4was little different. Regrettably,neither of these samples wasassociated with clearly diagnos-tic tools. The material fromStructure 4 included two side-notched bifaces (one with a sin-gle pair of notches, the other

multiple notched), three microblades, a tip-fluted pointpreform, a tip-fluting spall, and a utilized flake.Typologically, the bifaces seem inconsistent with the1 1 10±80 B.P. Late Dorset dating. Test Pit 4 containedan endblade preform, a tip-fluting spall, a possiblescraper fragment, six microblades (two of which werecompletely retouched on their ventral surfaces), a uti-lized flake and a schist fragment with adhering burnedfat. The best that can be said is that this material is notinconsistent with a 1 660±90 B.P. Middle Dorset dating.Given the ambiguity of the radiocarbon dating theremainder of the chronological discussion must bebased on typological comparisons. Since very littleLabrador Dorset material has been reported in full, thediscussion will be somewhat impressionistic.

Typologically, Nukasusutok-1 2 appears to be inter-mediate between Early Dorset material such as DogBight L-3 from the Nain region, dated 2455±75 B.P. and2400±70 B.P. (Cox 1978:99, illustrated in Fitzhugh1976, Figure 12, m-s), and lluvektalik-1 from Okak Bay,dated 2845±60 B.P. on charcoal mixed with burned fat(Cox 1977:152-1 64, illustrated in Cox 1978:108), andMiddle Dorset material from Koliktalik-1 in the Nainarea (Cox 1 978:99; illustrated in Fitzhugh 1 976, Figure

Ramah chert size distribution by weight, Naglecategories and Nain region sites

£1

eacat4Eacats

S4 TP1-3 KKH1 KKH2 DBL3Component/Site

St JI N12av

139/ Nain region Dorset site Ramah chert size distributions by weight, using Nagle's(1984) categories.

1 2 a-l, and Cox 1 978:1 09). The Nukasustok-1 2 materi-al bears some resemblance to the few tools illustratedfrom Avayalik-7 in northernmost Labrador, originallybelieved to date to the Early/Middle Dorset boundary,ca. 2200-1800 B.P. (R. Jordan 1980:609-610), butwhich produced a later than expected date of 1 395±70B.P. (Morlan 2001-2005).

Several Nukasustok-12 assemblage attributesreflect this Early/Middle Dorset character. First, thereis a high frequency of microblades, which is regardedas typical of Early Dorset sites (Cox 1978:107). In acorrespondence analysis (not shown here) of LabradorDorset assemblages based on data from Nagle (1984;Appendix A), Nukasusutok-1 2 was grouped togetherwith all the Early Dorset sites on the basis of theirshared high frequency of microblades. As observedabove, however, microblade production was probablysituationally conditioned such that one should be waryof using it as a chrono-typological indicator. Second,the triangular endblades are straight-based or onlyslightly concave and four of them (from Structure 2,Structure 3 and Test Pits 1 -3) appear to be tip-fluted ontheir dorsal surfaces, as are two endblade preforms(Structure 2). Dorsal tip-fluting is thought to be an

NUKASUSUTOK-1 2: EARLY/MIDDLE DORSET AXIAL STRUCTURES

209

early Dorset trait. There is no trace of unifacial end-blades or basal thinning on the dorsal surface of end-blades as found in IVliddle Dorset (Cox 1978:107).Third, a high side-notched or quasi "box-based" biface(Figure 131:h) from Structure 2 and a small unifacialnotched biface resembling Croswater style (Hood1 986:Figure 5:1) from Test Pits 1 -3 have an Early Dorsetstamp, although the latter may simply be an expedienttool (cf., Nagle 1 984:347-348). Fourth, a burin-like toolpreform from Structure 3 that was destined to be rela-tively long and have broad side-notching (Figure 1 34:c)seems more similar to the Early Dorset forms fromlluvektalik-1 (Cox 1978:108) than the narrow-notchedMiddle Dorset forms from Koliktalik-1 (Cox 1 978:1 09).A fully ground tabular nephrite burin-like tool with a"squared" working end from Test Pit 3, however,exhibits the remnants of a proximal stem and traces ofa small notch on a lateral margin, similar to MiddleDorset forms (Figure 1 36:0- The single and multipleside-notched bifaces from Nukasusutok-12 could befound in either Early or Middle Dorset contexts.

To conclude, on typological grounds we mightpropose that Structure 2, Test Pits 1-3 and probablyStructure 3 are Early/Middle Dorset, perhaps dating2200-2000 B.P.. On the basis of the radiocarbon dates,unsupported by typological data. Structure 4 and TestPit 4 may be Middle Dorset or later.

STRUCTURAL COMPARISONS

A major difficulty in providing a broader view of theNukasusutok-1 2 structural remains is the lack of pub-lished accounts of Dorset structures in Labrador or else-where. Three semi-subterranean houses have been givensome preliminary documentation: one of the two MiddleDorset houses from Koliktalik-1 in the Nain region(Fitzhugh 1976:130-131; Cox 1978:107-111),Iglusuaktalialuk lsland-4 West, a Middle Dorset house inthe Okak region (Cox 1 977:1 37-1 38), and Okak-3, a LateDorset house in the Okak region (Cox 1977:195-196,1 978:1 10-111). Koliktalik-1 House 1 lacked an axial fea-ture, but there were a series of central pits associated

with a partial pavement. The other two houses had well-defined stone axial features.

Dorset surface structures are described as consist-ing of rectangular tent rings with central cobble or slabpavements lacking clear borders, or more ephemeralrock and pavement features (Cox 1978:11). The onlypublished example is a tent ring from Avayalik-2 innorthernmost Labrador, typologically dated to theEarly/Middle Dorset "transition" (2200-1800 B.P.). Thiswas a rectangular structure with a central boulder align-ment but without box hearths, slab pavements or verti-cal boundary rocks (R.Jordan 1980:612, Figure 4). Oneof the two radiocarbon dates from the structure is con-sistent with the typological dating (2000±75 B.P.,1 345±70 B.P.;). In the Nain area, tent ring features ofbroadly similar character are known from an Early Dorsetcomponent at the Dog Island West Spur site and theMiddle Dorset St. John's lsland-3, L-4 site.

The Nukasusutok-1 2 structures are clearly of a dif-ferent character than the previously mentioned surfacestructures in that they consist of long axial features withhearth areas and they lack distinct tent rings. These con-trasts may indicate functional or seasonal differences.The lack of ring rocks may indicate the tents wereanchored in snow and perhaps used in the early springor late fall. As discussed in the spatial analysis ofStructure 2, the presence of hearth-related pairs of toolclusters at each end of the mid-passage hints at behav-ioral symmetry, possibly indicative of two domestic unitswithin a large dwelling. This inference can be comparedwith R.Jordan's (1980:612) preliminary conclusion thatthe tent ring at Avayalik-2 was used by two family units.

Structures 1 and 2 at Nukasusutok-1 2 bear a strongresemblance to each other. Although slightly different insize, each had a well defined axial feature, clear evidencefor a hearth at each end of the passage, possible tracesof a third central hearth, notched schist slabs and tracesof large terminus rocks at one or both ends of the pas-sage. These structural and organizational similaritiesmight indicate proximity in time, but the almost total lackof lithics at Structure 1 hinders chronological inferences.

210

CHAPTER 1 0

SETTLEMENT PATTERN ANDSEASONALITY

Drawing together the discussion so far, theNukasusutok-12 lithic assemblage gives the impres-sion of a focus on sea mammal hunting with minimalevidence for a wider range of domestic activities. In thecase of Structure 2, the high toohflake ratio indicates ahigh rate of tool discard with minimal tool productionand maintenance, suggesting a social unit arrived witha limited tool kit prepared at another locality, perhapsa winter house, and functioned with low replacementrequirements. The latter may not hold for the otherfeatures at the site, the sampling of which revealedlarger quantities of debitage. The excavated axial fea-tures point to the use of large tents (perhaps familypairs?) and the presence of additional structures indi-cate the site was used repeatedly by small social units,probably around the Early to Middle Dorset "transi-tion," but possibly later as well.

The potential seasonal use of the site can be con-sidered with reference to century Labrador Inuitsettlement. According to Taylor (1974:51), ContactPeriod house sites were typically located with goodaccess to fall harp seal hunting. There is an 18*^^ cgp.tury communal house complex just west ofNukasusutok-1 2 (Nukasusutok-8, Chapter 1 1) and eastof Wyatt Harbour the narrow passage between a rockyislet and Nukasusutok Island is said to be a good placefor intercepting harp seals. The area betweenNukasusutok and Nochalik Island to the southwest hasreasonably good open water sealing during the sum-mer. Mid-winter ice-edge sealing is not likely from thesite since the usual position of the sina is off Humby'sIsland, over 20 km to the east (Figure 1 40). The area tothe southeast between Satok Island and Humby'sIsland can be good for hunting seals basking on the icein the spring. This area often has thin ice (visible as a

darker shading in Figure 4), so open water areas maydevelop early in the spring. Given these considera-tions, the optimal periods for site occupation are dur-ing the harp seal migrations in the fall or the spring,basking seal hunting in the spring, or open water seal-ing during the summer.

If we consider the Nain region Dorset site distribu-tion as a whole (Figure 140), it is clear that Dorsetactivity was concentrated in a 30 km wide band in themid-outer island zone. Only a handful of sites are situ-ated at inner bay locations. Four of the five MiddleDorset semi-subterranean house sites^ are locatedwithin 7-8 km of the sina (as judged from Figure 4);Koliktalik-1 (Fitzhugh 1976:131, 140; Nagle 1984:217-228; Spiess 1 978), Ford Harbour-4 (Fitzhugh 1 981:37),jonathon lsland-3 (site files. Cultural Heritage Division)and Drawbucket Tickle-2 (site files. Cultural HeritageDivision). Spiess' (1978) interpretation of the faunalremains from the houses at Koliktalik-1 suggests thesite was occupied October to December to exploit thesouthward harp seal migration and from March to Junefor hunting basking seals and the northward migratingharps. Cox and Spiess (1 980:660-661) hypothesize thesite was abandoned January through March and postu-late movement to camps on more seaward islands nearthe ice-edge due to a lack of breathing hole sealingtechniques. An axial pavement structure at St. John'slsland-3, L-4, is proposed as such a camp, orientedtowards open water seal and walrus hunting.

A possible variation on this pattern may beinferred from the fifth semi-subterranean house sitelocated 8 km east of Nukasusutok-1 2: No-Name Island-2 (Sutton et al. 1981). This locality has two houses,with House 1 radiocarbon dated at 1285±75 B.P.,1260±60 B.P. and 915±100 B.P. and House 2 dated1450±65 B.P. (Fitzhugh, personal communication); inother words late Middle Dorset to Late Dorset.

''Middle Dorset sod houses have also been registered at Skull Island (Fitzhugh 1981:37), but subsequent investigation ledSusan Kaplan to suggest they may actually be Thule houses on top of a Dorset component (site files. Cultural HeritageDivision). This locality is located ca. 2-3 km from the sina.

NUKASUSUTOK 1 2 EARLY/MIDDLE DORSET AXIAL STRUCTURES

140/ Nain region Dorset site distribution. Original map © 2004 produced under licence from Her Majesty the Queen in Rightof Canada, with permission of Natural Resources Canada.

Excavations in a poorly preserved midden revealed thepresence of walrus, but mid-winter hunting seemsunlikely since the site is located 10-12 km distant fromthe sina. Given the tendency for thin ice and early openwater in the area to the south between Satok andHumby's Island, it is possible walrus were hunted therein the first open leads of the late winter/early spring.They could also have been taken later in the openwater period when the eastern end of the small islandwould serve as an excellent haul-out locale.

With these winter sites as anchor points wecould postulate that Dorset settlement patternsinvolved relatively short distance "lateral" (east-west)

shifts on the scale of 1 5-30 km between fall-winter-spring semi-subterranean house sites located nearthe outer coastal fringe and spring-summer-fall tentdwellings at outer and mid-island locations, withsimilar or longer distance movements also possibleon a north-south axis. Periodic shifts between alter-native winter house locations may have occurred pri-marily as "longitudinal" (north-south) movements.However, if the Nukasusutok-12 occupation, or atleast part of it, pre-dated the documented MiddleDorset winter houses it could very well have beenpart of a different settlement pattern configurationthan the one outlined here.

212

CHAPTER 10

Post-Contact Inuit

Settlement on N u lea susutok Isia

As noted in Chapter 4, there are several localities withtraces of Post-Contact Period inuit activity onNukasusutok Island. These were not central to thefieldwork conducted in 1 979-80 or 1 992-93, althoughthe midden at the 18'^*^ century communal house siteNukasusutok-8 (HcCh-10) was tested. Subsequent tothis testing, the Robert S. Peabody Museum at PhillipsAcademy, Andover, Massachusetts, was visited inorder to inspect collections made on NukasusutokIsland in 1928 by William Duncan Strong, anthropolo-gist with the Rawson-MacMillan Subarctic expedition.Strong's field notes and photographs were consultedat the National Anthropological Archives, SmithsonianInstitution, Washington D.C.

Strong excavated some of the house structures atNukasusutok-8 and collected skeletal material and arti-facts from graves at various places on the island. Henever published this or other Inuit material he collect-ed between Nain and Hopedale, although the skeletalmaterial was used in a physical anthropological studyby T. D. Stewart (1939). The artifact material was firsthoused at the Field Museum in Chicago, but was even-tually transferred through an exchange agreement tothe Peabody Museum, Andover. The value of the collec-tion is limited because Strong's cursory field notes lackcritical provenience details, but the material is suffi-ciently interesting to justify an overview here, althoughthe short time available for documentation did notpermit a full analysis. Strong's material is supple-mented by a small test-pit collection derived from

Nukasusutok-8 in 1992 and a brief survey ofNukasusutok-7 in 2004.

Offsetting the problematic archaeological data is arelatively rich ethnohistoric record for theNukasusutok-8 settlement. J. Garth Taylor's researchon the Moravian missionary diaries uncovered refer-ences to the settlement between 1772-1794 and theMoravian Periodical Accounts (abbreviated as P.A.)contain passing references to later settlement onNukasusutok Island. Some of the documentary infor-mation pertains to well-known Inuit individuals, so theusually anonymous archaeological context can be con-nected with the agency of real people and the socialorganization of the community can be specified. Theseethnohistoric data are marshaled to construct a com-posite settlement history from the late 18^^^ to early1 9*^*^ centuries, which is followed by a consideration ofthe archaeological data. But a brief sketch of post-con-tact Inuit society and settlement patterns is first pre-sented to set the scene.

POST-CONTACT INUIT SOCIETYAND SETTLEMENTPATTERNS IN LABRADOR

The Thule ancestors of the Labrador Inuit colonizednorthern Labrador by AD 1250-1 300 (Fitzhugh 1 994).At the lglosiatik-1 site in the Nain area, Thule-style sodhouses with traces of metal apparently date to theearly 16^^ century (Fitzhugh 1994:258; Kaplan1983:216, 455-462). During the 16^^ century Inuit

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

213

expanded southwards to Hamilton Inlet, the Strait ofBelie Isle and the Quebec North Shore. Documentaryinformation and archaeological data suggest the Inuitpresence in southern Labrador was a year-round occu-pation that lasted until the mid-1700s, when theincreasing scale of European activity may have led to acontraction of Inuit occupancy towards Hamilton Inlet.During the 1

gth

and ]7^^ centuries the southern Inuitwere in contact with a variety of Europeans who con-ducted whaling and fishing in the area: Basques,French, English, Portugese, Spanish and Dutch (Martijnand Clermont 1980: Stopp 2002:75-76). Inuit bothtraded for and plundered European goods (Stopp2002:83; Trudel 1980). Although some Europeanwares made their way northwards along the Labradorcoast through Inuit social networks, the degree of cul-ture change in the north was limited.

Change accelerated during the 18'-'^ century. In1 702 the French Sieur de Courtemanche was granted aconcession in southern and central Labrador and heestablished a base of operations at Bradore on theQuebec North Shore. In 1 735 the Quebec traderMarsal received a concession for sealing and trading atCape Charles and in 1737 Louis Fornel was one ofthree partners who acquired a similar concession atChateau Bay. In 1 743 Fornel established a post fortrading with the Innu at Northwest River in HamiltonInlet; after his death in 1 745 this post and another atRigolet were run by his wife until ca. 1 755. French rela-tions with the Inuit in southern Labrador were general-ly marked by considerable conflict (Kennedy 1995:20-23; Stopp 2002:82-83, personal communication;Zimmerly 1 975:36-40).

Britain acquired control of the Labrador coast in1 763 after the end of the Seven Years War. British mer-chants overtook operations at Chateau Bay and adefensive blockhouse called Fort York was construct-ed there in 1 766. In 1 770 George Cartwright overtookthe trading post at Cape Charles and founded addition-al posts, including his northernmost establishment atSandwich Bay in 1 775. Cartwright ceased operations in

1 786. Other English merchants competed within thesame area and by 1 784 Quebec traders were estab-lished in Hamilton Inlet (Kennedy 1995:25-41;Zimmerly 1975:42-44). During the 1760s and early1 770s large numbers of Inuit from the central coast-perhaps mostly from Hamilton Inlet, but also partiesfrom Hopedale and Nain— made trips to the Englishtrading centers at Cape Charles and Chateau Bay.George Cartwright's diary indicates that large groupsof Inuit did not appear south of Hamilton Inlet after1 773 (Stopp, personal communication), but major Inuittraders were still making trips to Chateau Bay until ca.1 790 (see below). The establishment of Moravian mis-sions in central and northern Labrador after 1 771 pro-vided northern Inuit with closer trading options, whichbecame more advantageous in the late 1780s and1 790s when Moravian trade policies were liberalized.

During the course of the 1 7^^ and 1 8'^'^ centuries,Inuit tools traditionally made from stone were replacedby metals and a wide array of European goods wasincorporated into Inuit life. Dwelling forms changedfrom the earlier small single-family sod houses to largemulti-family communal houses (Kaplan 1983, 1985).The first Moravian missionary settlement was estab-lished at Main in 1771, followed by Okak (1776),Hopedale (1 782) and Hebron in 1 830 (and several oth-ers later in the 1 9^*^ century). Eventually, the previous-ly dispersed Inuit settlement became concentratedat the mission stations, where systematicChristianization and incorporation into Europeanmaterial culture systems occurred. But this process didnot transpire rapidly. Moravian letters from the late18^*^ century repeatedly express frustration at the dif-ficulties of acquiring and retaining converts andbemoan the negative influences of "heathens." Apoignant note is struck by a comment in the Hopedalediary for 1 795 that "...their hearts be as hard as rocksand as cold as the ice of their country" (P.A. 1:1795:351 ). Christianity was not consolidated until1804-1805 when a "revival" spread through the mis-sion settlement areas (Hiller 1971:86). Nonetheless,

214

CHAPTER 1 1

"heathen" Inuit still dominated northernmost Labradorfor many years thereafter (Loring 1998).

Communal Houses and "Big-Men" Traders

Much of the research on Post-Contact Inuit settlementhas focused on the so-called "communal house phase"of the 18'^^ century. These semi-subterranean winterhouses were rectangular, 7-16 m long and 6 m wide,with long entrance passages and generally three sleep-ing platforms (Kaplan 1983:238). Taylor's (1974:71)ethnohistorical data indicate the dwellings were occu-pied by an average of 20 people. The household wasgenerally composed of several closely related families,often fathers and their married sons or brothers(Taylor 1 974:74-75) and polygyny was frequent (Taylor1974:67). Winter settlements consisted of 1-8 houses(average= 2.4; calculated from Taylor 1974:71).Information on the social relationships between house-holds is more limited than for within households, butTaylor (1974:77-78) suggested kinship sometimesplayed a role, either links between brothers or uxorilo-cal ties. Certain males had leadership positions withinthe households by virtue of their kinship positions(father/son or father/son-in-law), but leadershipauthority at the settlement level was less marked andwas tied to personal qualities, shamanist power andsuccess in trading for European goods. There were fewmechanisms for solving disputes above the householdlevel and authority conflicts between brothers werecommon (Taylor 1974:80-84). The latter resonates inthe translation of Nukasusutok (NaKasetjutok) as "theplace where the brothers quarreled" (Wheeler 1 953:62)and in a story recounted by Manase Fox (1979) con-cerning conflict between brothers, one a leader atNukasusutok.

The shift from single-family to multi-family com-munal dwellings has been discussed from differentperspectives. Schledermann (1976) offered an environ-mental determinist proposal: climatic cooling and theconcomitant decline of whale hunting decreasedresource availability, resulting in Inuit co-residential

arrangements to facilitate sharing and fuel conserva-tion. An unpublished paper by Taylor (1 976) attributedthe development to social aggregation around individ-uals prominent in trading baleen for European goods,a position adopted by R. Jordan (1978) and Kaplan(1983:351-359; also Jordan and Kaplan 1980) andclearly analogous to Sahlins' (1963) "big-man" modeland the north Alaskan umealik, a man of wealth andboat owner (Spencer 1 959). Kaplan went further, sug-gesting these high profile individuals and their eco-nomic and political activities indicate "...that a form ofhierarchical organization was in operation in 18'^'^ cen-tury Neo-Eskimo society" (Kaplan 1 983:352). Inuit mid-dlemen from the central coast acquired baleen, whale-bone, seal oil and furs from groups in the north andthen traveled to southern Labrador trading centerssuch as Cape Charles and Chateau Bay. There theyacquired European goods that later were circulatednorthwards, either down-the-line along existing socialnetworks or by the traders transporting them north-wards themselves (Kaplan 1983:351-353). A well-known trader from the Main region, Tuglavina, facilitat-ed this activity by acquiring a two-masted sloop (P.A.1: 1 794:251).

Kaplan (1 983:355-359) saw these processes interms of the emergence of new "entrepreneurial" socialroles, increased competition for resources and familyrivalries. Multi-family households headed by boat own-ers constituted expanded production units and createdsocial dependencies. Household heads could use theseproduction units to generate the resources needed forparticipation in regional trade, which in turn providedthe economic tools and symbols of status needed toretain followers and recruit multiple wives, who sup-plemented the household's labour power, served asprestige symbols and extended kinship-based eco-nomic networks. Shamanist power could also be usedto reinforce social influence.

The Jordan-Kaplan model was challenged byRichling (1993), who drew quite different conclusionsfrom the connection between trade goods and multi-

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

215

family households. Richling saw the 18'^'' century notas a period of radical shift towards hierarchy, but as atime when Inuit adjusted to changes by intensifyingtraditional egalitarian social practices. He questionedR. Jordan's (1978:184) assumption that trade goodswere regarded as private property and thus not subjectto sharing beyond the household. Instead, Richling(1993:74) suggested intensified communalismthrough sharing was a traditional Inuit means for deal-ing with economic scarcity and that access to scarceEuropean goods would also have been handledthrough sharing relationships. Although Richling wasprobably right in questioning the relevance of privateproperty concepts, his invocation of a blanket commu-nal social ethic as sufficient explanation for the devel-opment of multi-family houses leaves much of thedynamics of 18^'^ century Inuit society unaccountedfor. It seems more productive to theorize householdheads as active agents whose strategies drew on tradi-tional internal social resources such as personal char-acteristics, hunting skill, generosity and shamanistpower, and who had varying degrees of ability toexploit the new external resources that became avail-able through engagement with the expanding periph-ery of the European world system. This leaves open thepossibility for varied sets of local outcomes, somemarked by a degree of social inequality, others markedby equality maintenance mechanisms.

In order to put human faces on the abstract cate-gory of Inuit agents, a short historical narrative derivedfrom Moravian missionary sources is presented in thenext section. The late 18'^'^ century Moravian accountsprovide an interesting glimpse of the prevailing socialdynamics, albeit from a Moravian point of view. Thisstory of two well-known Inuit highlights some of theprocesses outlined above.

An Ethnohistoric Vignette: Tuglavinaand Mikak

One individual whose life intersected with theNukasusutok settlement for a time was the "big-man"

trader Tuglavina, frequently referred to in the late 1 8'^''century Moravian accounts. His sometime wife Mikakalso has a high profile in the historical records,although there is no indication that she resided onNukasusutok with Tuglavina. The following is a briefbiographical synopsis, culled from J. Garth Taylor'spublications and the Moravian Periodical Accounts. Itprovides a sketch of important aspects of Inuit socialand economic life during the late 18*^^ century, but itshould be emphasized that neither individual can betaken as representative of a "typical" Inuk of the time.

Mikak was the daughter of the Inuit leaderNerkingoak. After an initial 1765 encounter withMoravian missionaries on an exploratory trip, Mikakwas captured in 1 767 near Cape Charles in southernLabrador. In 1 768 she was taken to England where sheresided until her return to Labrador in 1769. Shemoved within London society and helped promote theMoravian cause; the mission eventually received a landgrant in 1769. When the Moravian missionariesreturned in 1 770 on another exploratory trip to find alocation to establish a mission they met Mikak and hernew husband Tuglavina near Byron Bay (north ofHamilton Inlet). Mikak clothed herself in a gold-trimmed gown given to her by the Dowager Princess ofWales, and a king's medal. The couple accompaniedthe Moravians northwards to Nain, Tuglavina servingas guide (Taylor 1979:740, 1984:18-19; Whiteley1 979:536-537). One might speculate as to whetherTuglavina's forming a partnership with a woman whohad such close ties with the English was a deliberatestrategy on his part to facilitate access to Europeangoods and acquire status.

The Moravians regarded Tuglavina as "...a man ofvast authority among his countrymen" (P.A. 3:1799:435) "...and his word was absolute law" (P.A. 1:1 794:251). His prominence was based partly on hunt-ing success, physical strength and cleverness, but alsoon the widespread belief that he possessed exception-al powers of sorcery that were given to him by Torngak(a spirit). If, after consulting with Torngak, he stated

216

CHAPTER 1 1

that someone should be killed, the declaration wasimplemented. Tugiavina himself allegedly killed sever-al people and his shamanist exhortations resulted inmany additional killings by others. During the earlyyears of the mission Tugiavina was a thorn in the sideof the Moravians, "seducing" their converts (P.A. 1:1794:251). He and Mikak did not live at the mission(Whiteley 1 979:537); as noted below, we know that hewas resident at the Nukasusutok settlement in 1 776-77. Despite his activities, Tugiavina maintained a "sub-missive" tone in the vicinity of the missionaries (P.A. 1:1 794:251) and assisted them in various ways. In 1 775he used a boat constructed for him by the Moraviansto transport some missionaries scouting for a new mis-sion site to the Hopedale area. In 1 780 a missionaryaccompanied him into the interior on a caribou hunt-ing trip (Taylor 1969, 1979:740, 1984:21).

Mikak and Tugiavina had a difficult relationship.Prior to Mikak's return from England Tugiavina hadbeen married to Mikak's younger sister. Tugiavinatook possession of the sister again in 1772, whichalienated the group she had been with and displeasedMikak. Mikak was also displeased when Tugiavina tem-porarily exchanged her for another man's spouse. Afeud was brewing with another group in the Nainregion because of complaints that Mikak's family didnot share the goods they had accumulated. In 1 774-75Tugiavina and Mikak wintered in the interior, subsist-ing off stored caribou meat. In the fall of 1 775 thecouple went to northern Labrador on a trading expedi-tion, collecting baleen at Nachvak, among otherplaces. In the spring of 1 776 Tugiavina abandonedMikak in favour of her two sisters. Mikak then livedwith another man who lacked resources and social sta-tus (Taylor 1984:21-22). By 1782 Tugiavina had fourwives (Taylor 1979:740, 1984:23).

In 1 782 Tugiavina went to Chateau Bay in south-ern Labrador where he traded at European establish-ments. Mikak and her new husband followed.Tuglavina's southern trading continued until ca. 1 790.At the outset he acquired a two masted sloop in the

south (P.A. 1: 1794:251), which was instrumental forhis ability to gather baleen from Inuit in northernLabrador. The baleen was exchanged for Europeangoods at Chateau Bay and the goods were then trans-ported to the north. Tugiavina also acquired firearms,which the Moravians had been unwilling to supply, andhe solicited Inuit to accompany him on his tradingtrips, which did not please the missionaries (Taylor1 979:740). On his return to Nain in 1 784 he appearedat the mission wearing a European officer's outfit con-sisting of a coat, wig, laced hat and sword (P.A. 1:1794:251). In 1783 Tugiavina was baptized in thesouth and given the Christian name William, but hereturned to Nain in 1784 "as sinful as ever," althoughhe assisted the mission in various ways (P.A. 3:1 799:435-437).

Mikak lived mostly in the Hamilton Inlet area until1 795 when she returned to the mission at Nain, whereshe died about the age of 55 (Whiteley 1 979:536-537).Tuglavina's life as a trader ended by 1 790 "...when hissloop became unseaworthy and he had only a singledog to pull his sled" (Taylor 1979:740). In 1790 hejoined the mission settlement in Nain, now with onlyone wife. He was not accepted as a full member of theNain congregation until 1 793, since he had difficultyconforming to Moravian expectations. In 1 793 themissionaries wrote that Tugiavina and Sikfigak's fami-lies departed the mission for other places "...wherethey spent the winter in many wicked ways...Tugiavinais often very uneasy in his conscience and promises toreturn, but cannot put his good intentions into execu-tion" (P.A. 1: 1793:21 5). But by 1795-96 Tugiavinabegan to "testify" to other Inuit and remained a convertdespite "harassment" from "heathen" Inuit (P.A. 1:1 795:354, 2:60). He died of pleurisy in 1 798 at ca. 60years old, a few days after returning from a caribouhunt (P.A. 3: 1 799:328, 435).

18^*^ Century Subsistence-Settlement Systems

The 18'^'^ century Inuit communal house economymust also be situated in terms of subsistence-settle-

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

217

ment systems. The following is a short summary ofcentral points.

Semi-subterranean sod house settlements wereoccupied during the winter, beginning in mid-Octoberwhen Inuit moved into their houses prior to the fallhunt for southward migrating harp seals (Taylor1974:51). According to Taylor (1974:51), all the late18'^'^ century winter house settlements in the Nain-Okak regions were located in areas with access tomigrating harp seals. Harps and other seals were hunt-ed by kayak until the formation of sea-ice. Fall sealingwas highly productive such that seals were first cachednear the hunting sites then transported by sled to thesettlements later in the winter (Taylor 1974:35, 51 ).Bowhead whales were hunted in November by umiakcrews of 1 1 -1 5 men (Taylor 1 988:123, 125). Moravianrecords from 1771-1784 indicate the most productivewhaling areas (in descending order) were Hebron,Nachvak, Sagiek, Okak, and Hopedale, with a total of63 whales reported taken during this time span. Nowhales were reported as captured in the Nain area,probably because of the unfavorable bathymetric con-ditions of the island-studded archipelago (Taylor1988:125), but stranded drift whales were exploitedwhen available (Taylor 1988:127).

After freeze-up in mid-December, Inuit activitieswere centered on breathing hole sealing through newthin ice, especially along the sJna or at tidal "rattles."This was often undertaken by male hunting partiesbased in temporary snow-house camps. But Januarythrough April was a relatively low productivity periodfor sealing. Caribou meat taken on fall hunts in theinterior might be retrieved from distant inland caches(Taylor 1 969:1 57, 1974:51-55). March and April weremarked by sealing and walrus hunting at the sina androck cod could be jigged through the sea-ice and charthrough the ice on inland lakes.

The sod house settlements were abandoned inlate April when households established tent camps onthe outer islands for spring sealing. Both basking seal(ottuk) techniques and open water kayak hunting were

employed, with bearded and harbor seals as primaryprey. In June the northward migration of the harp sealswould be exploited by open water hunting, occasional-ly walrus and beluga could be had, and sea birds werehunted and their eggs collected (Taylor 1974:55-56).After the ice break-up in mid-June people moved to theinner bays where large regional gatherings occurred ataggregation sites. In the Nain area this was at Amitok(Pardy Island), where 200-300 people participated.Kayak-based sealing was conducted in the bays andchar and salmon were fished on their seaward runs(Taylor 1974:18, 56).

In late August and until October, some familieswent inland to hunt caribou for their skins and tocache meat for the winter. Those remaining on thecoast engaged in sealing, fished char and salmon ontheir landward migrations, caching them for futureuse, and fished cod (Taylor 1974:57-58).

On the Cusp of Change: Into the Early19*^1 Century

During the late 1 8'^'^ and early 1 9*^*^ centuries a seriesof changes occurred as central coast Inuit graduallyabandoned their communal houses and resettled atthe Moravian mission centers. Although the missionsat Nain, Okak and Hopedale were established between1 771 and 1 782, it was not until the early 1 9th centu-ry that the majority of Inuit resided in these settle-ments. In 1 793 the Moravians reported four houseswith a total of 60 Inuit at Nain (P.A.I :1 793:21 5). In1 795 the Nain mission reported a congregation of 28plus 40 others who were permitted to live at the set-tlement (P.A. 1:1 795:354). In 1 806, after the "revival"episode, there were 42 baptized and 22 unbaptizedInuit (P.A. 4:1 806:1 25). By 1810 there were 91 in thecongregation (P.A. 5:1810:55) and in 1819 there were146 congregants and a total of 1 75 inhabitants in theNain settlement (P.A.7:1 81 9:1 66). The slow recruit-ment rate well into the early 19'^'^ century suggeststhat Inuit assessed the costs and benefits of affiliatingthemselves with the missions and initially found few

218

CHAPTER 1 1

advantages in doing so. Yet by the second decade ofthe 19*^^ century the dynamics of autonomy/depend-ence relations had shifted to the extent that autonomywas no longer a viable strategy on the central coast.

The primary attraction of settling at a mission sta-tion was close and reliable access to European goodssince, as noted above, the Moravians' frustration witha low conversion rate indicates that religious enthusi-asm was not a central factor (Kaplan 1983:365).Initially, the Moravians tried to deal with this problemthrough a strategy of handling economic transactionsand religious conversion as separate spheres. Goodsand services had to be paid for and food was not dis-pensed freely except in times of dire need. Since themission store was accessible to both converts and"heathen," conversion had no direct economic benefitsand residence at mission settlements might incur sub-sistence disadvantages because of the non-optimalplacement of the missions relative to game resources(Hiller 1971:84-85). Thus, until the early 1800s Inuitretained their autonomy in the hinterlands of the mis-sion settlements, leaders attempted to lure convertsaway from the missions and traders continued theirtravels to southern Labrador.

In the late 1780s and 1790s the Moravian strate-gy of separating the spiritual realm from utilitarianrewards was undermined by organizational changesinvolving closer links between mission policy and eco-nomic practices, such as providing firearms to com-pete with southern traders and allowing credit (Hiller1971:94-95). These practices increased the potentialbenefits of mission affiliation and subverted the abilityof independent Inuit traders to sustain their activitiesand retain followers. Increased economic engagementwith the Moravians impacted social relations and mate-rial culture. The availability of guns for caribou huntingeliminated the use of drive systems and large groupcooperation, while sealing and fishing with nets pro-vided larger immediate returns with minimal coopera-tion. In the 19'^'^ century, fox trapping drew Inuit intocredit/debt relations and greater dependence on

European goods since trapping did not generate directsubsistence rewards (Kaplan 1983:361-363).

Those Inuit who settled at the missions not onlyunderwent religious conversion but also significantsocial transformations. The missionaries abhorred themulti-family houses and their associated "heathen"practices so mission Inuit were required to live in sin-gle-family dwellings. The Moravians were concernedabout the potential bad influence of "heathens" outsidethe settlements, so converts were encouraged to huntand fish close to the missions in order to minimizecontacts with "heathens" and to permit Moravian mon-itoring of the converts' behavior. This tethering wasproblematic for a traditional economy requiring mobil-ity and opportunism, especially at Nain, where the mis-sion was established at an inner bay location manykilometers distant from the best winter hunting areason the outer islands. The Moravians therefore had toaccept a degree of residential flexibility and seasonalmission occupation on the part of their converts (Hiller1971:89-9;, Kaplan 1983:365). An important shift insubsistence practices encouraged by the Moravianswas an intensification of cod fishing in the fall to lay ina stored food supply to offset frequent winter short-ages. But as late as 1814 the Moravians reported diffi-culties in establishing a storage-oriented cod fisherybecause Inuit were satisified with 1 00-200 fish and didnot like that type of work (P.A.6:1 81 4:54).

An important aspect of mission-related socialtransformation concerns women's roles. The status ofwomen in Inuit society in general has been the subjectof considerable discussion (e.g., Briggs 1974; Ciffen1930; Cuemple 1986). A strong division of labor bygender is evident in the ethnography, but the function-al complementarity of roles is generally stressed. Atthe same time, however, accounts of violence towardswomen abound, wife-stealing is a recurrent theme andthe symmetry or asymmetry of spousal exchange hasbeen debated. The ethnohistorical material fromLabrador is no different. Taylor (1974:80) refers toaccounts of runaway wives and spousal violence, and

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

219

the politics of polygyny (Taylor 1 974:67-70) were opento abuse as well. From one perspective, multiple wivesprovided the male household leader with more laborpower and higher prestige, while from another per-spective co-wives provided each other with labor assis-tance (Cabak 1 991:42). The distribution of these costsand benefits is hard to determine from the publishedsources and there is no information on the ranking ofco-wives within households. Women could also beshamans (Taylor 1974:87, 1989) and thus possessspiritual power. Taylor (1974:87) refers to a joint per-formance of seal hunting prediction by Sattugana(woman) and Millik (her husband) at Nukasusutok in1774, commenting: "...it is interesting to consider theindirect control Millik would have over the economicactivities in his camp through his wife's reputation asa shaman." But Sattugana seems to have had directinfluence over her husband as well, forbidding him toundertake actions on advice from spirits (Taylor1 974:88). The history of Mikak and Tuglavina is a com-plex mixture of a strong woman as social agent, con-flict and spousal abandonment.

Whatever the conflicting evidence, there arestrong grounds for assuming that in many cases anInuit woman's status in 1 8^^ century Labrador was notenviable. Perhaps this is an important reason whywomen were the core converts when the Moravian mis-sions began to attract residents towards the end of the18^^ century. In 1799 the Nain mission observed that"...in general, the men do not seem so determined intheir resolution to abide faithful as the women" (P.A.2:1799:328) and it appears that women were impor-tant catalysts in the religious revival of 1804-1805(Brice-Bennett [1981], cited in Cabak 1991:58). Cabak(1991:62-67) suggests that Inuit women affiliatedthemselves with the missions out of an interest inChristianity as a source of hope and security, a desireto change the unhappy or abusive circumstances oftheir lives, to take advantage of educational opportuni-ties and childcare possibilities within a larger commu-nity, to extract themselves from the marginality of wid-

owhood and old age, and to acquire European goods.As far as the latter is concerned, archaeological mate-rials from 19'^'^ century middens at the Nain missionsettlement suggest that Inuit women were active inintegrating European goods into household contextsand that the use of these goods may have contributedto women's prestige (Cabak 1991:181; Cabak andLoring 2000).

AN ETH NOH ISTORIC SKETCH OFTHE NUKASUSUTOK SETTLEMENT

References to Nukasusutok in the ethnohistoricsources have been patched together to form a sketchysettlement history. The synopsis is derived primarilyfrom J. Garth Taylor's and Helga Taylor's publishedresearch, which draws on the mostly German languageMoravian mission diaries and letters. Also consultedwere the Moravian Periodical Accounts (P.A.), which areannually published English summaries of mission diaryentries and letters. Most of these accounts probablyrefer to Nukasusutok-8, but it is possible that some ofthe early 19'^'^ century references to Nukasusutokmight refer to a dwelling at Nukasusutok-7.

The demographic data pertaining to theNukasusutok-8 settlement are outlined in Table 57. Inthe following account the settlement history is brokendown according to the years for which relevant infor-mation is available. References to other localities areincluded when the information is relevant to under-standing the Nukasusutok settlement.

Table 57. Demographic Data for the NukasusutokSettlement from Moravian Sources (Taylor 1974:16).

No. of Houses

Population

1773-74

23

6

1 774-75

(3)

(60)

1 776-77

4

62

1 779-80

2

33

1781-82

2

50

Parentheses indicate estimates

220

CHAPTER 1 1

1772-73

The brothers Millik and Pattiguk, who would winter thenext year on Nukasusutok, each had a winter house onNiatak Island (7 km northwest of the Nukasusutok set-tlement). Each household contained 20 people (Taylor1974:77). Millik's wife Sattugana was an eminentshaman and performed a ceremony during the winter(Taylor 1974:87, 1985:123, 1989:300).

1 773-74

The Nukasusutok settlement consisted of two housescontaining a total population of 36 people (Taylor1974:16, 71). Millik (father-in-law) and Okarloak II(son-in-law) shared a household (Taylor 1974:75).Millik's wife Sattugana gave a shamanist performanceconcerning the weather and seal hunting possibilities(Taylor 1974:87, 1989:301). Taylor (1974:87) sug-gests that Sattugana's reputation as a shaman mayhave contributed indirectly to Millik's control overcommunity economic activities. Sikkuliak (father) andKigluana (son), who would later reside at Nukasusutok,shared a house at Satosoak Island (30 km west ofNukasusutok).

1774-75

Millik ordered his sled and 1 2 dogs to be prepared forthe missionaries when they left the Nukasusutok set-tlement. He sent his eldest son Aumarak and Akbikwith them. Taylor (1974:80) cites this incident as oneof the few documented examples of authority asser-tion by a household head.

1776-77

In December 1 776 a stranded whale was towed to theNukasusutok settlement just before freeze-up (Taylor1974:76-77, 1988:128, 1990:52). The baleen wasdescribed as "marketable," the meat as "spoiled," butthe skin was still edible (Taylor 1988:128, 1990:59).Given this bonanza of whale skin, people from all overthe Nain region converged on Nukasusutok to feastand celebrate. The community consisted of four sod

houses with a total of 62 people and eight snow hous-es that probably contained at least 38 visitors, for atotal of 1 00-1 50 people (Taylor 1 974:1 6, 1 990:60). InJanuary 1 777 the Inuit built a kagglk (festival house)of snow, 5.3 m high and 8.3 m in diameter, with anentrance passage. The kaggik activities mostlyinvolved men, and included the nullutak game (inwhich a bone with holes is suspended from the ceilingand participants attempt to skewer the holes withsticks) and boxing (Taylor 1990:53-54). Taylor(1 974:78) was able to use the Moravian census data toreconstruct the kinship relations among the sod houseinhabitants (Figure 141).

Household 1: Sikkuliak was the head. The unit con-sisted of 10 people, including Sikkuliak's two wives,six children, and the married son Kigluana (Taylor1974:75).

Household 2 Millik was the head. The unit consist-ed of 1 6 people, including Millik's three wives. Millik'ssecond wife was Sikkuliak's daughter, therefore Millikwas Sikkuliak's son-in-law. This provides evidence foran uxorilocal relationship. The household also includ-ed five of Millik's children, two of whom were marriedwith their own families.

Household 3: Pattiguk was the head. The unit con-sisted of six people, including Pattiguk's three wivesand two children. Note that the brothers Pattiguk andMillik had lived in the same settlement at Niatak in1772-73.

Household 4: Tuglavina was the head. The unitconsisted of 1 1 people, including Tuglavina's threewives (not Mikak, who had been abandoned the previ-ous spring) and Tuglavina's brother, with his two wivesand three offspring.

Taylor (1974:81) assumes the 1777 Beck censusordered the houses in terms of importance, implyingthat Sikkuliak (household 1) was most prominent.Taylor goes on to suggest that Sikkuliak's pre-emi-nence was due to his kinship tie as Tuglavina's broth-er (possibly elder), as well as being Millik's father-in-law. Additionally, we know that the brothers Sikkuliak

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

221

AtOtO 1=oAST)

=0=0

Household 4(Tuglavina)

o=A A A 6 6 6

Household 1(Sikkuliak)

"Z)f1tOtO

Household 2(Millik)

1 = 0 = 0 = 0

6^

Household 3(Pattiguk)

141/ Kinship relations of households at the Nukasusutok settlement, winter I 776-1 777. After Taylor (1974:78): reproducedby permission of the Canadian Museum of Civilization.

and Tuglavina quarreled periodically (Taylor 1974:82)and that they probably never shared a household,although in this case they were co-resident at the set-tlement. Parenthetically, this fraternal relationship isinteresting in light of the etymology of Nukasusutokgiven by Wheeler (1953:62-63): "the place where thebrothers quarreled."

1777-78

Sikkuliak and his son-in-law Millik began to build ahouse together at Okak (Taylor 1 974:74).

1 779-80

This winter the Nukasusutok settlement consisted oftwo houses and a total of 33 people (Taylor 1974:16).Pattiguk resided here and his nephew Kapik left themission settlement at Nain to live in Pattiguk's house-hold (Taylor 1974:74). Sikkuliak and his son Kigluanashared the other household (Taylor 1974:75).

1780- 81

Sikkuliak and his son Kigluana shared a household atKheovik, at Voisey's Bay (Taylor 1 974:75).

1781- 82

Two households with a total of 50 people resided atthe Nukasusutok settlement (Taylor 1974:16, 71). A

stranded 1 8-20 foot minke whale was towed to the set-tlement (Taylor 1974:32, 1988:128). Three familiesmoved away from Nukasusutok: Millik, his married sonAumarak and Naksuk (Taylor 1974:74). Sikkuliak andKetornek shared a household at Nain (Sikkuliak wasthe uncle of Ketornek's wife: Taylor 1 974:74). A springcamp was established seaward from Nukasusutok. OnMay 26 it consisted of three tents (22.5 people esti-mated) and on May 27 four tents (30 people estimat-ed: Taylor 1974:18).

1783

The Nukasusutok Inuit found "...a hole in the ice withtwo sled-loads of sea birds," probably dovekies (Taylor1974:54). In other words, there was an open waterarea that attracted a large number of birds, which werehunted rather thoroughly.

1784

Millik and his eldest son Aumarak were killed byTuglavina and others while trading at Cape Charles insouthern Labrador (Taylor 1974:92).

1794

Apkajunna, his family and two others visited Okak inFebruary from Nukasusutok. He was instrumental inorganizing the construction of a festival house at

222

CHAPTER 1 1

Okak. A 1 783 Moravian account states that Apkajunnawas originally from Sagiek and a 1 784 account men-tions him as a whale harpooner at Okak. According toaccounts from 1 787 and 1 794, he later became a mid-dleman in the trade with Europeans, acquiring a wood-en boat and wintering in the Hamilton Inlet region(Taylor 1990:62).

1800

Only a few "heathen" families remained in the Nainarea. It appeared that the "heathen" were: "...more thanever convinced of the necessity for conversion" (P.A. 2:1800:472). In December the angakok (shaman)Sigsikak went from Nukasusutok to Nain with his"whole numerous family" (P.A. 3: 1801:12). TwoEnglishmen arrived unexpectedly and came to theNukasusutok settlement to catch seals in nets and win-ter there, but the Inuit "...didn't seek the company ofthe strangers." (P.A. 2: 1800:472)

1805-6

A group of "heathen" were reported at Nukasusutok.They maintained relations with traders and settlers inHamilton Inlet (P.A. 3: 1805:489). At Hopedale in1806, Siksigak was baptized and re-named Mark,which the Moravians regarded as a "striking conver-sion" (P.A. 4: 1806:87).

1809

The missionaries in Nain reported: "We have heard withmuch concern, that a man, who had lived two winterson our land, and even last winter gave good hopes thathe would be converted, has been seduced by the hea-thens at Nokkasusuktok to change his mind, and nomore intend[s] to live on our land" (P.A. 4: 1809:453).

181 1

During the winter Inuit from Nukasusutok came fre-quently to the mission at Nain to trade. Their "princi-ple leader" moved to Nain in February, seemingly readyfor conversion (P.A. 5:1811:1 30).

Discussion

One of the major points emerging from this short set-tlement history is that Nukasusutok-8 representsrepeated occupations by many different householdunits. These households circulated among several set-tlement locations over the years, some close by in theNain area, others further afield in Okak, Sagiek andHamilton Inlet. Nonetheless, there appears to havebeen a degree of consistency in the social compositionof the settlement during the 1 0 year period of 1 772-82,with the families of Sikkuliak, Millik and Pattiguk beingmentioned frequently. This is probably a consequenceof the fraternal relationship between Millik and Pattigukand Millik's marriage to one of Sikkuliak's daughters(see Figure 1 38). But although some settlements mayhave been associated with specific families or kin unitsfor a time, residential mobility was high and structuredby both kinship and opportunistic factors.

Another point is that despite considerable contactwith the Moravians in the early years after the estab-lishment of the Nain mission in 1771, the inhabitantsof the Nukasusutok settlement remained unconverted.By the early 1800s Nukasusutok was regarded by themissionaries as an outpost of recalcitrant "heathens."Not only did they still resist conversion, but theyencouraged converts residing at the Nain mission toabandon their new beliefs. Furthermore, theNukasusutok Inuit maintained contacts with tradersand European settlers in Hamilton Inlet, an undesirablelink in Moravian eyes, since it undercut Moravian influ-ence and control. This, along with the residence of sev-eral prominent traders and shamans at the settlement,suggests that Nukasusutok was a prominent site ofresistance to European domination.

There are two obvious archaeological conse-quences of this settlement history. First, the sod hous-es at Nukasusutok-8 were probably cleaned out or ren-ovated periodically, thus it is unlikely that the houseand midden contents can be related to any of the doc-umented individuals and the house floor contents willmostly represent the last occupation phase. Second,

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

223

we might expect that a settlement composed of Inuitresisting control by the IVloravians might contain acombination of traditional Inuit and European goods,but unusual quantities of European goods might bepresent, particularly if prominent traders such asTuglavina and the nascent middleman Apkajunna wereresident there for extended periods. Another possibil-ity might be the presence of artifacts related toshamanist practices, since Sattugana, Tuglavina andSigsikak all were believed to possess special powers.

THE ARCHAEOLOGY OFNUKASUSUTOK-7 (HcCI-8)

Nukasusutok-7 is a Contact to post-Contact Period sitelocated on Pumialuk Point on the southwestern portionof Nukasusutok Island (Figure 16). The area was tra-versed by a Smithsonian associate in 1 973 but was notrevisited until contract and provincial governmentarchaeologists passed by on a mineral exploration-related survey in 1 997 (Penney 1 997; K. Reynolds, per-sonal communication). The author conducted a briefreconnaissance in 2004. The site designation lumpstogether five separate localities that are distributedalong a 700 m stretch of the point. Each locality isdescribed separately, proceeding westwards.

L-1

On an extensive flat area near the base of the pointwere a large oval tent ring (5 by 5 m) and a small stonegrave or fox trap.

L-2

A large stone grave was located in a narrow beachpass. Constructed of boulders, the grave was 3.5 by1.5 m in size and was oriented east-west. A gift cache(1 by 1 m) directly adjoined its western end. This fea-ture might be Strong's Grave 3 (see below), which hada gift cache and skeletal remains oriented with thehead towards the east, but his description is sosketchy it is impossible to be sure. Strong mentionedthat the chamber of Grave 3 contained broken brass

and iron objects and the cache had broken metalobjects.

L-3

Two oval tent rings (both 4 m in diameter) and onesquare tent ring (4 by 4 m).

L-4

Four square tent rings (two 5 by 5 m, one 5 by 4 m, one4 by 4 m); one contained a probable internal hearth. Aclay pipestem was noted on the surface of the beachcrest. At the western side of the beach pass was awood cache positioned under a bedrock overhang.

L 5

A broad beach pass contained four features. On thewestern side of the pass was a semi-subterraneanhouse. Ten meters east of the house was a small rec-tangular stone "frame" and 20 m east of this were twomore such frames.

Semi-Subterranean House

This feature was square, 5 by 4.5 m in size. Its well-preserved back and side walls (30-50 cm wide) werebuilt up with sod to a height of 25 cm above the exter-nal ground surface and 50 cm above the internal floorlevel. The front of the house lacked a distinct above-surface wall; it was simply dug down ca. 20 cm fromthe turf surface. There was no clear entrance passage,only a shallow depression 1.5 m wide by 2.5 m longthat extended from the center of the front wall. Theentrance faced south. There was a single rear sleepingplatform that encompassed the entire rear wall andwas 1.3 m wide.

Three small shovel tests were excavated in anattempt to find diagnostic materials to date the struc-ture. Test Pit 1 was placed 1.4 m from the front wall ofthe house, just east of the entrance depression. Itrevealed a 20 cm thick and extremely compact peatlayer on top of beach gravel. About 10 cm below thepeat surface was a charcoal layer that contained two

224

CHAPTER 1 1

well preserved seal bones. Test Pit 2 was excavated inthe center of the house floor, 1 m from the front wall.Here there was a 10 cm deep peat layer on top ofbeach gravel. Towards the bottom of the peat were twosmall iron fragments, a poorly preserved seal boneand a piece of wood embedded vertically into the floor.Little charcoal was encountered. Test Pit 3 was placed2 m from the front wall, on the western side of theentrance depression. It contained 25 cm of peat on topof beach gravel; no cultural material was observed.

This semi-subterranean structure is notable for its"light" construction, exhibiting a form more similar toa transitional season qarmat than a winter house. Therelatively small size of the dwelling, plus its lack of awell-defined entrance passage, is suggestive of a 19'^^century structure. Unfortunately, no datable finds wererecovered. The paucity of cultural material suggests thedwelling was occupied for only a short period of time.

Stone "frames"

The three stone "frames" were rectangular alignmentsof small rocks, similar in size (1.3 by 0.80 m) and ori-ented approximately north-south. They may mark earlyChristian graves.

THE ARCHAEOLOGYOF NUKASUSUTOK-8 AND W. D.STRONG'S GRAVE COLLECTION

The sod-house village Nukasusutok-8 (HcCh-10) islocated towards the southwest portion of the island atthe base of a steep spruce-clad valley (Figures 16, 1 42,143). W. D. Strong was informed about theNukasusutok house structures by an Inuk from Main. In1928 Strong and an expedition companion spent theperiod of August 1-7 on the island investigatingNukasusutok-8 and several Inuit graves. This occurredat the tail-end of the Rawson-MacMillan expedition and

it is evident from Strong's diary entries that he wasfed-up and looking forward to heading home. Kaplan's(1 983:469) visit in 1 980 identified five sod houses, butStrong's field notes indicate seven dwellings, two ofwhich may be tentative. Since the two "missing" struc-tures could be obscured beneath today's heavy vegeta-tion cover. Strong's sketch map is used as the basisfor Figure 142 and his numbering sequence for thehouses^ is retained. Also present at the site are a tentring and the remains of a kayak stand or cache. Agrave lies near the shore ca. 200 m west of the site.Besides Kaplan's brief visit in 1980, more recent inves-tigations of the site include the author's 1 992 test-pit-ting of the midden in front of House 5 and a recon-naissance by J. Garth Taylor in 1966 (Taylor 1966).

Strong excavated much of House 1, part of House5, and tested Houses 4, 6 and 7. He found relativelylittle artifact material within the houses. Much of hisinterest seems to have been directed towards graveslocated in several places on the island, some of whichcontained considerable quantities of artifacts.Unfortunately, the Peabody Museum collection is sim-ply registered as from "Nukasujuktok Island," with noindication as to which parts of the material derivefrom the house excavations versus the graves, or towhich graves the material belongs. Strong's fieldnotesand photographs can be used to associate a very fewartifacts with specific graves, but over 90% of thematerial must be regarded as of uncertain prove-nience. Nonetheless, given his comments on thepaucity of artifacts within the excavated houses it islikely that much of the museum collection is derivedfrom the graves. Strong's fieldnotes suggest someitems excavated by him are either not present in thePeabody Museum material or were never collected andbrought south, possibly because they were regardedas too "modern" (e.g., European ceramics and an ironshovel). The seven sod houses at Nukasusutok-8 are

^Strong's and Kaplan's (1983:470) house numbering is identical for Houses 1 and 2, but Kaplan's Houses 3, 4, and 5correspond to Strong's Houses 5, 6, and 7, respectively.

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

225

sea

142/ Nukasusutok-8 site map. Based on W. D. Strong's 1928 field notes, with modifications. Used by permission, NationalAnthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution.

arranged in two different groups (Figure 142).Houses 1, 2 and 3 lie furthest from the modern shore-line and are built into the side of a steep slope, whileHouses 4, 5, 6 and 7 are excavated into a relativelyflat beach surface closer to the contemporary shore-line. Two house types are present. Houses 1, 2 and 5are large rectangular communal houses with longstraight entrance passages; this form was common inthe 1 8^^ century. They measure about 8 m along theirrear walls and 7 m along their side walls. Houses 1and 5 have prominent midden deposits. Houses 6 and7 are smaller. House 6 measures 5 m along its side,while House 7 measures 6 m along its rear wall and 5m along its side walls, both have short entrancesrather than long entrance passages. Kaplan(1 983:469) dates these structures to the 1 9^'^ centuryand Strong's field notes confirm this in referring tothem as "regular board houses," in which were found

an iron shovel and "pink plates." No size data areavailable for the currently "invisible" Houses 3 and 4.Strong's sketch map and his field note comments thatiron and porcelain from House 4 indicate it is thesame age as House 5 suggest that the former mayhave had communal house dimensions. This wouldincrease the total of communal houses to at leastfour, which would be consistent with Moravian obser-vations of four occupied sod houses in the winter of1 776-77. House 3 was not tested by Strong so thereare no chronological indicators.

House 1

Strong began the excavation of House 1 by digging atrench up the long entrance passage towards the frontof the house. He refers to a thin and scattered middendeposit full of iron, brick, china, porcelain and cham-ber pot handles. These European objects were domi-

226

CHAPTER 1 1

143/ Nukasusutok-8: overview towards the southwest, August 1928. W. D. StrongCollection, © Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives, Negative No.99-10590.

144/ Nukasusutok-8: House 5 overview towards the southwest, August 1928. W. DStrong collection, © Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives,Negative No. 99-10591.

nant to a depth of two or three feet (60-90 cm), atwhich point a frozen layer containing bone fragmentswas encountered. Strong's rough sl<etches anddescription suggest he exposed most of the house, butit is unclear if the back wall was completely excavated.The inside measurements of the long walls were 6.2 mand 6.6 m while the inside lengths of the short wallswere 3.1 m and 3.8 m. The height of the stone wallswas 60 cm while the depth of the house from the cen-ter of the floor to the top of the wall mound was 1.2m. The entrance passage was 5.8 m long and up to 1.0m deep. Near the center of the floor was a "pillar" of

stones that Strong regarded aspart of the roof support system.There was a stone sleeping plat-form on the rear-left side of thehouse (1.68 m wide, 15 cmhigh) and another platform ofwood (1.2 m wide) on the rear-right side; between the two wasa wooden flooring. The well-pre-served wooden superstructure(mostly spruce) collapsed ontothe floor such that Strongreconstructs the roof supportsas consisting of a hewed beam(1 5 by 1 5 cm) laid from back tofront across the center of thehouse that provided support forsmaller beams extending infrom the wall tops. He also hintsat traces of wooden walls.

Strong provides only mini-mal descriptions of the artifactsfound in the house. Half of alarge soapstone lamp layupside-down on the right handplatform. He notes a possiblehammerstone ca. 30 cm deep inthe midden near the end of theentrance passage, although hissketch maps do not indicate any excavation unitsthere. From uncertain locations were: a few pieces ofcut whalebone, at least three fragments of soapstonevessels, an ivory harpoon socket, a bone knife handle,a stone "chisel," chinaware fragments, nails, an ironaxe and a gun butt-plate. Strong refers to the layers as"quite modern," noting there were more Europeangoods here than at Hopedale, suggesting theNukasusutok material was more recent. The hammer-stone, stone chisel, most of the ceramics and nails, theaxe and the gun butt-plate are all missing from thePeabody Museum collection.

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

227

House 5

House 5 is the largest and mostprominent house at the site(Figures 144 and 145). Thestructure was hastily and onlypartially excavated over a twoday period. Strong records wallmeasurements of 8.2 m for thesouth wall, 8.0 m for the west,7.1 m for the north and 7.0 mfor the east, and he measuredthe house depth at center as 1.5m. The entrance passage is ca.7 m long. A raised wall moundup to 1.2 m wide surrounds thestructure. Sleeping platformsare visible along the back and

one side wall. As in House 1 there is a central rockcluster. Strong reports very few finds in the front por-tion of the house.

In 1992 a 70 by 70 cm test pit was placed in themidden near the end of the entrance passage. The testpit was excavated to a depth of ca. 50 cm belowground surface, using three naturally defined collec-tion levels. Level 1 (0-23 cm) was a highly humified soilzone with poorly preserved bone. Level 2 (23-36 cm)began where the deposit took on a more sandy/gravel-ly texture, which coincided with better bone preserva-tion and included mussel shell remains and wood frag-ments. Level 3 (36-50 cm) commenced with a clearstratigraphic break in the form of a thin (1 cm) contin-uous layer of fibrous peat. Beneath the peat was 3 cmof dark-stained beach gravel and sand with poorly pre-served bone, mussel shells and wood fragments. Theexcavation terminated at 50 cm within the basal yellowsand/gravel.

The total thickness of the well-defined bone-bear-ing deposit was only 25 cm (somewhat thicker if thepoorly preserved material in the humus-root zone isincluded). This relatively thin deposit suggests anintensive but short-lived occupation.

145/ Nukcisusutok-8: House 5 excavation towards the west, August 1928. W. D. Strongcollection, © Smithsonian Institution, National Anthropological Archives, Negative No.99-10593.

Artifacts recovered from the midden test pit con-sisted of:

Level 1: ■ one hand wrought nailLevel 2: • 26 fragments of earthenware ceramic• two hand wrought nails

■ one round iron shaft

■ one iron knife tip with adhering baleenLevel 3: ■ one soapstone vessel sherd

The fragments of earthenware ceramic are diffi-cult to identify, but small remnants of green glaze andmicroscopic examination of the paste indicated simi-larities to French St. Onge earthenware, as classified inthe Parks Canada comparative collection housed at theArchaeology Unit, Memorial University. According toAuger (1991:40), St. Onge earthenware was manufac-tured between 1700 and 1750. The three handwrought nails, round iron shaft and iron knife tip areillustrated in Figure 146. These few finds suggest an18th century dating, but there is not much to go on.The thin Level 3 deposit under the peat raises the pos-sibility of an earlier component.

Faunal material from the midden test pit was iden-tified by Ann Rick of the National Museum of Nature,Ottawa. Table 58 lists the number of identified speci-

228

CHAPTER 1 1

b c d e

o / Z

146/ Nukasusutok-8: House 5, 1992 midden test pit collec-tion, a: iron l<nife tip: b: round iron shaft; c-e: nails.

mens (NISP) and minimum numbers of individuals(MNI) for each taxon. These data cannot be consideredto be particularly representative given the limitedscope of the testing and the hand-picking collectiontechnique, but they are broadly consistent withStrong's observation that there were considerableamounts of seal bone at Nukasusutok-8. Relatively fewof the seal bones were identifiable as to species, butharp seal is represented less than one might expect,considering Taylor's (1974:51) observation that com-munal houses were generally situated near fall harpsealing locations. The inability to distinguish clearlybetween harbor and ringed seal is a problem, but thefrequency of possible harbor seals is interesting inrelation to Wollett's (1999:380) observation that the1 S'^'^ century communal houses in Hamilton Inlet havehigh harbor seal to ringed seal ratios, which he attrib-utes to more moderate sea ice conditions. The relativelack of caribou is not surprising, given the distance toinner bay and interior caribou wintering areas. Onemight have expected more bird material given theabundance of wildfowl among the small islandseast/southeast of Nukasusutok during the spring andfall, but birds may have been exploited mostly fromspring to fall tent camps. The occurrence of fox is con-sistent with the presence of several large stone foxtraps elsewhere on the island.

Table 58. Fauna from the House 5 Midden atNukasusutok-8.

TAXON

NISP

MNI

Seal

144

9

Phoca sp.

4

2

harp seal (Phoca groenlandica) 1 1

ringed seal (Phoca hispida)

9

2

harp/ringed seal 1 1

harbor (Phoca vitLilina)/nnged seal

1 1

5

Artiodactyl 1 1

Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) 1 1

Canis sp.

3

1

Dog (Canis familiaris) 1 1

Wolf (Canis lupus) 1 1

Red Fox

3

1

Arctic fox/red fox 1 1

Unidentified mammal

49

Unidentified mammal fragments

114

Bird

Murre/Razorbill (Uria sp./AIca sp.)

1

1

Unidentified bird

1

Unidentified bird/mammal

4

Unknown (possibly baleen)

4

TOTAL

354

Strong's Grave Collections

Strong investigated six graves on Nukasusutok Island.Of these, only one is located relatively close to the sodhouse village at Nukasusutok-8. Some of the otherscan be located approximately using Strong's descrip-tions and photographs.

Grave 1 Strong reports this as a rock cairn near theshore, 200 m west of Nukasusutok-8. The individualwas an adult whose head was positioned towards thenorth, but the bones were too decayed to save. Theonly other grave contents were a few boards.

Grave 2 Crave 2 was situated on a high ridge 800 mnorth of Nukasusutok-8; Figure 147 probably illus-trates this feature. The cairn was almost round and

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

229

was well-constructed of slabs placed over the gravechamber with counterbalanced boulders on top. Thechamber was 2 m long, 25-50 cm wide, with the headpositioned towards the northwest. The skeletal materi-al consisted of a broken skull and mandible, whichStrong assumed to be female. Two meters to thesoutheast lay a gift cache covering a decayed roundwooden box containing "many" glass beads and asmall (32 mm long) perforated soapstone model of apolar bear.

Grave 3 Strong specifies the location of this grave aslying on a narrow neck between two small bays on thenorthwest end of Nukasusutok Island. This may be L-2at Nukasusutok-7 on Pumialuk Point (Figure 16). Thegrave chamber was 1.6 m long and the head of theindividual was oriented to the east. The humanremains consisted of a broken skull and long bones.Broken brass and iron objects lay in the chamber. Agift cache connected with the foot of the grave con-tained only broken metal objects.

Crave 4 This feature was situated on a ridge 200 mnorth of Crave 3, the location providing a good view up

The Bridges Passage and towards Paul Island. Thegrave consisted of boulders piled alongside an evenlarger boulder. The head was oriented towards thenorth or northwest. The skull was large and accompa-nied by a mandible and unusually massive long bones;Strong assumes the individual was male. Crave goodswere piled at the foot of the cairn and along its eastside. They included the remains of a kayak, a completewooden kayak paddle with one bone paddle tip, awooden harpoon shaft with an ivory socket, bone fore-shafts, many iron points and bird darts, a crooked ironknife, a metal jigger, two sheet iron pieces, a box, akettle and a whetstone.

Grave 5 Crave 5 was located on a ridge parallel withthat upon which Crave 4 was placed. It was a smallstone cairn with an inner chamber 1.6 m long, 45-80cm wide, with the head positioned towards the south-southeast. Skeletal remains consisted of a fragmentedskull, mandible and long bones; Strong considered thisto be a woman's grave. A gift cache near the head con-tained a "considerable" amount of metal, including anulu and "many" glass beads. If the cataloging sequencecan be taken to indicate things found together, as

147/ Nukasusutok Island: probably Crave 2, August 1928. W. D. Strong collection, © Smithsonian Institution, NationalAnthropological Archives, Negative No. 99-10592.

230

CHAPTER 1 1

seems to be the case for Crave4, then many or all of the brassheadbands and pendants as wellas the perforated and unperfo-rated pewter spoons may havebeen derived from Grave 5.

Grave 6 There is little location-al information for this graveother than it lay up the hillbehind Nukasusutok-8 and neartwo sliding door fox traps. Thegrave consisted of a large, well-built cairn with an inner cham-ber 2 m long, 30-60 cm wide. The skeleton was badlydecayed except for the skull and a fragmentarymandible; the head was oriented towards the north. Agift cache positioned 2 m to the south contained therim of a kayak, a board, an iron ulu and iron pyrites.One meter west of the grave were three small rocks ina line, beyond which was a small cache containing abeaten iron spearhead.

Description of the Artifact Material

Given the uncertainties regarding the find-contexts ofStrong's artifact collection, a general description of thematerial in terms of activity categories will be present-ed. Assessment of the Peabody Museum catalog inrelation to the Grave 4 goods photographed in the fieldby Strong suggests that at least some of the itemsassociated with an individual grave feature were cata-loged sequentially. Although it is impossible to drawreliable boundaries within the catalog sequence, thishint will be used to suggest some possible contextualassociations.

Hunting-Fishing Tools Table 59 outlines the range ofhunting-fishing tools in the collection. Many of theimplements associated with hunting-fishing activitywere probably derived from Crave 4, apparently a maleinterment. Only a short fragment of the harpoon shaft

——————'—^^^^^ -la^e^^^

■ -~ J

a

b

148/ W. D. Strong Nukasusutol< collection hunting and transportation implements,a: kayak paddle tip (Grave 4), b: harpoon foreshaft. © R. S. Peabody Museum ofArchaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts. All Rights Reserved.

remains, consisting of the distal end of the woodenshaft to which is affixed a weathered ivory socketpiece. Three bone foreshafts might be among thoseattributed to Grave 4 by Strong. One of the them(Figure 148:b) is a composite harpoon foreshaft madeon a walrus rib that has been sawed in two to create atongue and groove flange; the two components werethen fastened with iron rivets. Another is a lance fore-shaft made on a walrus rib (Figure 149:b) that has adistal slot for an endblade and a conical base with twodrill holes for lashing to a wooden shaft. The thirdexample is also a lance foreshaft made on a walrus rib(Figure 1 50:a); it retains a fragment of an iron end-blade riveted into its distal slot.

Table 59. Hunting-Fishing Tools fromthe Strong Collection.

Harpoon foreshafts

1

Lance foreshafts

Harpoon sockets

Iron arrow points

Iron bird dart points

Iron lance points

Wound pins

Spools (bladder inflation?)

Jiggers

Gunflints

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

231

Almost certainly from Crave 4 are seven Iron bird-dart points (Figure 151:b-h). These are thin (5 mm)hammered square iron shafts, some of which have asingle small barb. The points are similar to those illus-trated in the well-known 1 724 painting of CreenlandicInuit Pooq and Qiperoq (Cullov 1997:356). Probablyfrom Grave 4 are four iron arrow points (Figure 1 52:a-d), all with flat blades, a squarish hammered shaft andpointed proximal ends. R. Jordan (1978:182) illus-trates a similar arrow point, but with a longer stem,from an 18*^^ century context at Eskimo Island inHamilton Inlet. A long (40 cm) lance point made on ahammered square iron bar (8 mm thick) may also

149/ W. D. Strong Nukasusutok collection: huntingimplements, a iron lance point, b bone lance foreshaft.© R. S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, PhillipsAcademy, Andover, Massachusetts. All Rights Reserved.

150/ W. D. Strong Nukasusutok collection: hunting, trans-portation and household implements, a: bone lance fore-shaft with iron point fragment; b: bone paddle tip; c: ivoryharpoon socket: d: wooden wound pin: e: wood and boneulu handle, f: whalebone sled shoe. © R. S. PeabodyMuseum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover,Massachusetts. All Rights Reserved.

belong to this grave (Figure 149:a). Definitely fromCrave 4 is a jigger consisting of three iron hooksweighted with lead (Figure 1 53:b).

Among the remainder of the material for whichfind-context is uncertain there are two harpoon shaftsockets. One (Figure 1 50:c) is made of heavily weath-ered ivory, while the other is a composite implement ofbone, consisting of two halves fastened with four ironrivets. One of these could be from Strong's excavationat House 1. The wound pin (Figure 1 50:d) is made ofwood. An iron triangular point with a central rivet(Figure 1 52:e) is probably a lance tip intended to bemounted in foreshafts such as those illustrated inFigures 149:b and 150:a. A wooden spool (Figure1 54:a) may be of European origin, but perhaps it couldhave been used as a bladder inflation nozzle, since itis pierced through the middle. The single gunflint is adark gray specimen made on a blade (Figure 1 61 :a). Itssquare shape and trapezoidal cross-section suggest itis of English manufacture, from the late 1700sonwards (Luedtke 1999:37-39). Since the gunflint is

232

CHAPTER 1 1

151/ W. D. Strong Nukasusutok collection: hunting andliouseliold implements, a: iron saw. b-h: iron bird dartpoints (probably Crave 4); i: iron curved knife (Crave 4);j: iron knife blade. © R. S. Peabody Museum ofArchaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts.All Rights Reserved.

cataloged in the middle of a sequence running fromsoapstone vessel sherds to cut whalebone fragments itmay be from one of the houses.

Household Tools The category household toolsincludes a mix of traditional Inuit and Europeanforms, listed in Table 60. Among the traditionalimplements are a probable snow-beater made on awalrus rib. Of the four iron knives, two consist ofbone handles with fragments of inset iron blades(one is illustrated in Figure 1 53:a); one of these couldbe from House 1. The third is a 35 cm long, 2 cmwide blade (Figure 1 5 1 :j). The fourth is the blade of acurved knife together with an iron ring for fastening

152/ W. D. Strong Nukasusutok collection: hunting andhousehold implements, a-d: arrow points (probablyCrave 4); e: iron lance point with rivet, f iron ulu blade.© R. S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, PhillipsAcademy. Andover, Massachusetts. All Rights Reserved.

it to a European-style handle (Figure 1 51 :i); this spec-imen is definitely from Grave 4. There are three uluhandles in the collection. One of these (Figure 1 51 :e)has a wooden palm element and a bone stem, anoth-er consists of a bone stem element with iron rivetsand an iron blade fragment, while the third is madeof wood. Three items might be considered to bewood and bone-working tools: an iron saw blade(Figure 151:a), an iron drill bit and a small ironwedge. An iron hook (Figure 1 53:c) could be kettlehook. Eight pieces of pyrite are present: althoughStrong mentions their occurrence in Crave 6 it isuncertain whether all were associated with the burial.Presumably, they were used as strike-a lights. At leastone of the three schist whetstones was associatedwith a grave. A small brass ring with a knurled outersurface is probably a tailor's ring thimble. A singleunmodified pewter spoon is included in the domestictool category; the modified spoons are discussedbelow in the decorative category.

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

233

liOBERTS. I'EABODV MLSEL'M

/ 53/ W. D. Strong Nukasusutok collection: fishing andhousehold implements, a bone knife handle with iron bladefragment, b iron and lead jigger (Crave 4); c: iron kettlehook. © R. S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, PhillipsAcademy, Andover, Massachusetts. All Rights Reserved.

Table 60. Household Tools fromthe Strong Collection.

Snow beaters 1

Iron knives 4

Ulu handles 3

Iron ulu blades 1

Iron saw blades 1

Iron drill bits 1

Iron wedges 1

Iron hooks 1

Pyrites 8

Whetstones 3

Brass thimble 1

Pewter spoons (unmodified) 1

Wooden platters 1

Soapstone vessels 1 2

European ceramics 7

Different types of containers are represented. Alarge, partially preserved, oval wooden platter (Figure1 55) bears a scarf-joint with small nail holes around itsouter edge, indicating the platter was the top or bot-

154/ W. D. Strong Nukasusutok collection: wooden imple-ments, a: wooden spool; b: drilled wood with baleen lash-ing; c: curved wooden slat. © R. S. Peabody Museum ofArchaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts.All Rights Reserved.

/ 55/ W. D. Strong Nukasusutok collection: wooden boxcomponent. © R. S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology,Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts. All RightsReserved.

234

CHAPTER 1 1

torn of a wooden box. Quite speculatively, it might bea remnant of the wooden box containing glass beadsand the small soapstone polar bear found in the giftcache associated with Crave 2. On the other hand, itcould have served a more mundane function as a meatplatter. There are 12 fragments of soapstone vessels.Since Strong does not refer to any in the Nukasusutokgrave material while he does so for graves elsewhere inthe Main area, it is likely that all of them were derivedfrom the house excavations. As noted previously, halfof a large lamp was found on the platform of House 1;this is probably the specimen illustrated in Figure1 56:b. The latter has a rim up to 25 mm thick and adrilled repair hole on the bottom/middle of the vessel.There is also most of a small oval lamp, at least 1 3 cmin diameter (Figure 1 56:a). Neither of the lamp frag-ments has a wick stand. The rest of the vessel frag-ments range from 1 1-20 mm thick; two are illustratedin Figure 157.

Given Strong's field note comments on the fre-quency of European ceramics in his house excavations,it is strange that only seven fragments of Europeanceramics are present in the collection. Six of these arecoarse reddish earthenware with white carbonateinclusions, some pieces with a curved surface bearingconvolutions. The remaining specimen is a lump ofbrick-like material.

Transportation-Related Items Transportation relateditems consist of one kayak paddle blade fragment,two kayak paddle tips and seven sled runners. Allthat remains of the Grave 4 kayak paddle is the bro-ken wooden paddle blade illustrated in Figure 148:a.The two kayak paddle tips are made of bone; one isshown in Figure 1 50:b. One of these two implementsmust be from Grave 4. The seven sled runners (oneillustrated in Figure 1 50:0 are all made of whalebone,are mostly 39-56 mm wide and display varying num-bers of drill holes; two were curved for use at thefront of a sled. It is possible the runners are from oneor more of the houses or middens.

156/ W. D. Strong Nukasusutok Collection: soapstonelamps. © R. S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, PhillipsAcademy, Andover, Massachusetts. All Rights Reserved.

157/ W. D. Strong Nukasusutok collection soapstonevessel rim fragments. © R. S. Peabody Museum ofArchaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts.All Rights Reserved.

Decorative Items A significant number of items in thecollection could be considered decorative; these arelisted in Table 61. It is unclear from Strong's field-notes, but the copper/brass head bands and pendants

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

235

158/ W. D. Strong Nukasusutok collection: copper/brassdecorative items, a-b: headbands; c-f pendants. © R. S.Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy,Andover, Massachusetts. All Rights Reserved.

111 in s- n.Anonv MustLM

159/ W. D. Strong Nukasusutok collection: decorativeitems, a: 86 glass beads and soapstone polar bear sculp-ture, b: 58 lead pendants, c: 672 glass beads (probablyGrave 5): d-e: perforated pewter spoons. © R. S. PeabodyMuseum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy, Andover,Massachusetts. All Rights Reserved.

may have been derived from Crave 3 and/or Crave 5.The collection contains what are probably two com-plete headbands (Figure 1 58:a,b) as well as three large

\

f g h i j

R.S Ptjbcdv Muscu

/ 60/ W. D. Strong Nukasusutok collection: bone decorativeitems, a: ivory pins: b: bone comb: c: bird bone beads.© R. S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy,Andover, Massachusetts. All Rights Reserved.

portions thereof and two probable fragments. Theheadbands range between 20-29 mm wide; one hasfour small perforations along one edge while anotherhas two perforations. The pendants are made on verythin copper/brass sheets; two of these are circular withperforations (a trace of baleen twine is present onone), while two others are fish-shaped (Figure 1 58:c-0.The headbands and pendants, together with glassbeads, formed a decorative headdress for Inuitwomen. A perfect illustration of this arrangement isprovided in a 1 773 drawing by English artist NathanielDance of a Labrador Inuit woman, Caubvick (Figure162), made during her stay in England (Lysaght1971:83). Caubvick is portrayed wearing a headband

236

CHAPTER 1 1

and fish-shaped pendants are attached to her hair nearher ears, with strings of beads extending down fromthe pendants.

Table 61. Decorative Items from the Strong

Collection.

Copper/brass headbands 5

Copper/brass band fragment 2

Copper/brass pendants 6

Glass trade beads 767

Polar bear bead 1

Lead pendants 80

Pewter spoons, modified 12

Bone beads 49

Combs 2

Bone pins 4

Strong's collection also contains 80 small castlead pendants, 58 of which are strung as a "bracelet"in the Peabody collection (Figure 1 59:b). Most of theseexhibit either two or three globular segments, somehave two perforations, others only one, others none. Inthe 1880s these items were used by Ungava Inuit aspart of the front fringe on parkas (Turner 1894:21 1),but combined with glass beads they were also used ascomponents of amulets attached to shaman dolls(Turner 1894:196-198; see also Karklins 1992:195-1 99). According to Hawkes (191 6:39) these ornamentswere made by melting down pewter spoons and pour-ing the molten material into steatite moulds. Butpewter spoons were themselves used as ornaments forparkas. Their handles were removed and the remaininghandle stub was perforated such that the spoons couldbe sewn onto the front of coats (Turner 1894:211,Karklins 1992:195-198). Twelve modified spoons arefound in the Strong collection; two are illustrated inFigure 1 59:d, e.

The glass trade beads in Strong's collection werederived from Craves 2 and 5, both of which Strongconsidered to be women's graves. Besides their use indecorative headdresses and amulets, beads were also

R.S. pL'.ibody Museum

161/ W. D. Strong Nukasusutok collection lithic imple-ments, a: English gun flint, b Ramah chert stemmed point.© R. S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology, Phillips Academy,Andover, Massachusetts. All Rights Reserved.

used extensively to decorate skin coats (Karklins1992:195-199, Turner 1894:211; see Caubvick inFigure 162). The beads were described following thetypology developed by Kidd and Kidd (1970), but lack-ing their color diagrams and a formal color code chart,the color designations provided here are "best guess"matches with their system. Where relevant the typedesignations below include reference to Brain's (1979)modification of the Kidd typology (e.g., Ilal4/IIA1,Kidd/Brain). Of the total 873 beads, only 4 or 5 arewire wound, the rest are drawn.

It seems likely that the 672 beads cataloged as1 7.1 51 4 (Figure 1 59:c) are derived from Crave 5. Theyare all circular tube beads (class lla) and several colorsare represented:

• opaque white (Hal 4/IIAl): small= 395,medium= 22

• clear brite navy (Ila56/IIA6): small= 78

■ clear light blue (Ila417/IIA7?): small= 83

■ opaque black (Ila7/IIA5): small= 35

• opaque red (Ila2^): small= 26

• clear emerald green (Ila27/IIA1 5): small=l 5

• translucent sea green (lla): small= 9

• opaque amber (Hal 9): small= 6, medium= 1

• opaque dark burgundy red (lla): small= 1

• clear rose red (lla): small= 1

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

237

162/ A 1773 drawing of Caubvick by Nathaniel Dance.Note headband, fish-shaped pendants and glass beads onpendants. From the Knatchbull Portrait Collection.Photograph © Photographic Survey, Courtauld Institute ofArt, London.

Catalog number 1 7.1 51 3, from either Crave 2 or5, consists of 52 beads, some of which are found ontheir original strings in blue/white bead groups. All aresmall, circular, monochrome tube beads (class lla):opaque white (Ilal4/IIA1) = 25, translucent brite navyblue = 16, uncertain colour (probably white) = 8, clearemerald green (Ila27/IIA1 5) = 2, and opaque red = 1.Catalog number 17.1531, from either Crave 2 or 5,includes four groups of beads on their original string,also ordered in blue and white groups (suggesting theyare from the same context as 1 7.1 51 3) as well as loosebeads. There are 60 small, circular, monochrome tubebeads (class lla), of which 26 are opaque white(Hal 4/IIAl )and 34 clear Brite navy (Ila56/IIA6). There isalso one large, round, monochrome, opaque blacktube bead (Ila6/W1A6), as well as two large mono-

chrome ground beads. Of the latter, one is clear amber(resembles Wllc5/WIIA4) and the other opaque black(resembles Wild/WIIA7).

The small (32 mm long) soapstone model of apolar bear is perforated and strung on a museum fab-ricated bracelet consisting of 86 glass beads (Figure1 59:a). Strong makes no mention of a bracelet in hisfieldnotes, so it is unclear whether this was their orig-inal arrangement or a post-facto museum interpreta-tion. The beads consist of two large-sized round tubebeads, one black opaque (Ila6/W1A6), one ambertranslucent, two medium-sized circular tube beads(class lla), both light blue, and 82 small-to-medium-sized circular tube beads (class lla), of which 76 arewhite (Ilal4/IIA1), six dark blue and two light blue.

Dating these beads is difficult because they are vir-tually all common "seed beads" that were in use forextended periods of time. Brain's (1979) dating of thebead types mentioned above ranges from 1600-1890,with slightly more restricted dates for typesWIIC5/WIIA4 (1680-1833), Ila41/IIA7 (1600-1836),Ilal4/IIA1 (1600-1836) and Ila6/W1A6 (1700-1890).Some of these bead types were present in 18th centuryInuit houses in west Creenland (Cullov 1997:278-291),but the Nukasusutok material is more restricted in itsrepresentation of types, completely lacking polychromespecimens and with only 0.4-0.5% wire wound types.

The collection also contains decorative items ofbone. There are 49 beads made of small bird bones,mostly in the range of 1.8-2.0 cm long (Figure 160:e-j). There are two combs, one a near complete specimenof bone with two opposed tooth rows (Figure 160:d),the other a fragment made of wood. Finally, the collec-tion contains four small (4.5 cm) spoon-shaped ivorypins of uncertain function (Figure 160:a-c), possiblyamulets to be attached to clothing.

Miscellaneous Metal The collection contains metal frag-ments not identifiable to specific implement types.These include 14 iron fragments, an iron bar, two leadfragments, a pewter fragment and a copper/brass sheet.

238

CHAPTER 1 1

Miscellaneous Organic Materials Table 62 outlines themiscellaneous organic materials in the collection. Mostof the bone is modified whalebone. Modification con-sists of cutting, sawing and drilling; a major desiredend product was sled runners. Most of this materialwas probably derived from the house or midden exca-vations. The five fragments of animal skin are not iden-tifiable as to their functional origin as clothing orequipment. One piece exhibits hair on one side andhas stitching perforations.

Table 62. Miscellaneous Organic Materials fromthe Strong Collection.

Bone

Modified bone

2

Unmodified bone 1

Modified antler

3

Modified whale bone

19

Unmodified whale bone 1

Unmodified baleen

4

Animal skin fragments

5

Wood

Modified wood

1 3

Modified birch bark

6

Unmodified birch bark 1

There are two main types of modified wood. Oneconsists of flat pieces with drill holes, sometimescountersunk in grooves. Figure 1 54:b shows twoconnected pieces of flat wood; the upper portion hasa line of ten drill holes, the middle portion has eightdrill holes through which run remnants of baleentwine. The other type consists of curved slats (ca. 4cm wide) with nail holes, resembling barrel hoops(Figure 1 54:c). Of the six pieces of modified birch-bark, four are perforated and sewn together withthin (3.5 mm) birchbark strips. Another piece hasbeen cut into a curious "wrench" shape with a circu-lar hole at each end.

Other Items Not included within the previous cate-gories are three flakes of quartz and one of Ramahchert. There is also a Ramah chert projectile point ofstemmed or wide side-notched form with a complete-ly flaked dorsal surface, but ventral retouch limited tothe margins (Figure 161:b). It bears a general resem-blance to Late Dorset forms, but the Point Revengecomponent at Koliktalik-5, north of NukasusutokIsland, has a somewhat similar specimen (Fitzhugh1978b:161, Figure 10c). There are also two naturalstones, including an iron-rich concretion and a water-rolled pebble, as well as two scallop shells.

Dating Nukasusutok-8 and the Strong GraveCollection

Taylor's documentary sources indicate theNukasusutok-8 village was occupied from 1772-1782and passing references in the Moravian PeriodicalAccounts to "heathen" Inuit residing on the island con-tinue until 1811. The two smaller structures atNukasusutok-8, houses 6 and 7, might pertain to theearly 19^^ century occupation, but the later writtensources could also refer to the small sod house atNukasusutok-7. Archaeological confirmation of such

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

239

dating is difficult given an inability to specify find-con-texts for much of the Strong collection and Strong'sapparent neglect in collecting European ceramics andother "recent" artifacts from the houses. If the frag-mentary earthenware ceramics from a test pit in theHouse 5 midden actually are French St. Onge ware, thiswould imply a production date from 1 700-1 750 (Auger1 991 AO). Strong's field notes mention that a gun butt-plate was found in House-1, but it is missing from thecollection. If this item represents the presence offirearms, as opposed to a purloined piece of metal, itmay indicate a date later than 1 782, since it was at thattime that guns were first purchased from a trader atChateau Bay in southern Labrador and then distributednorthwards (Hiller 1971:93). The presence of a gunflint might support this. If the House 5 midden test pitstratigraphy is considered, the thin Level 3 depositunderneath a peat layer raises the possibility of a com-ponent that considerably pre-dates the mission period(i.e., pre-1 771).

The contextual information from the graves is mar-ginally better, at least for Craves 4 and 5. The glassbeads from Craves 2 and 5 are generally consistent with1 8'^'^ century types, but a more precise chronologicalreckoning is problematic. It is possible that some of theNukasusutok graves pre-date the historically document-ed communal houses. The head bands and pendants ofcopper/brass and the lead pendants are similar to thosereported by Bird (1945:1 75-1 77) from a grave atIglosoataligarsuk near Hopedale, which also contained aFrench copper coin dated 1 643. The coin provides a ter-minus post quern date for the grave. Crave 4 atNukasusutok was associated with kayak remains and alarge quantity of metal items was placed alongside thegrave. A kayak burial found at Kikkertavak-1, ca. 25 kmwest of Nukasusutok Island, included a wooden tool boxcontaining 1 50 items, among them harpoons and kniveswith iron blades. Kaplan (1 983:235) dated Kikkertavakto the 1 7^^ century. At Rose Island in Sagiek Bay, gravescontaining copper/brass headbands and pendants,glass trade beads, European iron and other goods, as

240

well as kayak parts, were dated to the 18'^'' and early1 9^*^ centuries (Way 1 978:1 34). With these slim compar-ative data and the poor contextual information forStrong's collection, the Nukasusutok graves might sim-ply be time-bracketed between ca. 1650 and 1810.

Graves and Society

Civen the paucity of contextual information for theNukasusutok graves the possibilities of assemblageanalysis are minimal, either for comparisons betweenthe Nukasusutok graves themselves or for compar-isons with graves from elsewhere in Labrador. Be thatas it may, the question of the social context must stillbe addressed, if only in a rudimentary fashion.

The male kayak burial at Crave 4 with its substan-tial quantity of metal goods suggests either a relative-ly high status individual involved in the circulation sys-tem for European goods or a prominent hunter witheasy access to a metal tool kit. Nearby was Crave 5, awoman's burial with a substantial amount of decora-tive metal and glass trade beads. This grave signals awoman with access to quantities of European goodsand a status broadly equivalent to the male grave.Crave 2, also a woman's burial, was situated in aprominent location on the hill north of the communalhouse settlement at Nukasusutok-8 and had a giftcache containing many glass trade beads and a smallperforated soapstone polar bear sculpture. The gravegoods, as well as the prominent positioning of the bur-ial and its independence from a male grave, suggest aform of social recognition.

Information on grave associations from otherparts of Labrador is limited, but it underlines theimpression that certain individuals were marked byspecial treatment involving the deposition of unusualamounts of European goods. As noted previously,Junius Bird (1945:175-177) reported a grave atIglosoataligarsuk near Hopedale that contained a cop-per/brass head band fragment along with a lanceforeshaft and socket, 27 flat lead pendants, 75 globu-lar lead pendants, glass beads, a pipe stem fragment,

CHAPTER 1 1

pyrites and a French copper coin dated 1 643. A gravecollection purchased by Bird in Hopedale containedthree or four copper/brass headbands (the most com-plete specimen virtually identical to those fromNukasusutok), six copper/brass pendants, a harpoonor lance foreshaft, bone handles, seal teeth, a beaverincisor, a wooden dish fragment, worked ivory pieces,part of an ivory needle case, an iron harpoon point,pyrites and a quartz fragment. Also noted earlier wasthe presumed 17'^'^ century kayak burial atKikkertavak-1 , west of Nukasusutok Island, thatincluded a wooden tool box containing 1 50 items,among them harpoons and knives with iron blades(Kaplan 1983:235).

The largest sample of Inuit grave material fromLabrador comes from SagIek Bay. A total of 78 graveswas investigated on Rose Island and another two onUpernavik Island (Way 1978). Of these, 78 were pre-modern, presumably dating ca. 1725-1850 (Way1978:134). They consisted of 29 female graves, 22male graves, 7 with both sexes and 19 of indetermi-nate sex. A total of 21 graves had no burial goods;there is no particular sex/age association to this andlooting cannot be discounted. For the purposes of thepresent discussion, single male and female graveswere coded for the presence/absence of individualgrave good types and subjected to quantitative analy-ses, but no clear patterns were apparent. This waspartly attributable to the high diversity of itemsdeposited in the graves (60 types were coded) and theresulting infrequent occurrence of individual itemtypes, but it was also a consequence of item typesbeing associated with both sexes. Male exclusiveassociations included: kayak parts, bow drill parts andwooden dolls (four male figures, one female). Femaleexclusive items included ulus, copper/brass head-bands and copper/brass pendants. Female graves alsocontained most of the glass trade beads and tendedto have most of the animal bone deposits.

Overall, 18 of the SagIek graves containedEuropean metal objects or traces thereof, totaling 51

pieces and ranging from 1-10 items per grave. Classtrade beads were present in seven graves, totaling1 78 items, but 1 1 8 of these were from a single grave.Of the other graves, one had 44 beads, another 12,while the remaining four had only one each (summa-rized from Way 1978:322-32 7). These figures sug-gest the frequency of European items deposited inthe graves was not particularly high overall and thatthey were concentrated with a small number of indi-viduals. Schledermann's (1976:28-29) excavation of1 8'^'^ to 1 9'^^ century communal houses at the nearbyIkkusik site produced a range of European goods, butalso not in great quantity.

If the SagIek graves are ranked in terms of totalnumbers of grave goods and the amount of Europeanitems present, one burial stands out clearly. Crave 24was a woman's burial containing a whalebone comb,four copper/brass head bands, a copper/brass pen-dant, two copper/brass disks, a copper/brass ring, acopper/brass strip, 3 ivory pendants, 29 lead pen-dants, 118 glass beads, 49 shell beads, 9 woodenbeads and 11 stone beads (Way 1 978:85-86, 323-324). Assuming the large sample of graves is fairlyrepresentative (though it may not be). Crave 24 sug-gests that certain women had roles that enabled themto access significant quantities of European goodsand that this access was associated with some formof status distinction.

These comparative data indicate theNukasusutok graves are similar in pattern to others incentral and northern Labrador, but that Craves 4 and5, and to a lesser extent Crave 2, are particularly richin their deposits of European goods. The inhabitantsof Nukasusutok Island seem to have had betteraccess to European materials than was the case inSagIek Bay. Both Craves 2 and 5 at Nukasusutok andCrave 24 at Rose Island suggest that the contact peri-od was not just a story of big-man traders; as illus-trated in the narrative of Tuglavina and Mikak, Inuitwomen may also have attained distinctive social iden-tities and statuses.

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

241

Conclusion: Big-Men, Big-Women and Negotiatingthe 18^*^ Century European World System

The ethnohistoric information presented at the begin-ning of this chapter provides a narrative of Inuit life in18'^^ century Labrador. Households were organized asmulti-family units and in some cases settlements werecomposed of several households. Certain males hadauthority within households, but in multi-house settle-ments there was conflict between household leadersconcerning lines of authority. The most prominent ofthese household leaders were involved in the baleentrade with Europeans, which involved long-distancetravel between baleen supply areas in the north andthe trade centers in southern Labrador. Some of theseleaders, such as Tuglavina, were able to amass adegree of personal wealth and influence. It is unclearto what extent the social networks in which the Inuitleaders were embedded had effective mechanisms toredistribute that wealth and limit authority. After theestablishment of the Moravian missions along the cen-tral coast of Labrador these leaders were prominent inresisting Christianization and Moravian attempts todraw the Inuit into church-controlled settlements andeconomic transactions. Inuit "big-men" continued totravel south to trade and local leaders attempted tolure converts away from the missions. In the Mainregion the inhabitants of the Nukasusutok settlementwere prominent among these recalcitrant "heathens"and they remained a thorn in the side of the Moraviansuntil about 1810. But beginning in the late 1780schanges in the mission economy that linked missionpolicy more closely with economic affairs, such as sup-plying firearms to compete with southern traders andallowing credit, may have undercut the ability of inde-pendent Inuit traders to sustain their activities andmaintain followers.

Inuit women have a more ambiguous role in thisnarrative. They were frequently drawn Into polygynoushouseholds where their labor could be exploited by thehousehold leader and their presence as co-wives couldsymbolize the leader's status. Co-wives constituted

cooperative labour sharing units, with potential forboth household solidarity and schisms. Frequent refer-ences to wife stealing and abuse suggest that women'sroles were often unenviable. On the other hand, somewomen were able to exert significant influencethrough shamanist power. The story of Mikak revealsboth the strengths and limitations of Inuit women asagents as she careened from being the daughter of aprominent leader, to experiencing English high socie-ty, to accompanying Tuglavina on trading journeys, tobeing abandoned and ending up as the partner of alow status man. During the early 19^*^ century itappears that Inuit women were catalysts in theChristianization process and played important roles inincorporating European goods into domestic contexts.

What little information can be gleaned fromStrong's excavations of the 1 8'-'^ and early 1 9^'^ centu-ry houses at Nukasusutok-8 indicates householdsengaged in the traditional hunting economy, but witha material culture strongly marked by the use of ironand other European goods. The graves provide a differ-ent perspective on these processes. The male kayakburial at Grave 4, with its substantial quantity of metalgoods, suggests a relatively high status individualinvolved in the circulation system for European goods.Nearby Grave 5, a female burial with a substantialamount of decorative metal and glass trade beads,suggests a woman with access to quantities ofEuropean goods and a status broadly equivalent to themale grave. Grave 2, a woman's burial associated withmany trade beads and situated prominently on a hill,implies a form of social recognition. In each case manyEuropean goods with both high use and symbolic val-ues were removed from circulation.

Although Strong's archaeological investigations of1 928 do not provide a strong source of inferences con-cerning the nature of IS*^*^ century Inuit society, thegrave material at least supplements the ethnohistory byhinting at how the agency of Inuit men and women wasvalued and represented when individuals passed beyondactive involvement in the life of their households.

242

CHAPTER 1 1

At a more general level, the Nukasusutok materialpoints to several dimensions of change experienced byLabrador Inuit people during their incorporation intothe late 1 8^*^ century European world system. Mostobvious in the archaeological finds is the marked shiftin their material culture towards greater reliance onEuropean goods, a reliance that over time underminedhousehold self-sufficiency, at least in the moresoutherly regions of Inuit settlement. Equipping house-holds with these goods entailed either direct depend-ence on an influential middle-man, indirect acquisitionthrough kin-ties, or long-distance movements tosouthern Labrador for direct access to the Europeansuppliers. Although inter-regional mobility was proba-bly a normal practice during the Pre-Contact Period,the wide scale of the movements documented duringthe late 18*^^ century "stretched" Inuit social relationsover space and involved Inuit in transactions thatopened up a series of new social strategies. Thesestrategies had important spatial dimensions.Middlemen were highly dependent upon an ability toextend and maintain their spatial range; goods such asbaleen had to be collected in the north and transport-ed south to the trading locales and European wareshad to be transported northwards and distributed tothose who had invested baleen. Consequently, differ-ences in geographical location and access to transportresources generated spatial inequalities that con-tributed to social differentiation. The establishment ofthe Moravian missions eventually transformed thesespatial relations by creating seasonal population cen-ters and by bringing supply points closer to the Inuit,thereby subverting the middlemen strategies that werebased on exploiting spatial inequalities in access toEuropean goods.

The growth of the missions during the late 1 8*^*^and early 1 9*^*^ centuries also resulted in more local-ized changes in landscape use and understanding.The Moravians attempted to keep converted Inuit teth-ered to the mission centers to prevent undesirablecontact with "heathens" living in traditional settle-

ments spread over the landscape. This proved difficultat Nain, where the inner bay location of the missionwas not well-suited for year-round settlement; Inuithad to maintain a seasonal dispersal to hunting andfishing areas considerably distant from the mission.As long as the Moravians refused to tie economicrewards to conversion there would be a strong incen-tive for Inuit to maintain their autonomy by opting fortraditional settlements such as Nukasusutok-8 and byaligning themselves with "big-man" traders who couldsupply goods without the subsistence inconvenienceand the ideological pressure of living at a mission cen-ter. But the late 18^^^ century Moravian shift towardscombining economic rewards with conversionincreased the attractiveness of mission affiliation andundermined the ability of autonomous Inuit traders toretain followers.

The settlement history of Nukasusutok-8 providesa partial illustration of these changes in landscapeorganization and the meaning of places. Prior and sub-sequent to the establishment of the Nain mission in1771, the Nukasusutok settlement was a fall-springresidence for prominent "big-man" traders and theirkin. The settlement was just one in a network of placesthrough which Inuit circulated within the Nain region.It was a place where brothers had quarreled. Althoughthe recruitment of converts to the mission center ini-tially was slow, by 1800 relatively few "heathen" fami-lies remained in the Nain region. The Nukasusutok set-tlement was no longer one winter residence within anetwork of settlement options, but an isolated "hea-then" outpost on a landscape that increasingly wasdefined in relation to the mission center.Nukasusutok's meaning in this landscape was now asa symbol of "heathen" resistance to Moravian hegemo-ny, a resistance that continued until about 1811, whenthe last "heathen" Inuit may have abandoned the islandand settled at the Nain mission. Today, settlementssuch as Nukasusutok are simply "old cabins" in the col-lective memory of oral history, or merely sites on a her-itage management inventory.

POST-CONTACT INUIT SETTLEMENT ON NUKASUSUTOK ISLAND

243

163/ Webb Bay and inner Port Manvers Run with sites mentioned in the text. (1= Port Manvers Run-1, 2= Double Island CoveL-l, 3= Attu's Bight, 4= Attu's Point, 5= Sunset Point, 6= Webb Point). Precise locations withheld by request. Original map ©2004 produced under licence from Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, with permission of Natural Resources Canada.

244

CHAPTER 1 2

Webb Baij-Port Manvers Run:Small Scale Investigations

9

As outlined in Chapter 2, Port Manvers Run is a fjord-like inner passage that provides a protected travelroute from its seaward outlet at Thalia Point Inland toWebb Bay (Figure 3). Smithsonian Institution fieldworkin the 1 970s and early 1 980s identified a considerablenumber of archaeological sites along the Run. Pre-Dorset localities were particularly well-represented andan extensive Late Maritime Archaic site was identifiedon Webb Bay, just west of the southern entrance to theRun. Additional portions of Webb Bay were surveyed bythe author in 1992 and 1993, focusing on the Pre-Dorset/Maritime Archaic boundary problem. The sur-veys included parts of the northern shoreline of WebbBay, up to ca. 10 km west of the entrance to the Run,Webb Point on the southern side of the bay, as well asselected areas on South Aulatsivik Island between RedPoint and Cleat Point (Figure 163). The portion of thenorth shore around Attu's Brook (5 km west of the Run)contains raised beaches, but extensive foreshore flatsprevented access. The innermost portion of Webb Bayand most of its southern shore have not been surveyed.

This chapter summarizes the small scale investi-gations undertaken at Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorsetsites between 1992 and 1994. A detailed analysis ofAttu's Point-1 (HeCk-5), a major Pre-Dorset locality, ispresented separately in Chapter 13. Background infor-mation on the environmental aspects of the area werediscussed in Chapter 2. Chapter 14 ties together theinformation on Pre-Dorset and Late Maritime Archaiclocalities and presents a broader discussion of settle-

ment patterns and the social boundary relationsbetween the two cultures.

PORT MANVERS RUN-1 (HfCj-5)

Port Manvers Run-1 is a Pre-Dorset locality situatedroughly 10 km north of the Webb Bay entrance to theRun (Figure 163). The site lies on top of a windy,exposed anorthosite knoll, 10-12.5 m asl. Discoveredby the Smithsonian Institution in 1 980, the site was re-investigated in 1993. Pre-Dorset material was associat-ed with gravel pockets in bedrock clefts and there werealso caches and cairns of uncertain cultural affiliation.A large quartz vein cut across the north end of the site;a considerable amount of shattered material was pres-ent, but it was probably frost-cracked. L-1 was locatedcentrally on the knoll; the Smithsonian survey identi-fied what seemed to be four structures. S-1 was avague cobble feature within a gravel pocket. Measuring3.0-3.5 m long and 1.25 m wide, the feature was asso-ciated with flakes of Mugford chert and slate. In a near-by linear gravel pocket were what the Smithsonian sur-vey recorded as two rock structures, S-2 and S-3. Thisarea was excavated in 1993, revealing a linear align-ment of hearths rather than two structures (describedbelow). S-4 was also located in a gravel pocket; the1993 observations suggested it was a 6 m long align-ment of four hearth-like cobble clusters, each associat-ed with flakes of Mugford chert and slate.

L-2 was located at the northern edge of the rockoutcrop. It consisted of the remnants of a small cache

WEBB BAY-PORT MANVERS RUN: SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS

245

164/ Port Manvers Run-1, S-2/3: view towards the northwest.

or shelter, 1.25 by 1.0 m, constructed against thenorth side of a boulder. Slightly to the west was L-3, agravel pocket containing naturally shattered veinquartz and flakes of slate and crystal quartz. A burinmade of dark gray IVlugford chert was surface-collect-ed here (Figure 169:n). It retains a striking platform atits proximal end and its left lateral edge is lightlyretouched and bears a notch that served as a spall ter-minator. The right lateral margin is minimallyretouched. The distal end is spalled dihedrally with atotal of eight spall removals; one of the last transversespalls crosscuts an earlier spall removed parallel to theright lateral margin. There is no hafting modificationor facial grinding (L=30.0 mm, W= 21.9, TH= 3.9).

Feature S-2/3

The rock features identified by the Smithsonian surveyas S-2 and S-3 were located in a long, narrow, north-south oriented gravel pocket in a bedrock cleft (Figures

164 and 165). Surface inspection did not reveal obvi-ous hearths or structural alignments. A small excava-tion was conducted because the features seemedunusual and were associated with a moderate amountof flakes and some tools. Given the linear distributionof rocks, the grid was aligned with a baseline runningup the middle of the gravel pocket. A total of 14 m^was excavated, in the form of a 7 by 2 m field. Toolsand flakes were point-plotted, while the flakes werecollected in 1 m^ units.

At first glance the feature appeared to be a con-tinuous 7 m long distribution of rocks, but closerinspection suggested there were actually four cobbleconcentrations (here considered from south to north).The centers of the first three concentrations werespaced at 1.5 m intervals while the centers of the thirdand fourth were spaced 2 m apart. Three of the con-centrations are fairly nondescript, but the secondseemed slightly larger and contained two flat slabs

246

CHAPTER 1 2

positioned near each other and adjacent to otherrocl<s in a manner vaguely suggestive of a disturbedhearth. No charcoal was observed. Figure 166 plotsthe distribution of all flakes and clearly indicates fourdiscrete clusters, each associated with one of the cob-ble concentrations. The tool distribution (Figures 167and 1 68) is broadly consistent with the flake and rockconcentrations. /C-means cluster analysis distinguish-es five tiny clusters, two on opposite sides of the sec-ond hearth-like rock feature, one at the center of rock

concentration three and two small clusters are associ-ated with concentration four. Rock concentration oneentirely lacks tools. Since virtually all the lithic materi-al was confined to the narrow gravel pocket the possi-bility that it accumulated there after having beenwashed in from the surrounding bedrock might beconsidered as a formational factor. The discrete spa-tial clustering of the flakes is so distinct, however,that it seems unlikely to have been a result of geolog-ical processes.

WEBB BAY-PORT MANVERS RUN: SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS

247

1x1y 1x8y+ + + + + + + +

0 1

I I

m

♦ Biface 0 Endblade preform

Burin + Microblade

■ Burin spall • Utilized flake

A Endblade

167/ Port Mamers Run-1, S-2/3: tool distribution and k-means clusters.

1x1y

1x8y

EB= 2

BN 1

EB= 1

BU= 1

UF= 1

EBP= 1

BS= 1

EBP= 1

BS= 1

Bl=2

M= 3

BU= 2BS=2

M= 1

BU= 1

M=2

UF=3

M= 1

UF= 1

EB= 1

EBP= 1

EBP= 1

UF= 1

Bl= 1

BS= 3

M= 1

UF= 1

UF= 1

3x1 y

EB Endblade BS Burin spall

EBP Endblade preform M Microblade

Bl Biface UF Utilized flake

BU Burin

3x8y

168/ Port Manvers Run-1, S-2/3: tool distribution by quadrat.

Table 63 summarizes the distribution of toolclasses across the five /(-means clusters and includesseveral non-point provenienced implements that can

probably be assigned to the clusters. Given the smallsample size little can be said about the distributionexcept for the concentration of four burin spalls and

248

CHAPTER 1 2

Table 63. Port Manvers Run-1 Tool Classes by K-Means Cluster.

C-1

C-2

C-3 C-4

C 5 QuadratProvenience

TOTAL N (%)

Endblades

1 (1)

1

1

4 (10.3)

Endblade preforms

1

2

1

4 (10.3)

Bifaces

1 (1)

1 1

4 (10.3)

Burins

1

2

1

4 (10.3)

Burin spalls

4 (1)

1

1

7 (17.9)

Microblades

1

2.5

0.5

1 3

8 (20.5)

Utilized flakes

2

3 2

1

8 (20.5)

TOTAL

5 (2)

13.5 (1)

5.5 2

4

639

Parentheses indicate items lacl<ing point provenience, but are pr

obabiy cluster-related.

two burins in cluster 2, associated with the third rockconcentration. On the other hand, the distribution offlake raw materials (see below) exhibits some differ-ences between the rock concentrations associated withclusters 1 and 5 versus clusters 2, 3 and 4. If we attrib-ute possible behavioral significance to the flake rawmaterial distinctions and group the tool clustersaccordingly— dividing the linear rock feature in themiddle near the 5y line— then differences are apparentbetween the northern and southern halves of the fea-ture. The southern half (clusters 1 and 5) has slightly

more bifaces (three versus one) whereas the northernhalf (clusters 2, 3 and 4) has slightly more burins(three versus one), contains all the burin spalls and themajority of the utilized flakes (seven versus one). Thedistribution of microblades is ambiguous given theuncertain cluster association of several non-prove-nienced implements. Overall, the assemblage is domi-nated by microblades, utilized flakes, endblades andendblade preforms, as well as burin spalls. Scrapersand axes/adzes are absent.

Table 64. Port Manvers Run-1 Tool Raw Material Frequencies by K-Means Cluster.

CI

C 2

C 3

C-4

C 5

QuadratProvenience

TOTAL N (%)

Cray Mugford chert

1

7.5 (1)

2.5

2

2

3

19

(48.7)

Dark gray Mugford

2

2

1

1

6

(15.4)

Cray-speckled Mugford

1 (1)

1

1

1

5

(12.8)

Cray-banded Mugford

2

1

3

(7.7)

Black chert

1

1

(2.6)

Crystal quartz

1

1

1

1

4

(10.3)

Ramah chert

(1)

1

(2.6)

TOTAL

5(2)

13.5 (1)

5.5

2

4

6

39

WEBB BAY-PORT MANVERS RUN: SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS

249

m

♦ Crystal quartz 0 Gray banded Mugford chertA Dark gray Mugford chert + Gray speckled Mugford chert

• Gray Mugford chert

169/ Port Manvers Run-1, S-2/3: tool raw material distributions.

The spatial distribution of tool raw materials is pre-sented in Table 64 and Figure 169. There is little mean-ingful variation besides a considerable number of grayMugford chert implements associated with cluster 2.The absence of slate tools should be noted, however,particularly in contrast with the abundance of slate deb-itage (see below).

As noted earlier, the total distribution of flakesshows a marked tendency for clusters associated witheach of the four rock concentrations (Figure 166).Unfortunately, the field plots of individual flake rawmaterials proved to be unreliable because of the ten-dency of slate to grade into a silicified material resem-bling Mugford chert, thus exacerbating the problemsof distinguishing raw material types in the field.Consequently, only quadrat distribution diagramsbased on lab identifications are presented here (Figure170). Overall, the various Mugford cherts comprise56% of the total, while slate constitutes 40%. Black

chert, Ramah chert and crystal quartz are only repre-sented by a few flakes each. The quadrat counts sug-gest that the distribution of some raw materials variesrelative to the northern and southern sides of the lin-ear rock feature, roughly corresponding to the 5y gridline. Table 65 outlines the frequency of flake raw mate-rial types structured by this north-south distinction.The vast majority of gray-banded Mugford chert lies onthe north side of the feature, while there is a slight ten-dency for gray-speckled Mugford chert to lie on thesouth side. Additionally, patinated chert, black chert,Ramah chert and crystal quartz mostly occur on thesouth side. Slate is evenly distributed. If the table iscollapsed to combine low frequency cells (dark grayMugford with gray Mugford, patinated, black andRamah cherts plus crystal quartz in an "other" catego-ry), a chi-square test is significant at the .05 level(x^ = 56.45), indicating these contrasting north-southdistributions are unlikely to be fortuitous.

250

CHAPTER 1 2

1x1y

1x8y

1x1y

1x8y

3

3

1

1

1

3

3x1 y

Black chert

3x8y

3x1 y

Crystal quartz

3x8y

1x1y

1x8y

1x1y

1x8y

1

3

24

14

15

12

4

1

4

5

10

2

6

3x1 y

Dark gray Mugford chert

3x8y

3x1 y

Gray Mugford chert

3x8y

1x1y

1x8y

Ixly

1x8y

6

4

12

21

13

2

2

10

15

5

6

3

4

5

13

1

1

8

5

1

3x1 y

Gray banded Mugford chert

3x8y

3x1 y

Gray speckled Mugford chert

3x8y

Ixly

1x8y

1x1y

1x8y

2

3

1

3x1y

Patinated chert

3x8y

3x1y

Ramah chert

3x8y

Ixly

1x8y

1

4

14

26

32

19

2

3

38

21

11

1

3x1 y

Slate

3x8y

170/ Port Manvers Run-1, S-2/3 flake raw material distributions.

WEBB BAY-PORT MANVERS RUN: SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS

251

Table 65. Port Manvers Run-1Flake Raw Material Frequencies.

North

South

TOTAL N (%)

Gray Mugford chert

49

51

100

(23.4)

Dark gray Mugford

1

1

(0.2)

Gray-banded Mugford

68

1 3

81

(18.9)

Gray-speckled Mugford

1 7

39

56

(13.1)

Patinated chert

3

3

(0.7)

Black chert

6

6

(1.4)

Ramah chert

1

2

3

(0.7)

Crystal quartz

1

5

6

(1.4)

Slate

86

86

1 72

(40.2)

TOTAL

222

206

428

Table 66 portrays the total weights of the lithicraw material types present, combining tools andflakes. There are some major differences in the toolversus flake weight proportions for some of the rawmaterials, but Mugford cherts and slate dominate over-all. As noted above, though, slate is represented onlyas flakes.

The size distribution (maximum length) ofMugford chert (generic) and slate flakes is graphed inFigure 1 71. The materials exhibit similar size profiles,although a greater proportion of Mugford chert isfound in the <10 mm class while slate is slightly more

abundant in the larger size classes. The Mugford chertsize profile is similar to those from other Pre-Dorsetlocalities at Attu's Point (Chapter 1 3, Figure 226), butthe slate proportions are low in the <30 to <35 mmclasses that are better represented at Attu's Point(Chapter 13, Figure 227). This might indicate a lessersignificance for the earlier rough-out reduction stagesat Port Manvers Run-1, but a more detailed study ofslate reduction systems is necessary to clarify thispoint.

Only one tool refit was identified: two fragmentsof a microblade that conjoined over a short distance of34 cm (Figure 167). None of the burin spalls could berefitted with the burins, but both items were discardedclose to each other, mostly in a tight cluster at the thirdrock concentration (Figure 167). Two burin spalls ofdark gray Mugford chert could not have been producedfrom any of the four burins recovered from the locali-ty, suggesting the operation of curation processes.

Discussion

The distribution of tools and flakes at S-2/3 gives theimpression that each rock concentration was the focusof somewhat discrete activity. Spatial variations in theflake raw materials and tool types, however, suggestbehavioral differences between the northern and

Table 66. Port Manvers Run-1 Total Lithic Raw Material Weights (Tools and Flakes). In Grams.

Tools g (%)

Flakes g (%)

TOTAL g (%)

Gray Mugford chert

12.5

(43.1)

56.1

(17.1)

68.6 (19.2)

Dark gray Mugford

4.8

(16.6)

2.6

(0.8)

7.4 (2.1)

Gray-banded Mugford

3.9

(13.4)

74.3

(22.7)

78.2 (21.9)

Gray-speckled Mugford

4.6

(15.9)

37.9

(1 1.6)

42.5 (11.9)

Patinated chert

4.4

(1.3)

4.4 (1.2)

Black chert

0.4

(1.4)

12.1

(3.7)

12.5 (3.5)

Ramah chert

0.6

(2.1)

0.5

(0.2)

1.1 (0.3)

Crystal quartz

2.2

(7.6)

3.1

(0.9)

5.3 (1.5)

Slate

1 37.0

(41.8)

137.0 (38.4)

252

CHAPTER 1 2

<5 <10

southern halves of the linearfeature, each half centered on alinked pair of rock concentra-tions. The southern half hasslightly more bifaces whereasthe northern half has slightlymore burins as well as contain-ing all the burin spalls and themajority of the utilized flakes.Most of the gray-bandedMugford chert flakes lie on thenorth side of the feature whilethere is a tendency for gray-speckled Mugford chert to lieon the south side. Although nocharcoal was observed during

the excavation, a single flake of gray-speckledMugford chert from unit 1 x6y (associated with thethird rock concentration) exhibited a pot-lid fracturecharacteristic of thermal stress and a small biface frag-ment of Ramah chert from unit lx3y (associated withthe second rock concentration with more evidenthearth features) bore traces of heat patination.

This linear arrangement of rocks does not repre-sent a known form of Labrador Pre-Dorset dwelling. Atthis point it seems most credible to interpret the fea-ture as a line of external hearths, each associated witha discrete lithic deposit. A similar linear rock clusterfeature was found nearby at the same site (S-4). Thepattern of possible hearths spaced 1.5-2.0 m apartmight also be present at L-5 at the Attu's Point Pre-Dorset site (Chapter 1 3), although in that case a dis-turbed axial feature seems a more likely interpretation.On the other hand, the feature could be the remains ofan as-yet undocumented dwelling form, such as a 7 mlong tent structure with a central line of hearths.Unconventional models should be considered giventhe shifting interpretations of Maritime Archaic sitestructure (Chapter 3) and reports of a Pre-Dorset "long-house" on the Melville Peninsula in the central arctic (S.

Port Manvers Run-1: Flake Size Distributions

■ Mugford chert

■ Slate

<15 <20 <255 mm classes

<30 <35

1/1/ Port Manvers Run-1, S-2/3: flake size distributions.

Rowley, cited in Ramsden and Murray 1995:106;Rowley and Rowley 1997:274).

Dating

No charcoal was recovered from the excavation, so thesite can only be dated by relative means. Height abovesea level (1 0-12.5 m) corresponds to that of other Pre-Dorset sites in the area, but does not help much oth-erwise. The small tool collection does not providemuch typological basis for dating besides exhibiting ageneral Early Pre-Dorset stamp.

Tool Assemblage

Endblades All four of the endblades (Figure 172:d-0are fragmentary: three medial portions, one proximal.Two implements are made of gray-speckled Mugfordchert, one of dark gray Mugford chert, and one of crys-tal quartz. The proximal specimen (Figure 172:f) ismade of gray-speckled Mugford chert and has astraight base, a biconvex cross-section and slightlyserrated edges (W= 9.5 mm, TH= 2.0). The three medi-al fragments have very fine flaking; a tiny dark grayMugford chert example (not illustrated) has medialpolish on one face.

WEBB BAY PORT MANVERS RUN: SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS

253

172/ Port Manvers Run-l, 5-2/3: tools, a, b: endblade preforms; c-f: endblades;g, h: bifaces, i: endblade preform, j-n: burins, o-q. microblades.

Endblade Preforms Of the four endblade preforms,two are distal fragments and two are proximal frag-ments. The two distal fragments, one made of grayMugford chert, the other of dark gray Mugford chert,were made on flakes of roughly triangular form thatwere modified with fine bifacial retouch around theirmargins (Figure 172:a, b). One of the proximal frag-ments is made of crystal quartz (Figure 1 72:c) and hasa plano-convex cross-section, two long basal thinningflakes on its ventral side and a slight shoulder formedby incomplete bifacial retouch on one edge (W= 13.2mm, TH= 2.7). The other is made of gray Mugfordchert (Figure 1 72:i) and has a straight base as well asfine flaking primarily on one face. Final edge retouch

began at the distal end but didnot go very far before the tipbroke off and the implementwas discarded.

Bifaces All four of the bifacesare small fragments, two madeof gray Mugford chert, one ofgray- speckled Mugford, one ofRamah chert and one of blackchert. Three of them are proba-bly fragments of bifacial pointsor knives rather than end-blades; two of these are illus-trated in Figure 172:g, h. Theirwidths are probably in the 16-1 9 mm range.

Burins Three of the four burinsare whole, while one is a distalfragment. Two are made fromgray-banded Mugford chert andone each from gray-speckledand gray Mugford chert. Noneexhibit facial grinding or side-notching, although all beartraces of lateral edge grinding.The specimen illustrated in Figure 172:j has unifacialdorsal retouch on one lateral edge, mostly ventral andrelatively rough retouch on the other lateral edge, andminimal bifacial retouch on its base (L= 27.4 mm, W=15.3, TH= 5.4). The distal end is spalled dihedrallywith the shorter left-side spall terminated by a distinctnotch just below the tip; a total of seven spalls wereremoved. Figure 1 72;k shows a burin made on a mini-mally retouched flake with slight unifacial distal notch-ing from which a single spall was removed (L= 19.2mm, W= 16.3, TH= 7.4). The item shown in Figure172:1 is a distal fragment with a right lateral edgeretouched mostly on the ventral side from the surfaceof an earlier spall (W=14.0 mm, TH=4.8). The distal

254

CHAPTER 1 2

/ 73/ Double Island Cove-1,towards the southwest.

end is spalled dihedrally withtwo additional spalls. Figure172:m has very minimal dorsalretouch on its lateral edges, aremnant striking platform at itsbase, and slight ventral thinningof the bulb of percussion (L=30.1 mm, W= 15.3, TH= 6.2).The distal end is spalled dihe-drally with two spall removals,one of which removed most ofone lateral edge of the flake.

Burin Spalls Of the seven burinspalls, three are made of darkgray Mugford chert, three of

gray Mugford chert and one of gray-speckledMugford chert. One is complete, three are proximalfragments, and one each are medial and distal frag-ments. All are secondary spalls and none exhibit evi-dence for facial grinding.

Microblades Of the eight microblades (MNI= 3), six arefashioned from gray Mugford chert, one from gray-banded Mugford chert and one from crystal quartz.One is nearly complete while five are medial frag-ments, one a distal fragment and one a proximal por-tion. Seven of the eight exhibit use-wear, the onlyexception being the nearly complete specimen (L =35.1 mm, W = 6.6, TH = 2.7). The widths of the proxi-mal and medial fragments range between 5.3-8.7 mm.Examples are shown in Figure 1 72:o-q.

Utilized Flakes Five of the eight utilized flakes aremade of gray Mugford chert, two of dark gray Mugfordchert and one of crystal quartz.

Conclusions

Port Manvers Run-1, L-1, is most likely a small huntingstand (cf., Binford's [1 978] Mask site). The site locationprovides an excellent look-out for spotting sea mam-

Structure 1. Approximate pit boundaries indicated. View

mals moving through the Run. The inferred linearhearth feature at S-2/3, as well as the similar but unex-cavated S-4 area, suggest hearth complexes used bysmall groups while staging hunting activities. The toolassemblage is small and functionally limited, mostly toendblades and endblade preforms, burin spalls,microblades and utilized flakes. Scrapers are conspic-uous by their absence. Although slate flakes indicativeof tool reduction were present, there were no axes oradzes. There is little basis to determine site seasonali-ty, but an open water season seems most likely giventhe site's look-out character and its location ca. 6 kmsouth of the modern polynya at the "Second Rattle,"which was probably the most optimal winter huntinglocation in the area.

DOUBLE ISLAND COVE-1, L-1 (HeCj-1)

Double Island Cove lies on the western side of thesouthern entrance to Port Manvers Run (Figure 1 63). L-1, a Pre-Dorset occupation, was registered in 1 985 bythe Smithsonian Institution and revisited in 1992 and1993 since it lay near our field camp. The site is situ-ated on a small sloping terrace on the south side of thecove, directly backed by a rocky knoll. Two possiblestructures were exposed in small blow-outs. The clear-

WEBB BAY-PORT MANVERS RUN: SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS

255

8x15y

9x15y

> N

A /-y' 0 0/

(7

0

O

8x12y

F Flat rock

Outer pit edge

I I Inner pit

■ Burin spall

* Endblade+ Microblade

• Utilized flake

11x12y

lOxlOy

llxlOy

/ 74/ Double Island Cove-1, Structure 1: tool distribution.

8x15y

9x15y

> N

H /-y' D <? /

^ o

8x12y

F Flat rock

Outer pit edge

I I Inner pit

11x12y

♦ ♦

B Black chiert

* Crystal quartz lOxiOy

* Gray Mugford ctiert

+ Gray speckled Mugford ctiert

* Ramah ctiert

llxlOy

175/ Double Island Cove-1, Structure I : flake distribution.

est of these, Structure 1, was partially excavated in1 992. Structure 2 was located 1 0.4 m northeast of S-1and 0.5-1.0 m lower in elevation. A small excavationwas begun at S-2 in 1993 but was not completedbecause of a hasty departure necessitated by strongwinds and boat problems.

Structure 1

At first glance Structure 1 consisted of a small rockalignment and a minimal amount of lithic materialexposed on the surface, altogether covering an area of1 5 m^. A total of 7.5 m^ was excavated (Figures 1 73and 1 74), exposing a central feature but incompletelydocumenting its periphery. The excavation indicatedthat this was not an axial structure. The most promi-

nent feature was a roughly oval depression, the outerlimits of which measured 2.0 by 1.0 m, with a long axisrunning NE-SW. The depression was bordered on thenorth by a cluster of large seemingly "structural" rocksembedded in the surrounding sand/gravel and on thesouth by a smaller cluster of rocks. The base of thedepression was 1 5-20 cm below ground surface on thenorth side, 35 cm below the surface of the highersouth side. The entire depression was filled with blackhumus-rich soil and charcoal flecks. It was partiallycovered by a thin layer of yellow sand/gravel, possiblyslope wash.

The lower portion of the southern and westernsides of the depression contained a smaller pit, 2.0 by0.5 m. This second pit was bordered by flat rock slabs

256

CHAPTER 1 2

LGM= 1

BC= 2RC= 1GNS= 1GYS= 1

LGM=4QZ= 1

1

CR=

BC Black chert

CR Crystal quartz

GNS Green slate

GYS Gray slate

LGM Light gray Mugford chert

QZ Quartz

RC Ramah chert

SP Speckled gray Mugford

SP= 1CR= 5

LGM= 1SP= 2RC= 1CR= 23

176/ Double Island Cove-1, Structure I: flake distributionby quadrat.

that extended towards the cluster of "structural" rocks.Perhaps these slabs once lined the depression andwere thrown out after use, but some of them seem tobe arranged deliberately between the large "structural"rocks. Alternatively, the "structural" rocks may havebeen removed when the depression was constructed.At the center of the secondary pit was a small inclinedflat slab and three or four small fire-cracked rocks.Directly associated with this inclined slab was char-coal, a few tiny retouch flakes of Mugford chert and alarge burin spall. Another inclined flat slab was posi-tioned at the extreme eastern end of the depression.

Very little lithic material was recovered. Thirteentools were collected: a triangular endblade fragment,two burin spalls, two biface fragments, five possiblemicroblade fragments and three utilized flakes. Withthe exception of the burin spall from the base of thepit, all the tools were found either around the rim of

the depression or in a small cluster 1.4 m to the east.In contrast, most of the flakes were clustered in the lat-ter area, 1.4 m east of the pit (Figures 1 75 and 1 75).Flake raw material frequencies are listed in Table 67.The modest total of 59 flakes is dominated by crystalquartz and gray Mugford chert. All but one of the crys-tal quartz flakes were found in the cluster east of thedepression while gray Mugford and black cherts seemto have a stronger association with the pit. The con-centration of flakes and tools associated with severalrocks in the excavation area east of the depressionmight indicate the presence of another structure.

Table 67. Double Island Cove-1, L-1, S-1:Flake Raw Material Frequencies.

N

%

Crystal quartz

29

(64.4)

Light gray Mugford chert

6

(13.3)

Black chert

2

(4.4)

Cray-speckled chert

3

(6.7)

Ramah chert

2

(4.4)

Quartz

1

(2.2)

Green slate

1

(2.2)

Cray slate

1

(2.2)

TOTAL

45

The tool assemblage contains little chronological-ly diagnostic material. The small triangular endblade isa proximal fragment made of gray Mugford chert(Figure 179:b). It is extremely thin, slightly serratedand has a straight base modified by basal thinningflakes on both faces (W= 10.0 mm, TH= 1.8). The twobiface fragments are made of gray Mugford chert andgray-speckled Mugford chert; one is a proximal por-tion, the other a lateral edge fragment (Figure 1 79:a,c).Both have nearly plano-convex cross-sections, fine par-allel flaking and slightly serrated edges. The two burinspalls are both made of gray Mugford chert; one iscomplete, the other is a proximal fragment, and bothare secondary spalls. Of the five possible microblades.

WEBB BAY-PORT MANVERS RUN; SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS

257

four are made of crystal quartz, one of gray-white sili-cified siltstone. The single complete specimen is madeof crystal quartz, although it is poorly formed (L= 1 8.8mm, W= 8.3, TH= 3.1), while three are small proximalfragments and one is a medial portion. Two of thethree utilized flakes are made of gray Mugford chert,the other of patinated chert.

A sample of charcoal from the depression wasradiocarbon dated to 3640±70 B.P. (Beta-571 25). Thetool collection provides minimal basis for evaluatingthis result. The endblade basal form and slight serra-tion, the serrated bifaces, and the unground burinspalls, are all attributes that are at least consistentwith the Early Pre-Dorset radiocarbon date.

Several seeds and tiny bone fragments wereretrieved when soil samples from the depression werewet-sieved. The seeds were identified by Michael Deal(Archaeology Unit, Memorial University). All identifi-able elements were of crowberry (Empetrum nigrum)

and they consisted of: 1 5 single seeds, another in twosections, 2 seeds with partial coats, two complete clus-ters (9 seeds each) and 2 partial clusters (3 and 6seeds respectively). Given the presence of seed clus-ters, Deal suggests that the seeds may have beengreen when burned, otherwise they might not havestuck together. If so, that might suggest they wereburned during the summer. This need not indicatehuman consumption of the berries, though, since theplant as a whole could have been burned in a smudgepit to discourage flies or to smoke fish. Additionally,since crowberries survive intact over the winter whencovered with snow, their use in other seasons cannotbe eliminated.

Structure 2

Structure 2 was visible on the surface as a cluster offlat rock slabs and Mugford chert flakes. Given theinteresting results from the Structure 1 investigation, a

258

CHAPTER 1 2

test excavation was begun in 1993. Unfortunately, thework was terminated early by a hasty departure, atwhich point only 2.5 had been excavated (Figure177). Several possible "structural" rocks were uncov-ered, as well as some flat slabs, one with a trace ofnotching. A patch of charcoal was present in the cen-ter of the excavation, but there was no clear indicationof a hearth structure. Charcoal from this concentrationwas radiocarbon dated to 3320±70 B.P. (Beta-71 476).

Minimal lithic material was recovered. Only seventools were collected, mostly from a tight cluster besidea large rock (Figure 1 77): a burin spall of gray Mugfordchert, two microblade core fragments of crystal quartz(Figure 1 79:e, 0, a microblade fragment of crystalquartz (Figure 1 79;d) and three utilized flakes (two ofcrystal quartz, one of gray Mugford chert). Flake mate-rial consisted of crystal quartz (n=31), gray Mugfordchert (n=l 0), patinated chert (n=2) and slate (n=l). Thecrystal quartz flakes were tightly concentrated besidethe same large rock where most of the tools werefound (Figure 1 78).

Discussion

The material from Double Island Cove-1 is so limitedit is difficult to draw substantive conclusions. Theslightly lower elevation of Structure 2 might fit with itsradiocarbon dating 300 years later than Structure 1,but nothing in the scanty lithic assemblage fromStructure 2 points to a Late Pre-Dorset dating. The rawmaterial patterns of the two structures are similar: apredominance of crystal quartz, which seems to bespatially concentrated. Consequently, there are nogrounds to support or reject the radiocarbon datings.If the 3300 B.P. date is reasonable, however, it is oneof relatively few indications of a Late Pre-Dorset pres-ence in the Main area. The other is Nukasusutok-2,discussed briefly in Chapter 4 and presented in detailby Fitzhugh (2002).

Double Island Cove-1 seems to be a minor camp,possibly used on a couple of occasions widely separat-ed in time. Its main value, apart from yielding some

I i % i

a b c ^

/ 79/ Tools from Double Island Cove, Sunset Point andWebb Point, a-c: biface, endblade, biface (Double IslandCove S-l), d-f microblade, core fragment, core fragment(Double Island Cove S-2); g, h: burin, microblade (SunsetPoint), i-n: microblade, endblade (Pre-Dorset), biface stem,biface (Maritime Archaic), stemmed point (MaritimeArchaic), flake point (Maritime Archaic) (all Webb Point).

additional radiocarbon dates, is that Structure 1 pro-vides evidence for a feature type unknown from else-where in Labrador. The depression and its associationwith burned crowberry seeds and bone fragments indi-cates a function different from that of documented Pre-Dorset axial structures and tent rings. If the crowberryseeds imply use during the summer, this would be thefirst direct evidence for seasonality at a Pre-Dorset sitein Labrador. Today, summer is not a period of opti-mum resource availability in the Webb Bay/PortManvers Run area, although the cove sometimes offers

WEBB BAY-PORT MANVERS RUN: SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS

259

180/ Attu's Bight overview towards the southwest.

good char fishing. With a higher sea level at the timeof Pre-Dorset occupation, however, Double Island Covewould have been a much larger embayment, perhapswith a slightly different mix of resources than today. Aminor Pre-Dorset locality on the north side of the cove(Double Island Point-2, HeCj-4) indicates additionalPre-Dorset activity in the area, but overall the use ofthe cove was more limited than at Port Manvers-Run-1or certainly Attu's Point (Chapter 1 3).

SUNSET POINT(HeCj-8)

Sunset Point is a neo-toponymfor a small rocky crag betweenRed Point and Cleat Point onSouth Aulatsivik Island (Figure163). The site consists of twolithic scatters in gravel depositson top of an exposed bedrockknoll, a form and placementtypical of several small Pre-Dorset sites in the Port ManversRun area. Two implements weresurface-collected: a burin and amicroblade. The burin (Figure179;g) is made on a large flake of gray-speckledMugford chert (L= 38.4 mm, W= 20.0, TH= 6.3). Theimplement bears a remnant striking platform on itsbase. The distal and medial margins of the left lateraledge are bifacially retouched while the proximal edgemargin is unifacially retouched ventrally. The right lat-eral margin bears a bifacial notch, possibly for spalltermination. The flake facets and lateral edges of thebasal area are slightly polished. The distal burination

\W\ Flake scatterH L-3/6 excavationTrees

Webb Bay

20

181 / Attu's Bight site map. Based on field sketch by W. Fitzhugh, with modifications,■jc-n CHAPTER 12

is transverse with five spall removals and the distal tipis heavily rounded by wear. The microblade (Figure1 79:h) is made of gray-speckled Mugford chert and isrelatively large (L= > 40.0 mm, W= 1 1.0, TH= 2.7), withfine use retouch along part of one edge.

ATTU'S BIGHT-1 (HeCk-4)

Attu's Bight-1 is a large Rattler's Bight Phase (4200-3500 B.P.) Maritime Archaic site, located on the northside of Webb Bay, just west of the entrance to PortManvers Run (Figure 163). It was discovered and sur-face collected by the Smithsonian Institution in 1985(Fitzhugh 1 986:57) and revisited by the author in 1 992and 1 993. The site consists of cultural remains extend-ing for about 350 m along a set of sand and gravel ter-races 19-21 m as I. (Figure 1 80, 1 81). Smithsonian fieldnotes identify three different beach levels (A, B, C);that were suggested to be indicative of chronologicaldifferences within the site. However, the vertical dis-tance between these terraces is minimal (0.5-1.0 m)and the slope is very gradual, so the levels may havelittle relevance for relative dating the site contents.Indeed, according to the general uplift regime for theMain inner bay area (Figure 5) the 19 m terraceemerged 6000-5500 B.P., well prior to the RattlersBight phase. Since the terrace front is an erosion facethat plunges steeply from 1 9 m to the modern shore-line, during the Rattlers Bight Phase there were proba-bly no lower beaches suitable for habitation. In anyevent, the large horizontal extent of the 19-21 m sur-face was ideal for longhouse placement and it provid-ed a broad field of view over Webb Bay.

Most of the site is completely deflated by winderosion. The little surface vegetation present consistsof moss-lichen and isolated stands of spruce trees.Thicker spruce growth is found immediately north ofthe site, downslope to the south, and to the west.Flakes and implements of Ramah chert and othermaterials lie exposed on the sand/gravel surface, dis-tributed in linear patterns parallel to the beach levels.The 1985 Smithsonian survey identified nine separate

loci and the 1992-93 investigations added three more.These 1 2 loci (Figure 181) are described briefly below,based on Smithsonian field notes and later observa-tions. Test excavations conducted at L-3/6 in 1 992-93are described thereafter.

Overview of Localities

L-l: At the extreme eastern end of the terrace was aRamah chert scatter. The 1992 surface collectionincluded three biface fragments of thermally alteredRamah chert, of which two are probably point pre-forms (Figure 1 90;j, k), while the third is an edge frag-ment from a larger bifacial implement (Figure 190:i).Also recovered was a large green slate flake (Figure191:a) with a slightly polished medial surface andscraper-like retouch along one edge (L= 79.6 mm, W=64.4, TH= 7.7).

L-2 Parallel to the southeastern terrace front was ascatter of Ramah chert flakes, 60 m long, 6 m wide.Just north of this was a packed cobble feature, sub-rec-tangular in shape and 2.5 by 1.0 m in size. TheSmithsonian surface collection consisted of two Ramahchert micropoints, a ground slate preform and two uti-lized flakes (one of Ramah chert the other of "chert").

L-3 and L-6: Located on the middle beach level near theeastern end of the terrace, these loci contained theonly in situ portion of the site. The Smithsonian regis-tered two separate loci here, but they probably consti-tute a single occupation area, of which perhaps two-thirds is deflated. L-3/6 was marked by a scatter ofRamah chert flakes 40 m long and at least 5-6 m wide,the easternmost portion of which extended into the insitu deposit. At L-3 the Smithsonian collected a Ramahchert stemmed point, three flake points (two of Ramahchert, one of unspecified material), four Ramah chertbiface fragments and a slate celt fragment, while at L-6 they collected two Ramah chert biface fragments anda slate celt fragment. The 1 992-93 test excavations aredescribed below.

WEBB BAY-PORT MANVERS RUN: SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS

261

182/ Attu's Bight L-3/6: view towards the east.

L-4 Positioned on the highest beach level, L-4 consist-ed of a small scatter of quartz flakes, from which theSmithsonian collected two quartz biface fragments anda Ramah chert flake knife. In 1992 a Ramah chertbiface preform (Figure 190;c) was collected 7 m northof L-4. The implement is fully flaked dorsally but onlypartially flaked ventrally, and it bears a striking plat-form distally (L= 43.5 mm, W= 21.9, TH= 9.2).

L-5 Situated on the upper portion of the middle beachlevel and adjacent to L-3/6, L-5 was a lithic scatter con-taining flakes of Ramah chert, Mugford chert and slate.The Smithsonian collected two stemmed points, a sin-gle-shouldered biface and a biface fragment, all ofRamah chert.

L-7: Located on the central portion of the highestbeach level, L-7 was a 120 m long scatter of Ramahchert flakes. The Smithsonian surface collected fourflake points, three of Ramah chert, one of quartz. In1992 a complete Ramah chert stemmed point wasrecovered (Figure 190:a). The implement is "typical" ofthe Rattlers Bight phase, with bifacial flaking, a bicon-vex cross-section, a slightly tapering stem and a slight-ly convex base (L= 47.0 mm, W= 21.2, TH= 6.2, stemL= 16.4, stem W[shoulder/base] = 14.1/1 1.3).

L-8: Near the center of the site,slightly back from the erodedterrace front, was an oval ring ofcobbles, 4 m in diameter. Thefeature was associated with largechunks of Ramah chert, bandedslate and quartz flakes. TheSmithsonian surface collected astemmed point preform, twobiface preforms and asidescraper, all of Ramah chert.

L-9: Near the western end of thesite, on the highest beach level,was a 50 m linear scatter ofRamah chert flakes. Smithsonian field notes mention thepresence of a stemmed point resembling Sandy CoveComplex form.

L-]0: Lying between L-7 and L-9, but slightly lower,was a 1 m diameter cluster of about 10 head-sizedrocks associated with smaller cobbles. A couple ofRamah chert flakes lay on top of the feature, whichmay be a burial cairn. West of the feature was a 1 0 by1 0 m scatter of Ramah chert flakes.

L-11: This was the westernmost cultural featureobserved at the site, lying in an isolated area 40 msouth of some sand dunes. It consisted of a cluster ofabout 1 0 head-sized or smaller rocks, 1 m in diameter,without associated lithic material. The feature may bea burial cairn.

L-12: Located on the highest beach level andtowards the northeast corner of the site, L-1 2 was asmall scatter of Ramah chert flakes. A Ramah chertflake point was surface collected (Figure 190:b); ithas bifacial retouch limited to the edge margins, aslight shoulder on one lateral edge, and slight basalthinning (L= 23.9 mm, W= 11.6, TH= 3.7, shoulderHT= 9.3).

262

CHAPTER 12

46x62y

49x52y

deflated §

in situ

46x47y

*/

in situ

49x47y

Feature 2

53x50y

/ Edge of deflatiiCharcoal

^ Bone fragments

1 m

183/ Attu's Bight L-3/6: excavation with flake distribution.

Test Excavations at L-3/6

In 1992 and 1993 small scale test excavationswere undertaken in the />? s/Tw deposits at L-3/6 (Figure182) to acquire material for radiocarbon dating and todetermine if there was much likelihood of identifyingtraces of dwelling structures or other features. In 1 992a small grid system was set up on the western edge ofthe in situ deposit, including part of the deflated area.A total of 1 7.8 m^ was investigated, of which only 3m^ was excavated in situ, the rest was simply a trow-el-through of the exposed sand and gravel. Tools andflakes were point-plotted, while flakes were collectedin 1 m^ units. A profile from the in situ deposit indi-cated possible traces of two occupation layers, so in1993 two 1 m^ test pits were excavated further east-ward in the m situ deposit to provide additional strati-graphic information (Figure 183).

The sediments in the vicinity of L-3/5 consisted ofcoarse sand and pea-size gravel. The depth of defla-tion varied from 10-40 cm. A stratigraphic profile

(50x51 y/50x50y) taken from the edge of the in situdeposit exhibited some interesting details (Figures1 84 and 1 85). A total of 1 1 separate stratigraphic unitswere identified, including at least four buried humuslayers that indicate a repetitive cycle of temporarilystable vegetation surfaces followed by eolian deposi-tion. The main cultural level was unit 9, 35 cm belowthe surface, a sand layer that exhibited a shallowbasin-like feature excavated slightly into the underly-ing sand/gravel. Unit 9 contained flakes, tools, redocher and oxidized sand, and charcoal flecks.Immediately above unit 9 was unit 8, a humus layercontaining charcoal flecks. The other stratigraphicunits were culturally sterile, except for unit 2, a faintburied humus layer 1 5 cm below the surface that con-tained two Ramah chert flakes. In other parts of the insitu deposit Ramah chert flakes were exposed in ashallow deflated area 1 0-1 2 cm below the surface, sug-gesting there may have been an occupation at roughlythat depth. But given the instability of sand surfaces.

WEBB BAY-PORT MANVERS RUN: SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS

263

■ ■■- ■

'A-

/84/4ffM'5 6;g/7f L-3/6 excavation at the edge of the in situ deposit.

redeposition by deflation and eolian processes cannotbe ruled out.

In 1 993, test pit 50x50y was excavated adjacentto the 1 992 profile. At the 1 0 cm level, seven Ramahchert flakes were encountered, as well as one flake of

50x51y

1. Gray sand

2. Buried humus, Ramah chert flake3, 5, 7. Yellow-brown sand

4, 6. Buried humus

8. Buried humus with charcoal flecks

9, Red-yellow sand, charcoal, Ramah chert flakes9a, Basin feature, oxidized sand, minimal charcoal9b Charcoal beneath cultural layer

10, Yellow-brown sand/gravel

11. Gravel lens

50x50y

185/ Attu's Bight L-3/6: profile.

greenstone and a split cobblewith a faint trace of red ocheron its surface. An extremelyfaint spot of red ocher wasobserved in the sand. Given thepaucity of material it is difficultto conclude there was a dis-tinct occupation floor at thislevel, but the split cobble andred ocher might counter theredeposition argument, sincethe former would be resistantto wind action and the latterwould have been erased by it.No flakes were observed at acorresponding level in test pit 53x50y, further tothe east. In both 1993 test pits, however, a distinctoccupation floor was found corresponding to thelower unit 9 level in the 1992 test, although thisfloor lay somewhat deeper (45 cm) than in the 1 992units (35 cm).

Two features were identified in the basal unit 9deposits, both of which appeared to be small hearths(Figure 1 83). Feature 1 was located near the edge ofthe deflated area. It was a 60-70 cm in diameter ovalpatch of red-yellow oxidized sand mixed with char-coal and faint red ocher stains, accompanied by a 55by 35 cm oval concentration of 38 small burned bonefragments. None of the bone fragments were identifi-able, although one might be a rib fragment. Therewere no distinct hearth border or other "functional"rocks associated with the feature. The slightly basin-shaped profile of the feature suggests a fire was sim-ply kindled in the upper portion of the ground sur-face. A sample of charcoal from this concentrationwas radiocarbon dated to 4080±100 B.P. (Beta-571 26). Within and adjacent to the feature were smallRamah chert retouch flakes and a few tools: a slatecelt fragment, a utilized flake of Ramah chert, aground slate flake and a small mica fragment.Feature 2 was found at the bottom of test pit 53x50y,

264

CHAPTER 1 2

3.5 m east of Feature 1. It consisted of a 60 cm indiameter oval cluster of fist-sized cobbles associatedwith a considerable amount of charcoal and a fewRamah chert flakes. Two small red ocher stainsoccurred nearby. Charcoal from this feature wasradiocarbon dated to 4080±90 B.P. (Beta-71 477).

Figure 186 depicts the spatial distribution oftools while the tool classes are listed by frequency inTable 68. The implements lay in two elongatedeast/west distributions separated by 1.0-1.5 m, oneextending out from the Feature 1 hearth, the otheralong the southern edge of the excavation. Thesedistributions parallel that of the flakes (see below).The small collection is dominated by utilized flakesof Ramah chert. Also collected were two small micafragments and 1 1 schist fragments.

Table 68. Attu's Bight L-3/6Tool Class Frequencies.

N

(%)

Stemmed points

3

(1 5.0)

Bifaces

2

(10.0)

Flake points

1

(5.0)

Stemmed flakes

1

(5.0)

Utilized flakes

10

(50.0)

Celts

1

(5.0)

Ground slate flakes

1

(5.0)

Split cobbles

1

(5.0)

TOTAL

20

The flake distribution is shown in Figure 187.The plotted distribution of flakes in the deflatedareas is probably misleading since eolian processeshave doubtless smeared the spatial distributions andthe material could represent a palimpsest of differ-ent occupation levels. Nonetheless, the frequenciesof Ramah chert flakes indicate a distribution about4-5 m wide (north/south) with two dense concentra-tions: one associated with the Feature 1 hearth areanear the center and another ca. 1.0-1.5 m to thesouth. Thermally altered patinated Ramah chert is

found in most of the excavation units, but is mostfrequent in the hearth area. Table 69 indicates theflake raw material frequencies are almost totallydominated by Ramah chert, typical of Rattlers BightPhase localities. A fairly high percentage of theRamah chert is patinated. Figure 188 portrays thesize distribution of Ramah chert flakes. A total of78.4% of the flakes measure < 20 mm and 61.7% <1 5 mm, suggestive of an emphasis on secondaryretouch. Additionally, a total of 1 34 biface-thinningflakes (BTFs) was identified (Figure 189). BTFs weredistributed over most of the excavated area,although units with the largest quantities tended tobe those with the most flakes overall. Additionally,42 (31.3%) of the BTFs were >30 mm in size, sugges-tive of the reduction of large quarry blanks or pre-forms. This percentage is much higher than thoserecorded for the Middle Maritime Archaic siteNukasusutok 5 (Area 2A = 1 3.5%, 2B = 5.4% and 2C= 12.3%). The large BTFs were also distributed fairlyevenly across the units.

Table 69. Attu's Bight L-3/6 FlakeRaw Material Frequencies.

Excavation

Surface

TOTAL N (%)

Ramah chert

674

31 1

985 (88.2)

Patinated Ramah

76

48

1 24 (11.1)

Cray slate

2

1

3 (0.3)

Creenstone

2

1

3 (0.3)

Cray Mugford chert

1

1 (0.1)

Quartz

1

1 (0.1)

TOTAL

754

363

1117

The total weights of the lithic raw materials(tools and flakes) are given in Table 70. Ramah chertis clearly dominant; together, patinated and unpati-nated Ramah account for 89.2% of the material.Patinated Ramah chert constitutes a larger proportionof the Ramah chert flakes by weight (21.7%) than byfrequency (1 0.1%).

WEBB BAY-PORT MANVERS RUN: SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS

265

46x47y 49x47y

186/ Attu's Bight L3/6: tool distribution.

46x52y

46x47y

49x52y

RC=3

RC= 32

RC= 20PAT=4

RC=4PAT= 1GR= 1GM= 1

RC= 28PAT=9

RC= 55PAT= 14

RC= 16PAT=2SL= 1Q= 1

RC=8

RC= 21

RC= 43PAT= 6

RC= 257PAT= 8

RC= 28PAT= 7

missingdata

RC= 139PAT= 1

Deflated portion

RC=84

PAT=4

/

RC= 172PAT= 65SL=2

RC= 45

PAT=2

GR= 1

RC= 20

50x50y

53x50y

L-1 (10 cm)RC=7GR= 1

GM= Gray Mugford chert

GR= Greenstone

PAT= Patinated Ramah chert

Q= Quartz

RC= Ramah chert

SL= Slate

49x47y

187/ Attu's Bight L-3/6: flake distribution.

266

CHAPTER 1 2

L-3/6 Ramah Chert Flake Size Distribution

35302520

I

151050

<5

<15 <20 <25 <30 <35 <40 <45 <50 <555 mm classes

188/ Attu's Bight L-3/6: Ramah chert flake size distribution.

Table 70. Attu's Bight L-3/6 Total Lithic RawMaterial Weights (Flakes and Tools). In Grams.

Flakes g

Tools g

TOTAL g (%)

Ramah chert

434.0

66.2

500.2

(71.6)

Patinated Ramah

120.0

3.0

123.0 (17.6)

Gray slate

0.8

0.8

(0.1)

Green slate

3.0

3.0

(0.4)

Red slate

68.0

68.0

(9.7)

Greenstone

2.4

2.4

(0.3)

Gray Mugford chert

0.5

0.5

(0.1)

Quartz

0.5

0.5

(0.1)

TOTAL

629.2

143.6

624.0

Tool Assemblage

Stemmed points: The three stemmed points are allmade of Ramah chert. Two are stem fragments of sim-ilar dimensions that retain striking platforms on theirbases (Figure 190:e, f). The third is a marginallyretouched flake fragment with a striking platform orbreak at the base of a slight stem (Figure 190:1); it isunclear if this is a finished product or a preform.

Bifaces: Two Ramah chert biface fragments were recov-ered, one a medial portion the other a distal element

bearing an impact fracture(Figure 1 90:d, h). Both are prob-ably from stemmed points.

Flake points: The single exam-ple, made of Ramah chert, is amedial fragment with dorsalmarginal retouch on oppositelateral edges (Figure 190:g).

Stemmed flakes: This Ramahchert implement (Figure 190:m)exhibits limited marginalretouch on opposite edges thatcreates a stem-like constriction;the stem base was thinned toremove the striking platform. It could be a point pre-form or simply a utilized flake.

Utilized flakes: All of the 1 0 utilized flakes are made ofRamah chert. One fragment has fine bifacial marginalretouch on opposite edges, possibly indicative ofintended use as a flake point. Two implements aremade on large biface-thinning flakes, probably derivedfrom quarry blanks.

Celts: The implement identified as a celt is a medialfragment made on a plate of red slate (Figure 191:b).The only grinding occurs on two opposite edges thatare ground perpendicular to the plate surface (W= 70.0mm, TH= 14.7).

Ground slate flakes: The single example is made ofgreen slate.

Split cobbles: A water-rolled flat cobble is split trans-versely and bears a faint trace of red ocher on its edge.It may have functioned as a hammerstone, red ochercrusher, or both.

WEBB BAY-PORT MANVERS RUN: SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS

267

46x52y

46x47y

49x52y

1/1

6/2

9/3

3

4/1

5/3

6/3

1/1

7/5

3/2

17/4

10/2

missingdata

21/6

deflated portion/ 11/1

12/6

11

7/2

50x50y

53x50y

Ramah chert biface-thinning flakestotal/large

49x47y

189/ Attu's Bight L-3/6 distribution of Ramah chert biface-thmning flakes.

Discussion

The excavation of L-3/6 suggests that two componentsmay be present. The earlier component is the floorburied 35-45 cm below the modern surface. It containstwo hearth features with virtually identical radiocarbondates (4080±100 B.P. and 4080±90 B.P.). The charcoalcomprising these samples was not identified to woodspecies, so it is possible that if spruce trees were usedthe dates could be somewhat older than the occupa-tion. The later component is a trace layer 1 0 cm belowthe modern surface, inferred from a few in situ flakes,a split cobble, a small red ochre stain and deflatedRamah chert flakes lying near the same level. There areno clear chronological indicators for the later compo-nent, but enough time elapsed for at least two humuslayers to have developed and been covered by driftingsand. This two component interpretation falls if theupper layer is composed of redeposited material.Smithsonian field notes suggested a Sandy Cove-likepoint from L-9 could indicate occupations pre-dating

4500 B.P.. However, nothing else in the artifactualmaterial suggests anything other than a Rattler's BightPhase dating and the slight differences in beach ter-race elevation do not provide much basis for relativedating within the site. Consequently, the vast majorityof the material probably pertains to repeated occupa-tion during the Rattler's Bight Phase.

Linear scatters of Ramah chert such as thosefound at Attu's Bight have been interpreted as tracesof Maritime Archaic longhouse structures (Fitzhugh1981, 1984). While this may have been the case here,we should not assume that flake scatters ranging from40-1 20 m long necessarily represent single continuousstructures. Besides the possibility of non-contempora-neous overlap, the stratigraphic situation at L-3/6 rais-es the possibility that some of the flake scatters indeflated parts of the site could be palimpsests of morethan one occupation.

Two aspects of Attu's Bight seem significant incomparison with some other Rattler's Bight Phase

268

CHAPTER 1 2

190/ Attu's Bight Tools, a stemmed point, L-7: b: flal<epoint, L-12, c: biface preform, north of L-4: d: bifacemid-section, L-3/6: e, f: point stems, L-3/6: g: flal<e pointfragment, L-3/6: h: biface tip, L-3/6: i: biface edge, L-1:j: biface tip, L-1: k: biface base, L-1: I stemmed pomtpreform, L-3/6, m: stemmed flake (point preform), L-3/6.

sites. First, considering how much of the site has beenexposed on the surface there are very few visible fea-tures, such as stone-lined hearths. This may reflecteither the lack of readily available rocks in the sand-gravel deposits, or a lack of investment in hearth con-struction. Excavation of the in situ deposit at L-3/6indicates that hearths there were kindled on theground surface or merely consisted of a cluster ofsmall cobbles. There are, however, two possible burialcairns (L-10, L-1 1), an oval cobble ring {L-8) and a sub-rectangular rock feature of uncertain function (L-2).The lack of investment in features is paralleled by the

b

191 / Attu's Bight Tools, a: polished slate flake, L-1, b: celtfragment, L-3/6.

second significant aspect of the site: a low rate of tooldiscard. Although a considerable amount of debitageis present, there are relatively few tools on the surface.Such a pattern suggests time spent "gearing up"(Binford 1979:268), producing or repairing tools to beused and discarded elsewhere. This inference is sup-ported by the presence of many biface-thinning flakesand especially the high frequency of large flakes likelyderived from the reduction of quarry blanks. Thus, interms of these depositional patterns and their impliedcuration processes, Attu's Bight seems to be a short-term aggregation site.

In light of the foregoing, Attu's Bight is not agood candidate for the elusive Maritime Archaicfall/winter sites, postulated to lie in the inner bays(Fitzhugh 1978:83-84). In terms of (contemporary)resource availability, the most likely seasons for theoccupation of Attu's Bight would be late spring andearly fall, when seals, waterfowl and caribou could

WEBB BAY-PORT MANVERS RUN: SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS

269

be hunted and char and salmon caught. The site ispositioned almost equidistant between the entranceto Port Manvers Run and the narrow passagebetween Igloo Island and the mainland, both ofwhich are constrictions where it might have beeneasier to exploit herds of migrating harp seals in thespring or fall. One might also suggest the area couldhave been used for "gearing up" with wood productsprior to moving further north, but the paucity ofslate woodworking tools and slate debitage mightargue against that.

On the other hand, it may not be the exploita-tion of local resources so much as the location ofthe site that is most relevant to its interpretation.Attu's Bight is situated 1.5 km west of the entranceto Port Manvers Run and its broad beach terrace wasprobably the best location for a large group gather-ing that could be found in the region between WebbBay and Thalia Point on the coast. In this respectAttu's Bight is physically and topographically similarto large aggregation sites like Nulliak Cove-1, northof Hebron (Fitzhugh 1 981 , 1 984, 1 985a). Since it islikely that the Run was used as a travel corridor toavoid rough weather on the outer coast, it is reason-able to suggest that the main function of the sitewas as a temporary staging area for travel towardsthe north or south. Although these topographic orphysical attractors may have been the main vari-ables for site location, positioning of the site ashort distance west of the Run could also have beena response to inter-cultural relations. Given the indi-cations of a strong Pre-Dorset presence in the Run,placement of the site slightly back from theentrance to the Run could be seen as spatial distan-ciation from an area of frequent Pre-Dorset activity.Alternatively, Attu's Bight might have been selectedon the grounds of relative proximity to the Pre-Dorset "central place" at the Attu's Point site, mere-ly 1.8 km to the west, if a more interactive relation-ship with Pre-Dorset is postulated. On the otherhand, it is also possible that Attu's Bight was no

longer used after Pre-Dorset colonized the Mainarea. The implications of these points will be dis-cussed further in Chapter 14.

WEBB POINT (HeCk-6)

At the southern entrance to Webb Bay is a prominenttombolo beach that forms the spine of Webb Point.The beach runs roughly north-south, is bounded ateach end by a rock outcrop, and has steep easternand western edges. Its surface is almost entirelydeflated. Since this seemed like an ideal location fora Maritime Archaic site the point was surveyedbriefly in 1993, with another short follow-up visit in1 994. No elevation was recorded for the Webb Pointterrace, but it seems higher than Attu's Bight (i.e.,>19-21 m). Five small localities (L-1 to L-5) wereidentified on the primary beach surface, two more (L-6 and L-7) were recorded slightly down-slope of thenorthwestern corner of the beach, while one (L-8)was observed down-slope to the northeast.

L-1 was located near the rock outcrop at thenorthern end of the main beach terrace and consist-ed of a few Ramah chert flakes and tools. A stemmedpoint and a flake point of Ramah chert were surface-collected. The stemmed point is similar to RattlersBight styles (Figure 1 79:m). The dorsal side of theimplement is completely flaked but the ventral sideis retouched only on the lateral margins. A remnantstriking platform runs oblique to the stem base andalthough the shoulders and upper stem areretouched the basal portion is unmodified, presum-ably unfinished (L = 47.9 mm, W = 26.4, TH = 6.1).The flake point (Figure 1 79:n) is formed by unifacialdorsal retouch limited to the edge margins (L = 33.1mm, W = 13.8, TH = 2.7, stem L = 10.6, stemW [shoulder] = 9.2, stem W (base) = 7.7).

L-2 was situated near the southeastern corner ofthe terrace and consisted of a small rock mound,1 m in diameter, with no visible lithic association.It resembled the cobble features at Attu's Bight (L-1 0and L-1 1) and may be a burial cairn. L-3, L-4 and L-5

270

CHAPTER 1 2

were all located towards the southern end of the ter-race and all consisted of small scatters of Ramahchert flakes. L-6 was a gently sloping beach surfacesituated 40-50 m northwest of, and several metersbelow, the rock outcrop at the northwest end of thebeach. L-5 contained a blow-out with exposed flakesof Ramah and Mugford chert and a Ramah chertbiface stem, possibly Maritime Archaic (Figure179:k). Small cobbles and charcoal flecks were alsovisible on the surface. A 50 by 50 cm test pit adja-cent to the blow-out produced some charcoal, but noassociated cultural material. Systematic shovel testswere conducted up and down the L-6 beach, but theydid not reveal additional traces of occupation.

L-7 was a lithic scatter in a deflated sandy cleftbeside the bedrock knoll at the north end of themain terrace and up-slope from L-6. Flake materialexposed on the surface consisted of Mugford chert,crystal quartz and slate. A surface collection pro-duced a few Pre-Dorset tools and a biface of eitherPre-Dorset or Maritime Archaic origin. The Pre-Dorset implements include a medial fragment of aPre-Dorset crystal quartz biface with fine parallelpressure flaking (Figure 1 79:j), two small microb-lade fragments of dark gray Mugford chert, a com-plete burin spall of gray Mugford chert and a uti-lized flake of patinated Mugford chert. The medialportion of a burned Ramah chert biface (Figure1 79:1) might be Maritime Archaic, but a Ramah chertbiface of similar width (ca. 40 mm) was found in aPre-Dorset context at Attu's Point (Figure 201 ;a.Chapter 1 3). A blow-out 1 5 m north of L-7 containeda dark gray Mugford chert microblade fragment. Atest pit excavated beside the blow-out did not revealadditional cultural material. Finally, L-8 was locateddownslope from the northeast corner of the mainbeach terrace. Yellowish-green slate flakes similarto those found in Pre-Dorset sites in the area wereobserved on the surface.

Discussion

Webb Point provides evidence for limited MaritimeArchaic and Pre-Dorset activity. The most definitetraces of Maritime Archaic presence were found onthe prominent terrace, where evidence for Pre-Dorset was lacking. The stemmed point and flakepoint found at L-1 might indicate a Rattlers Bightphase or slightly earlier occupation. Pre-Dorsetappears restricted to the lower beach levels,although possible Maritime Archaic implementswere found at L-6 and L-7. The varying beach eleva-tions may indicate chronological differences inoccupation period, but the material is so scanty thatno reliable conclusions can be drawn. The minimaloccupation of the main beach terrace was surprisinggiven its topographic prominence and its physicalsimilarities with the beach terrace at Attu's Bight.Indeed, the limited use of Webb Point contrastsstrongly with the amount of Maritime Archaic andPre-Dorset activity on the north shore of Webb Bay.

The next chapter (13) describes Attu's Point, amajor Pre-Dorset locality on the north shore ofWebb Bay. Following that, Chapter 14 integrates thematerial presented in Chapters 1 2 and 1 3 and weldsit into a more comprehensive discussion of MaritimeArchaic/Pre-Dorset social relations in northernLabrador.

WEBB BAY-PORT MANVERS RUN: SMALL SCALE INVESTIGATIONS

271

Northern entrance to Port Manvers Run, Thalia Point on right. July 1997. (Photo B. Hood)

272

CHAPTER 1 3

Attu's Point: A Pre-DorsetCentra! Place'' on Webb Baij

In 1993 surveys were undertaken west of theentrance to Port Manvers Run along the northshore of Webb Bay. A Pre-Dorset locality dubbedAttu's Point (HeCk-5) was discovered near a rockypoint overlooking the narrow tickle between IglooIsland and the mainland (Figure 163). In the middleof a raised beach was an extremely well-preservedaxial structure containing a box-hearth filled withthermoliths.^

The initial survey identified at least a dozenloci of Pre-Dorset activity, of which five had tracesof dwelling structures, as well as a locus withMaritime Archaic material. Since Attu's Point layonly 1.8 km west of the Late Maritime Archaicoccupation at Attu's Bight, and since Attu's Point isthe only major Pre-Dorset inner bay locality in theMain region, the site was deemed high priority andwas investigated further in 1994. The 1994 workidentified several additional loci, for a total of 21find spots. These substantial traces of occupationsuggest that Attu's Point was a "central place" inthe Nain region Pre-Dorset settlement system: arepeatedly used seasonal site that contrasts withthe scattered and ephemeral small localities thatotherwise characterize Pre-Dorset landscape use.

OVERVIEW

The Attu's Point site is spread out along two west-fac-ing raised beach terraces ranging between 10-12 masl. (Figures 1 92 and 1 93). The beach deposits consistof medium-sized gravel and they are bordered on thesoutheast and west by eroded outcrops of anorthositebedrock. Some portions of the beaches are deflatedwhile other parts are covered with a thin layer of crow-berry or moss. Open spruce forest begins immediatelyeast of the site.

The 21 loci were arranged in three linear distribu-tions on different beach levels. L-1 to L-5, L-20 and L-21 lay near the edge of the 1 0 m beach terrace, L-6 toL-8 and L-1 7 were in a line slightly higher up and L-9to L-1 6, L-1 8 and L-1 9 lay on the uppermost terracebetween 11-12 m. At least one structure from each ofthese three levels was excavated or tested (L-1, L-5, L-7 and L-9) and surface collections were made at someof the other loci. All but one locus exhibited evidenceof Pre-Dorset material; L-1 2 produced traces of LateMaritime Archaic.

Each of the excavated features will be described inturn, along with a spatial analysis and descriptive sum-mary of the tools. The surface collected loci will thenbe described briefly. A summary of the significant spa-tial patterns and a general culture-historical conclusionis presented at the end of the chapter.

^Thermolith is a generic descriptor for rocks heated within a box-hearth for uncertain intended function (heating, cookingor other practices); it denotes both fire-cracked and non-thermally altered specimens.

ATTU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

273

192/ Attu's Point overview towards the northeast.

EXCAVATION AND COLLECTIONMETHODS

Excavation of the structures involved removal of thethin crowberry vegetation mat and troweling throughthe upper few centimeters of the beach gravel. Giventime constraints, the size of the excavation areas ateach structure was relatively small. Although most ofthe structurally relevant space was excavated at L-1, L-5 and L-7, a better picture would be available if a larg-er area around the periphery of the features had beenexposed. All tools were point-plotted. Flakes werepoint-plotted by raw material types, then bagged by1 m^ units. The gravel was not screened, so smallimplements such as burin spalls and retouch flakesmay be somewhat under-represented.

L-1 Excavation

L-l was located on the lowest beach ridge, 10 m asl.(Figure 193). Because the 1993 survey produced an

interesting surface collection and suggested thepresence of structural remains, a 14 m^ area wasexcavated in 1 994, revealing a cluster of rocks asso-ciated with hearth remnants (Figures 194 and 195).The presumed structural feature consisted of anorth-south oriented concentration of rocks coveringan area of 3.5 by 2.0 m. A hearth area composed ofthree flat slabs and a charcoal concentration wasidentifiable at the northern end of the concentration.A small charcoal sample from the hearth was radio-carbon dated to 3750±60 B.P. (Beta-7761 1; ^ ^c/lratio -26.1). A line of three rocks extending north-west from the hearth to a small boulder gave theimpression of perimeter delineation, but it was oth-erwise difficult to discern an internal order in theassociated scatter of rocks. The feature may havebeen disturbed, but it is possible that it was orient-ed differently from our expectations, or that it is notof the anticipated axial form.

274

CHAPTER 1 3

Tool Distribution Table 71. Attu's Point L-1:

A total of 49 tools was recovered. Figure 196 shows Tool Classes by K-Means Cluster.

the tool distribution and the results of a /c-means clus-ter analysis. A five cluster solution seemed best, defin-

C-1

C-2 C 3 C 4

C 5

TOTALN (%)

ing a hearth-centered group (cluster 5), another im-

Endblades

4

4 (8.2)

mediately west of the hearth (cluster 3), a small cluster

Endblade preforms

1

1 2

4 (8.2)

near the western boundary of the excavation (cluster

Bifaces

1 1

2 (4.1)

1), and two diffuse clusters on the southern side of the

Burin spalls

1

1 5

4

11 (22.5)

excavation (clusters 2 and 4). Table 71 compares the

Microblades

3

2 4 1

3

1 3 (26.4)

tool contents of these clusters. Although it is difficult

Scrapers

1

1

2 (4.1)

to draw inferences from such low frequencies there is

Scraper/burins

1

1 (2.0)

a contrast between the prevalence of burin spalls,

Utilized flakes

2

1 6

1

10 (20.4)

microblades and utilized flakes in cluster 3 adjacent to

Adzes/celts

1 1

2 (4.1)

the hearth, and the concentration of endblades in clus-

TOTAL

13

5 17 5

9

49

ter 1, 2 m west of the hearth.

193/ Attu's Point site map.

ATTU'S POINT; A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

In the absence of a clearlydefined axial feature, the spa-tial divisions used for the bilat-eral model-based tool distribu-tion analysis are associationwith the central rock feature,or placement on its east orwest flanks (Table 72). Themajority of tools (55.1%) lie inthe vicinity of the rock feature.Although the frequencies arerather low, there are slight dif-ferences in where the tooltypes were discarded. Most ofthe endblades and preformsoccur on the flanks of the rockfeature, including a cluster offive implements depositedtogether on the west side (pos-sibly a cache), while the major-ity of the burin spalls, microb-lades and utilized flakes areclosely associated with the fea-ture. Table 73 breaks down thetool distribution along a north-south division (front/back)running along the 6y grid line.In this case, nearly 80% of thetools lie on the northern (sea-ward) end of the rock feature,with endblades, burin spalls,microblades and utilizedflakes being particularly wellrepresented.

4x8v

6x8y

N

F Flat rockQ Charcoal

3x4y

6x4y

/94/Afru's Point L-1: rock feature and total flake distribution.

195/Attu's Point L-1: overview towards the east.

276

CHAPTER 1 3

3x4y 6x4y

196/ Attu's Point L-1: tool distribution with k-means dusters.

Table 72. Attu's Point L-1: Table 73. Attu's Point L-1: Tool Classes by

Tool Classes by Bilateral Position. North-South (Front/Back) Position.

Central(Axial)

East

West

TOTALN (%)

North(Front)

South(Back)

TOTAL

N (%)

Endblades

4

4

(8.2)

Endblades

4

4 (8.2)

Endblade prefo

rms 1

2

1

4

(8.2)

Endblade preforms 2

2

4 (8.2)

Bifaces

1

2

2

(4.1)

Bifaces

1

1

2 (4.1)

Burin spalls

9

1

1

1 1

(22.5)

Burin spalls

10

1

1 1 (22.4)

Microblades

7

3

3

1 3

(26.4)

Microblades

10

3

1 3 (26.5)

Scrapers

1

1

2

(4.1)

Scrapers

1

1

2 (4.1)

Scraper/burins

1

1

(2.0)

Scraper/burins

1

1 (2.0)

Utilized flakes

7

1

2

10

(20.4)

Utilized flakes

9

1

10 (20.4)

Celts/adzes

1

1

2

(4.1)

Celts/adzes

1

1

2 (4.1)

TOTAL

27

9

13

49

TOTAL

39

10

49

ATTU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

277

Tool raw material distribution patterns can beevaluated visually in Figure 197. Mugford chert toolstend to lie near the central rock feature, although theyare also found on its flanks. Crystal quartz tools areclustered near the hearth (similar to the flake distribu-tion, see below). The other materials are too few toindicate a pattern, but the two implements of Ramahchert are located some distance away from the centralrock feature. Quantitatively, the distributions can firstbe evaluated by their location relative to east-westbilaterality (Table 74). The only clear pattern is theexclusive association of crystal quartz with the rockfeature. When broken down by the north-south(front/back) division (Table 75) there is little clear pat-terning other than the exclusive association of crystalquartz and gray-speckled chert with the northern(hearth-related) division. Tool raw materials can alsobe seen in relation to the /(-means clusters (Table 76),

but the numbers are too low for the comparison to beworth much.

Table 74. Attu's Point L-1: Tool Raw Material

Frequencies by Bilateral Position.

Central(Axial)

East

West

TOTAL

N (%)

Dark gray Mugford chert 1 2

2

4

18(36.7)

Light gray Mugford chert 6

4

6

16(32.7)

Cray-speckled chert 2

1

3 (6.1)

Black chert

1

1 (2.0)

Ramah chert

1

1

2 (4.1)

Crystal quartz 6

6(12.3)

Gray silicified slate

1

1 (2.0)

Slate 1

1

2 (4.1)

TOTAL 27

9

13

49

278

CHAPTER 1 3

4x8y

6x8y

3x4y

3x4y

o

0

oo.

0^

Mugford chert flakes(all variants)

4x8y

6x4y

6x8y

3x4y

6

0 ^oo

6x4y

3x4y

Black chert flakes

198/ Attu's Point L-1 flake raw material distributions.

3x4y

r^/—? I !

Patinated chert flakes

4x8y

Crystal quartz flakes

4x8y

6x8y

O

oo

'O

u

Ramah chert flakes

ATTU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

279

Table 75. Attu's Point L-1: Tool Raw Materials byNorth-South (Front-Back) Position.

North

South

TOTALN (%)

Dark gray Mugford chert

1 5

3

18 (36.7)

Light gray Mugford chert

12

4

16 (32.7)

Cray-speckled chert

3

3 (6.1)

Black chert

1

1 (2.0)

Ramah chert

1

1

2 (4.1)

Crystal quartz

6

6 (12.3)

Cray silicified slate

1

1 (2.0)

Slate

1

1

2 (4.1)

TOTAL

39

10

49

Flake Distribution

The total flake distribution (Figure 194) parallels thetool groupings identified by the cluster analysis (Figure196). There are concentrations on either side of thehearth (similar to tool clusters 3 and 5), a tight concen-tration west of the hearth (cluster 1) and a diffuse con-centration in the southeast corner of the excavation(cluster 2). Figure 198 presents point-plots for eachflake raw material type while Figure 199 displaysquadrat counts. The Mugford and patinated chert distri-butions are very similar, which is not surprising sincethe latter is probably a weathered version of Mugfordchert. They are spread in a roughly linear east-west dis-tribution centered on the hearth area at the northernend of the rock feature. The marked concentration ofMugford chert on the western side of the excavationlies only a few centimeters distant from the tight toolconcentration of cluster 1, which included a cache offour endblades and an endblade preform (all ofMugford chert), two microblades, a scraper and two uti-lized flakes. In the absence of refitting data, one mightspeculate as to the relation between the Mugford flakeconcentration and production of the endblades.

The distributions of slate and Mugford chert arealmost mutually exclusive. Slate clusters in the south-east corner of the excavation (with over 70% in a singleunit), although a few flakes are present near the cen-

ter. A slate adze bit was found 1 m west of the slateconcentration. Mugford cherts have a more diffuse dis-tribution, but are mostly associated with the heartharea and the northwestern portion of the excavation.This placement broadly parallels the tool distribution.Crystal quartz occurs in a small cluster immediatelywest of the hearth, virtually in the center of the crystalquartz tool distribution, which was also hearth related(Figure 197). Black chert has a diffuse distribution, butoccurs almost exclusively west of the rock feature; thesingle tool of this material lay west of the rock feature(Figure 197). The two Ramah chert flakes are foundtowards the north end of the rock feature.

Table 77 outlines the distribution of flake rawmaterials according to their east-west bilateral posi-tion, tabulated by Im^ quadrats (unit 6x5y missing).Overall, the flakes are dominated by Mugford chertand slate; 61.1% of the debitage was deposited on thewest side of the structure, consistent with, though notas marked, as the tool distribution. A chi-square test(x^ = 85.80) indicates a statistically significant differ-ence between the two areas at the .05 level of signifi-cance. This difference is based on a marked tendencyfor light gray Mugford chert and crystal quartz to befound on the west side, while slate is associated prima-rily with the east side. Variation can also be seen in thenorth-south (front/back) direction, with a not entirelyartificial division imposed along the 6y line. Table 78indicates that 64.6% of the debitage is found on thenorth side of the rock feature. A chi-square test ("2 =103.59) indicates a statistically significant differencebetween the two areas. The pattern is linked to thehigh frequency of light gray Mugford chert (and to amuch lesser extent, patinated chert and crystal quartz)on the north side versus a preponderance of slate onthe south.

Integration

The distribution of Mugford chert and crystal quartztools and flakes is largely coterminus, while the slate,black chert and Ramah chert implements are found

280

CHAPTER 13

1

1

3

Black chert flakes

4

2

2

5

2

5

14

16

1

5

10

33

Light gray Mugford chert flakes

41

4

6

3

2

1

2

2

14

Crystal quartz flakes

6

2

6

6

1

4

7

Patinated chert flakes

1

1

3

Dark gray Mugford chert flakes

Ramah chert flakes

Slate flakes

Gray speckled Mugford chert flakes

199/ Attu's Point L-1: flake raw materials by quadrat.

outside the distributions of their debitage. Anattempt to refit burin spalls to the singlescraper/burin was unsuccessful. While the spallsmostly cluster towards the north end of the rock fea-ture, generally associated with the hearth, the buri-nated implement lies on the western periphery of theexcavation.

Table 79 tabulates tool and flake raw materialsby weight for L-1 as a whole. Slate is the dominantmaterial (54.2%), with gray Mugford cherts rankedsecond (22.6%). Several observations can be made if

Table 79 is used in conjunction with Tables 74 and77 (tool and flake frequencies). The high proportionof dark gray Mugford chert among the tools by bothweight and frequency is not parallelled by a high pro-portion of such flakes; in fact, light Mugford chertdominates the debitage. This suggests most of thetools made of dark gray Mugford were manufacturedelsewhere (either at Attu's Point or another site) andcurated into the locus. The opposite pattern is seenwith patinated chert; no tools were present but amodest amount of debitage was, indicating the

ATTU'S POINT A PRE DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

281

Table 76. Attu's Point L-1: Tool Raw Material Frequencies by K-Means Cluster.

V. 1

C-2

Dark gray Mugford chert

4

2

6 1

5

18

Light gray Mugford chert

6

2

5 2

1

16

Cray-speckled chert

1

2

3

Black chert 1 1

Ramah chert

1

1

2

Crystal quartz

3

3

6

Cray silicified slate 1 1

Slate

1 1

2

TOTAL

13

5

17 5

9

49

Table 77. Attu's Point L-1

Flake Raw Material Frequencies by East-West Bilateral Position.

East

West

TOTAL N (%)

Dark gray Mugford chert

7 (5.9)

4 (3.6)

1 1 (4.8)

Light gray Mugford chert

33 (27.9)

66 (59.5)

99 (43.2)

Cray-speckled chert

1 (0.8)

4 (3.6)

5 (2.2)

Patinated chert

14 (11.9)

18 (16.2)

32 (13.9)

Black chert

5 (4.3)

5 (2.2)

Ramah chert

2 (1.8)

2 (0.9)

Crystal quartz

4 (3.4)

14 (12.6)

18 (6.8)

Slate

54 (45.8)

3 (2.7)

57 (25.6)

TOTAL

94

140

229

removal of tools from the locus. Ramah chert is bet-ter represented by tools than by flakes.

Having presented the lithic distribution patternsalong several dimensions, the overall spatial configura-tion at L-1 can be evaluated. The initial assumptionwas that the central rock feature could indicate a dis-turbed axial structure running roughly north-south,oblique to the beach front. Inspection of the individualdistributions in relation to the feature suggests analternative interpretation. If the more numerous itemclasses are considered (e.g., microblades, utilizedflakes, Mugford chert tools, crystal quartz tools andflakes), there is a strong tendency for them to display

a roughly northeast-west linear distribution rangingfrom the hearth to the edge of the excavation on the7x line. The clustering of slate flakes and somemicroblades in the southeast corner of the excavationis the primary deviation from this pattern. In light ofthese tendencies one can postulate an axial featurerunning parallel with the beach front and consisting ofa hearth at its northeastern end and a small, roughlyrectangular feature 1 by 2 m in size that extends west-wards. The presence of a similar configuration at L-5(see below) might support this interpretation. It is alsoinstructive to compare the small concentration ofMugford chert flakes in the northwest corner of the L-

282

CHAPTER 1 3

Table 78. Attu's Point L-1: Flake Raw Material Frequencies by North-South (Front-Back) Position

North (Front)

South (Back)

TOTAL N (%)

Dark gray Mugford chert

b (4.U)

5 (6.2)

1 1 (4.8)

Light gray Mugford chert

OA tec O \

o4 (5b.o)

15 (18.5)

99 (43.2)

Cray-speckled chert

C to A\

5 (3.4)

5 (2.2)

Patinated chert

-) C / 1 "7 C \

(1 /.d)

6 (7.4)

32 (1 3.9)

Black chert

i U.O)

2 (2.5)

5 (2.2)

Ramah chert

2 (1.3)

2 (0.9)

Crystal quartz

16 (10.8)

2 (2.5)

18 (6.8)

Slate

6 (4.1)

51 (62.9)

57 (25.6)

TOTAL

148

81

229

Table 79. Attu's Point L-1: Total Lithic Raw Material Weights (Tools and Flakes). In Grams.

Tools g (%)

Flakes g (%)

TOTAL g (%)

Dark gray Mugford chert

32.5

(10.8)

16.1

(9.0)

48.6

(10.1)

Light gray Mugford chert

21.3

(7.1)

38.6

(21.6)

59.9

(12.5)

Cray-speckled chert

19.1

(6.4)

4.9

(2.7)

24.0

(5.0)

Patinated chert

13.2

(7.4)

13.2

(2.8)

Black chert

1.0

(0.3)

2.1

(1.2)

3.1

(0.6)

Ramah chert

41.7

(1 3.9)

0.8

(0.4)

42.5

(8.9)

Crystal quartz

1 1.7

(3.9)

16.6

(9.3)

28.3

(5.9)

Slate

173.0

(57.6)

86.8

(48.5)

259.8

(54.2)

1 excavation— which would lie at the western end of abeach-parallel axial feature— with the concentration ofMugford chert flakes at the foot of the axial structureat L-7 (see below). In any event, it appears that the L-1 hearth is located at the terminal end of a featurerather than in the middle, as expected from a classicaxial structure. Another possibility is that the scatter ofrocks in the southwestern portion of the excavationmay represent a second overlapping feature.

L-1 Tool Assemblage

Endblades: Three of the four endblades are complete,one is a distal fragment (Figure 200:a-d). Three aremade of dark gray Mugford chert, one of light gray

Mugford chert. The complete specimens are triangularand two have straight bases and biconvex cross-sec-tions (L= 25.1, 16.1, 21.4 mm, W= 9.5, 7.7, 9.2, TH=2.2, 1.5, 1.9). One implement has a plano-convexcross-section and a concave base (depth= 1.3 mm); itsdorsal face is completely retouched, but ventrally onlythe edge margins are retouched (Figure 200:d). Thelateral edges of the latter specimen are distinctly ser-rated; the other three endblades also have slightly ser-rated edges.

Endblade preforms: Of the four endblade pre-forms (Figure 200:e-h), one is complete, two are prox-imal fragments and one a distal fragment. Two aremade of light gray Mugford chert, one of dark gray

ATTU'S POINT A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

283

f g h

200/ Attu's Point L-1 tools, a-d endblades; e-h: endbladepreforms.

Mugford chert and one of crystal quartz. Two of thethree specimens with a proximal portion exhibitstraight bases while the third is straight-based with aneared basal corner (Figure 200:f). The complete imple-ment of crystal quartz (Figure 200:e) has near-finalretouch completed from its tip to its medial region andan unfinished basal portion, indicating a distal to prox-imal flaking sequence (L= 23.8 mm, W= 1 6.1, TH= 8.6).The two proximal fragments differ somewhat in width(W= 1 3.4, 1 9.9 mm, TH= 2.8, 3.4). One of these frag-ments (Figure 200:g) is flaked mostly on its dorsalface, upon which two long parallel basal-thinningflakes were removed medially.

Bifaces: Two biface fragments were recovered,one made of Ramah chert, one of crystal quartz. TheRamah chert specimen (Figure 201 :a) is the proximalend of a biface that originally must have been ca. 10cm long (W= 39.3 mm, TH= 6.9). There is a remnantstriking platform near the base, which seems less fin-ished than the rest of the implement. The crystalquartz specimen is a small lateral edge fragment.

Combination scraper/burins: The single speci-men of a combination scraper/burin (Figure 201 :c) ismade on a blade-like flake of dark gray Mugford chert(L= 70.5 mm, W= 20.6, TH= 8.1). It consists of a con-

d f

^!!!B5il^S!Siiiai^!? CM.

O I £ J •? 5

201 / Attu's Point L-1 tools, a biface, b sidescraper; c:burm/sidescraper , d-e microblades.

202/ Attu's Point L-1 tools, a: adze; b: celt/adze preformor proximal fragment.

cave scraper running distally-medially on one lateraledge and a burination plane along the other lateraledge, with removals from a platform on the slightlyconvex, unifacially retouched distal end. The scraper

284

CHAPTER 1 3

4x7y

7x7y

2x6y

) 0'

o

0

o

o

,^0

0

o

—1—

0

0

0

2x3y

F Flat rock® Charcoal

203/ Attu's Point L-5: features and total flake distribution.

edge angle is 50 and there are three burin spallremovals. Slightly below the mid-portion of each later-al edge there is a faint shoulder, which creates a slightstem effect proximally. A striking platform is presentproximally and both the platform and bulb of percus-sion are highly polished, presumably by hafting wear.There is no facial grinding. The middle of the scraper

204/ Attu's Point L-5: possible axial structure, view towards the southwest.

edge and the distal end of thetool exhibit wear polish; thefirst burination scar has pol-ished edges and small fractureswhile the third burination scarhas clear striations on the adja-cent ventral surface, perpendi-cular to the scar edge.

Scrapers: Two implementswere collected. A completesidescraper (Figure 201 :b) ismade of dark gray Mugfordchert and has a slightly concaveworking edge (L= 43.8 mm, W=23.9, TH= 8.2). The tool is dor-sally retouched on all lateraledges while on the ventral sidethe proximal end has beenflaked to thin out the bulb ofpercussion, although the striking platform remains atthe base. The concave working edge and distal end aredistinctly polished by wear. Seen alongside the combi-nation scraper/burin (Figure 201 ;c), it is likely that thesidescraper is a reworked and perhaps exhausted ver-sion of the latter, since both have very similar basalforms and dimensions. Rather than representing dif-ferent "types," they may indicatestart and end points in a reduc-tion sequence. The secondimplement is an edge fragmentmade of black chert.

Burin spalls: Of the 1 1burin spalls (MNI=10), sevenwere complete, three wereproximal fragments and one adistal fragment. All were madeof gray Mugford chert vari-ants. None bore traces ofgrinding and all were second-ary spalls. Their metrics canbe summarized as follows:

ATTU'S POINT A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

285

xL = 1 5.9, r = 9.2-21.8, xW = 3.3, r= 2.2-4.3, xTH =1.7, r = 1.1 -2.4.

Microblades: Of the 13 microblades, three arecomplete, six are medial fragments, three are proximalfragments and one is a distal portion. Based on proxi-mal elements, MNI=1 0. Nine are made of gray Mugfordcherts and four of crystal quartz. Two specimens(Figure 201:d,f) are large enough to be considered"macroblades" (L = 61.0, 56.7 mm, W = 17.7, 20.9,TH = 5.6, 4.8). Metrics for the others are as follows:xW = 9.4 mm, r = 6.1-15.0, xTH = 2.1, r = 1.4-2.9.Platform angles: 80* = 3, 75 = 1, 70' = 1. Platformpreparation: retouched= 2, retouched/ground = 1,plain = 2. Eight specimens exhibit use-wear or lightretouch.

Adzes/Celts: The two specimens are fragmentaryand both are made of green slate. The first is the dis-tal portion of an adze (Figure 202:a); one lateral edgeis bifacially retouched while the other is retouched

abruptly from the dorsal (top) side of the implement,resulting in an asymmetrical cross-section. A consider-able amount of cortex is still present on the dorsal sur-face. The dorsal edge of the bit is only polished 1-3mm back from the edge, while the ventral polishing ismostly limited to an area within 7.5 mm of the bitedge, although a few facets further back are also pol-ished. Use-wear consists of a slight rounding of the bitedge, although some rather large step fractures onone ventral corner may indicate heavier work pressureor retouch. L = >64 mm, W = 41.8, TH = 16.2, EdgeAngle = 70'.

The second specimen (Figure 202: b) is the prox-imal end of an adze or celt. It is made on a rectangu-lar slate tablet, the lateral edges of which areretouched with small flakes removed at 90' from boththe dorsal and ventral surfaces of the tablet such thatthe squared edge and rectangular cross-section ismaintained. The flake facets on what appears to be

286

CHAPTER 1 3

Table 80. Attu's Point L-5: Tool Classes by K Means Cluster

C-1 N (%)

C-2 N (%)

C-3 N (%)

C-4 N (%)

TOTAL N

(%)

Endblades

1 (6.7)

3 (8.4)

4

(5.6)

Endblade preforms

1 (2.8)

1

(1.4)

Stemmed points

1 (14.3)

1

(1.4)

Biface fragments

1 (7.7)

3 (8.4)

4

(5.6)

Burins

1 (6.7)

2 (5.6)

3

(4.2)

Burin spalls

2 (1 3.3)

2 (1 5.4)

9 (25.0)

2 (28.5)

1 5

(21.1)

Microblades

4 (26.6)

3 (23.1)

12 (33.3)

1 (14.3)

20

(28.1)

Microblade cores

1 (6.7)

1 (2.8)

2

(2.8)

Scrapers

2 (1 5.4)

1 (14.3)

3

(4.2)

Scraper/burins

1 (14.3)

1

(1.4)

Utilized flakes

6 (40.0)

4 (30.7)

5 (13.9)

1 (14.3)

16

(22.4)

Celts/adzes

1 (7.7)

1 (2.8)

2

(2.8)

TOTAL

15

13

36

7

71

the dorsal surface are polished slightly and one later-al edge is slightly rounded. L = > 62 mm, W = 33.7,TH = 16.7.

Utilized Flakes: Eight of the ten utilized flakes aremade of gray Mugford chert, one of black chert andone of gray-speckled chert.

L-5 EXCAVATION

L-5 was located on the lowest beach ridge at 1 0 m asl.(Figure 193). Initially, L-5 appeared to contain theremains of a well-preserved axial structure, so an exca-vation of 21.5 m^ was opened up. Unfortunately, thestructure turned out to be less distinct than anticipat-ed (Figures 203 and 204). Towards the southern end ofthe excavation was a hearth composed of a few flatslabs, a small scatter of charcoal and a number ofsmall rocks that may have been thermoliths. Whatappeared to be the remnants of an axial structureextended out from the hearth, suggesting a feature 2m long, 0.75-1.0 m wide, oriented N-S, parallel with

the shoreline, but with the hearth placed at one end ofthe axial structure rather than in the middle (cf., L-1).A small charcoal sample procured from the hearth areawas radiocarbon dated to 3790±70 B.P. (Beta-77612;]3q/'\2q rgfiQ -24.7). To the north of the axial struc-ture was a cluster of rocks associated with a charcoalconcentration and a substantial quantity of tools anddebitage. This area may represent an outdoor dump oractivity area at the entrance to the axial structure or itcould be the remains of a second, badly disturbedaxial structure with a NW-SE orientation. Finally, in thesouthwest corner of the excavation and just outsidethe excavation limits was another cluster of rocks,including a few flat slabs. Although there were noassociated lithics, the rock cluster might indicate thepresence of another feature.

Tool Distribution

A total of 82 tools was recovered; some were scatteredaround the postulated axial feature, but most (68.7%)

^ Items excluded from the analysis due to lack of point provenience are displayed by quadrats in Figure 206.ATTU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

Table 81. Attu's Point L-5: Tool Classes by General Spatial Position.

AXiai In

(/o)

iNOrin In

(^;

1U1AL N

Endblades

A

H

(b. !}

4

(4.y)

Endblade preforms

1

( 1 .3)

1

1

(1 -*^)

Endblades/points

T

L

(3.U)

c.

KlA)

Stemmed points

11

(1.3)

1

1

Biface fragments

3

//I c^(4.b)

i

(3.7)

Burins

(4.5)

3

(3.7)

Burin spalls

d.

\\ l.^)

1 c

(ZZ.O)

1 /

(ZU. /)

Microblades

3

( 1 O.O)

1 D

1 o

1 y

/ 3 3 3 \

(^3.2)

Microblade cores

~%L.

(3.U)

z

/3 /l A

Scrapers

( 1 0.0)

3

(3./)

Scraper/burins

1

(6.2)

1

(1.2)

Utilized flakes

6

(37.5)

18

(27.3)

24

(29.3)

Celts/adzes

1

(6.2)

1

(1.5)

2

(2.4)

TOTAL

16

66

82

Table 82. Attu's Point L-5: Tool Raw Material Frequencies by General Spatial Position.

Axial N

(%)

North

N

(%)TOTAL N

(%)

Dark gray Mugford chert

6

(37.6)

30

(45.5)

36

(43.9)

Light gray Mugford chert

3

(4.5)

3

(3.7)

Light gray silicified slate

2

(12.5)

6

(9.2)

8

(9.8)

Patinated chert

2

(3.0)

2

(2.4)

Gray-speckled chert

1

(6.2)

5

(7.6)

6

(7.3)

Crystal Quartz

2

(12.5)

8

(12.1)

10

(12.2)

Ramah chert

3

(18.8)

8

(12.1)

1 1

(13.4)

Black chert

1

(6.2)

3

(4.5)

4

(4.9)

Slate

1

(6.2)

1

(1.5)

2

(2.4)

TOTAL

16

66

82

were located to the north in the possible dump/activi-ty area. A bilateral analysis could not be undertakengiven the paucity of tools associated with the axial fea-ture. Instead, k-means cluster analysis was used todefine groupings based on proximity rather thanmodel-derived spatial categories. The analysis used a

total of 71 tools for which precise point proveniencewas available; a four cluster solution seemed mostappropriate (Figure 205). One of these clusters (cluster2) is centered on the hearth area of the axial structurewhile two others (clusters 1 and 3) partition thedump/activity area into two groups. Cluster 4 is a dif-

288

CHAPTER 1 3

Table 83. Attu's Point L-5: Tool Raw Material Frequencies by K-Means Cluster.

C-1 N (%)

C-2 N (%)

C-3 N (%)

C-4 N (%)

TOTAL N (%)

Dark gray Mugford chert

6 (40.0)

3 (23.1)

24 (67.7)

2 (28.6)

35 (49.3)

Light gray Mugford chert

1 (6.7)

2 (5.5)

3 (4.2)

Light gray siliclfied slate

2 (13.3)

2 (1 5.4)

4 (5.6)

Patinated chert

1 (2.8)

1 (14.3)

2 (2.8)

Cray-speckled

3 (20.0)

1 (7.7)

1 (2.8)

1 (14.3)

6 (8.5)

Crystal quartz

2 (13.3)

2 (1 5.4)

3 (42.8)

7 (9.9)

Ramah chert

1 (6.7)

3 (23.1)

5 (13.9)

9 (12.7)

Black chert

1 (7.7)

2 (5.5)

3 (4.2)

Slate

1 (7.7)

1 (2.8)

2 (2.8)

TOTAL

1 5

13

36

7

71

fuse distribution of questionable significance immedi-ately northwest of the axial feature. Table 80 displaysthe variation in tool classes between the clusters.Cluster 3, immediately north of the presumed axial fea-ture, has by far the largest proportion of the tool col-lection (N = 37, 51.4%). It also has a tendency towardsmore endblades, perhaps burins and burin spalls, aswell as microblades and microblade cores. Cluster 2

UF=4

UF= 1

UF= 1

UF= 1EB= 1

UF= 1Bl= 1

BS= 1

Utilized flakes (UP)Endblades (EB)Bifaces (Bl)Burin spalls (BS)

206/ Attu's Point L-S no provenience tools by quadrat.ATTU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

(associated with the hearth) and cluster 1 exhibit some-what higher proportions of utilized flakes.

A broader spatial comparison can be madebetween the frequency of tool types associated withthe presumed axial feature and the concentration tothe north of the feature using a dividing line runningalong 4.30x. Table 81 shows clear differencesbetween the two subareas. Endblades, points, bifaces,burins and microblade cores are exclusively associat-ed with the northern subarea, while burin spalls andmicroblades are predominantly to the north. Scrapersand the combination scraper/burin are exclusive tothe southern area associated with the axial feature.The relationship is statistically significant at the .05level (■/^= 22.49).

The first step in evaluating variation in tool rawmaterials is to consider their distribution relative tothe axial feature/northern subarea division used in thetool type analysis (Table 82). There is no significantdifference between the two areas (-/^= 3.26). The dis-tribution of tool raw materials can also be comparedacross the cluster groups (Table 83). It is difficult toevaluate the low frequencies, but higher proportions ofdark gray chert occur in clusters 1 and 3 and crystalquartz is absent from cluster 1. Point distributions oftool raw materials are shown in Figure 207.

289

4x7y

7x7y

2x6y

* A ^ ^ A

2x3y

o

B Black chert

♦ Crystal quartz

A Dark gray Mugford chert

+ Gray speckled Mugford chert

• Light gray Mugford chert0 Light gray silicified slate■ Patinated chert

* Ramah chert

★ Slate

207/ Attu's Point L-5 tool raw material distribution.

Table 84. Attu's Point L-5: Flake Raw Material Frequencies by Analytical Quadrant.

NW N (%)

NE N (%)

SW N (%)

SE N (%)

TOTAL N (%)

Dark gray Mugford

9 (10.7)

21

(12.0)

4

(13.8)

3

(10.7)

37

(1 1.7)

Light gray Mugford

1 (1.2)

5

(2.9)

2

(6.9)

2

(7.1)

10

(3.2)

Gray-speckled chert

10

(5.7)

1

(3.6)

1 1

(3.5)

Black chert

2

(1.1)

1

(3.4)

1

(3.6)

4

(1.3)

Ramah chert

5 (6.0)

30

(17.1)

2

(6.9)

7

(25.0)

44

(13.9)

Patinated chert

1 (1.2)

12

(6.9)

1

(3.4)

14

(4.4)

Biostrome chert^ ^

1 (1.2)

1

(0.3)

Crystal quartz

1

(3.4)

3

(10.7)

4

(1.3)

Slate

17 (20.2)

78

(44.6)

6

(20.7)

8

(28.6)

109

(34.5)

Clastic slate^ ^

43 (51.2)

1 7

(9.7)

8

(27.6)

2

(7.1)

70

(22.2)

Light gray silicified slate

7 (8.3)

4

(13.8)

1

(3.6)

12

(3.8)

TOTAL

84

1 75

29

28

316

^ 1 Biostrome chert denotes possible stromatolite structure.

^ ^ Clastic slate denotes a material containing small rounded clast inclusions.

290

CHAPTER 1 3

o

h

© o

0

O

Mugford chert flakes(all variants)

if

o

Black chert flakes

7x7y

0

o

oo'-

o

G7 o

0

o'

Go p.

0 0 Q

o

o

o

-JO

30

• 0

Patinated chert flakes

Crystal quartz flakes

o

o .O

O <3

o

0

Ramah chert flakes

o

2

Slate flakes

208/ Attu's Point L-5: flake raw material distributions.

ATTU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

291

Table 85. Attu's Point L-5: Total Lithic Raw Material Weights (Tools and Flakes). In Grams.

TOOLS g (%)

FLAKES g (%)

TOTAL g (%)

Dark gray Mugford

69.8

(26.8)

1 9.9

(7.8)

89.7 (1 7.4)

Light gray Mugford

8.0

(3.1)

8.5

(3.3)

16.5 (3.2)

Cray-speckled chert

2.3

(0.9)

5.5

(2.2)

7.8 (1.5)

Black chert

5.5

(2.1)

1.5

(0.6)

7.0 (1.4)

Ramah chert

1 3.1

(5.0)

1 7.7

(7.0)

30.8 (6.0)

Patlnated chert

0.9

(0.3)

8.5

(3.3)

9.4 (1.8)

Blostrome chert

0.4

(0.2)

0.4 (0.1)

Crystal quartz

7.2

(2.8)

1.1

(0.4)

8.3 (1.6)

Slate

1 10.0

(42.2)

1 1 2.5 (44.2)

222.5 (43.2)

Clastic slate

72.5 (28.5)

72.5 (14.1)

Light gray silicified slate

43.9

(16.8)

6.2

(2.4)

50.1 (9.7)

No refits of broken tools were identified andattempts to refit burin spalls with the three burinswere unsuccessful. The majority of burins and burinspalls lie clustered together on the north side of theexcavation (Figure 205). Two of the three burins aremade of dark gray Mugford chert, as are 1 3 of the 1 6spalls, while one burin is made of patinated chert, asis one spall. A single spall of gray-speckled chert lacksa burin of the same material.

Flake Distribution

The total flake distribution is shown in Figure 203. Thevast majority of flakes (81%) are concentrated on thenorthern side of the excavation. This concentrationactually consists of two smaller elongated clusters, oneassociated with a small charcoal concentration, theother running parallel ca. 50 cm to the east. The axialfeature has relatively few flakes, but these seem to beconcentrated in two clusters; one on the southeastedge of the hearth, the other at the northwest cornerof the axial alignment in the vicinity of three flat slabs.In sum, the overall debitage distribution tends to par-allel the /(-means clusters of tools. The individual flakeraw material distributions are shown as point plots andquadrat counts in Figures 208 and 209, respectively.

Ceneric Mugford chert, patinated chert and Ramahchert tend to be found on the east side of the northernconcentration, while generic slate is found on bothsides. Black chert occurs mostly in two small concen-trations, one at the northwest corner of the excavation,the other at the northwest corner of the axial feature.There are few crystal quartz flakes, but two are locat-ed close to the hearth associated with the presumedaxial feature (cf., the hearth-related crystal quartz dis-tribution at L-1). Ramah chert occurs in two clusters,one on the east side of the northern concentration, theother adjacent to the axial feature hearth.

Given the strong spatial clustering, a quantitativeanalysis of the debitage was conducted using fourquadrants, distinguished along an east-west axis bythe 5y line and along the north-south axis by the 4xline (Table 84). These quadrants separate the twoclusters of the northern concentration and distinguishthe latter from the axial feature, and they are general-ly consistent with the results of the /c-means analysisof the tool assemblage. There are several clear ten-dencies. Most of the Ramah chert is found on the eastside of the excavation, particularly in the northeastquadrant. Slate is mostly distributed on the north side,also primarily in the northeast quadrant. Gray-speck-

292

CHAPTER 1 3

2

1

7

14

1

■1

1

1

B= 1

1

2

3

1

C= 1

6

Black chert

Crystal quartz (C)Blostrome chert (B)

Dark gray Mugford chert

1

4

2

5

5

1

5

7

1

1

1

1

1

Light gray Mugford chert

Gray speckled Mugford chert Patinated chert

1

1

29

1

5

14

64

1

7

6

11

2

1

5

1

10

2

2

4

5

26

1

1

5

9

3

7

Ramah chert

Slate

Clastic slate

1

2

5

1

3

Silicified slate

209/ Attu's Point L-5: flake raw material distributions by quadrat.

led Mugford chert and patinated chert are exclusivelyand primarily (respectively) associated with the north-east quadrant. Another noticeable pattern is the ten-dency for "plain" slates to cluster in the northeastquadrant, while "clastic" slate is mostly found in the

northwest quadrant. The latter pattern suggests insitu distributions resulting from two separate knap-ping episodes using slightly different raw materialsrather than dumping behavior resulting from floor

ATTU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

293

a b c d e

210/ Attu's Point L-5 tools, a-d endblades. e: stemmedpoint, f: endblade preform, g-i burms, j, k endscrapers. I:burm/endscraper.

cleaning, which would probably mix the two slatetypes more thoroughly.

Integration

Comparison of the tool and flake raw materialplots (Figures 207 and 208) indicates the distributionof Mugford chert flakes and tools largely coincides,except for a small concentration of tools in theextreme northwest corner of the excavation. Ramahchert tools and debitage tend to be spatially associat-ed and are fairly tightly clustered around the heartharea and the northeast portion of the externaldump/activity area. Both black chert and crystal quartzhave a somewhat different distribution pattern thanthe other materials, tending to be found towards themore westerly portion of the excavation on the periph-ery of the other materials' main distributions.

If we compare the frequencies of raw materialspresent in the tool assemblage to those among the

flakes (Tables 82 and 84) there are some marked dif-ferences. The high percentage of dark gray Mugfordchert tools contrasts with a relatively low percentage offlakes, suggesting that some of the tools entered thelocus in finished form. The frequency of crystal quartzdebitage also seems low relative to the quantity oftools, suggesting the same pattern. The frequency ofslate debitage is high compared to the few tools, whichmight indicate that some of the finished products orpreforms were removed from the locus. This is under-scored by the presence of clastic slate debitage, butthe absence of tools of this material.

Table 85 tabulates tool and flake raw materials byweight for L-5 as a whole. All materials occur in lowweights, but slates dominate, followed by dark grayMugford chert. The most striking variations are thatdark gray Mugford chert and light gray silicified slateare more significant as tools than as flakes; the formeris consistent with the frequency data.

The initial assessment of L-5 suggested the local-ity consisted of an axial feature with a hearth at oneend and an activity area to the north, or that perhapsthe latter was a disturbed structure. Support for thedisturbed structure alternative might be seen in theclustering of the flake distributions, one concentrationrelated to a charcoal deposit and rocks, the other con-centration lying 50 cm to the east (Figure 203), hintingat the bilaterality sometimes associated with axial fea-tures. On the other hand, a similar pattern could alsobe associated with an isolated hearth without anaccompanying mid-passage structure. But there maybe a third alternative. We might deconstruct the axialstructure interpretation by pointing out that the fea-ture consists of a hearth on the south side connectedby a single line of rocks to a cluster of rocks and flatslabs on the north side. These two components couldbe separate features, with the small charcoal patch atthe northern cluster of flat slabs representing a seconddisturbed hearth. Seen in conjunction with the north-ern activity area, we might then have a linear series ofthree hearths spaced at 1.5 m intervals. Such a linear

294

CHAPTER 1 3

feature, possibly consisting of four hearths, was exca-vated at Port IVlanvers Run-1 (Chapter 12).

L-5 Tool Assemblage

Endblades: Of the four endblades from L-5 (Figure210:a-d), one is nearly complete and the others areproximal, medial and distal fragments. One is made ofdark gray Mugford chert, one of light gray Mugfordchert, one of light gray silicified slate and one of blackchert. The nearly complete example (Figure 210:a) istriangular with a biconvex cross-section and a straightbase that is thinned on both sides by two parallelflakes placed medially. It is finely flaked with distinctlyserrated lateral edges and there is a small area ofmedial grinding on one face (L= >17.7 mm, W= 10.2,TH= 1.4). The proximal example (Figure 210:b) has aslightly concave base (depth= 0.6 mm) with two paral-lel basal-thinning flakes on one side and one centralbasal-thinning flake on the other side. A striking plat-form remains on one lateral edge. The implement maybe unfinished (W= 14.6 mm, TH= 2.7). The other twoexamples are small fragments deemed to be end-blades by virtue of their size and flaking patterns.

Pomts/endblades: Two distal fragments are diffi-cult to classify as points or endblades. One is made ofRamah chert (Figure 210:d) and has distinct edge ser-ration and a plano-convex cross-section resulting fromnear-complete dorsal flaking combined with ventralretouch limited to the edge margins. The other is madeof dark gray Mugford chert and has fine edge serra-tion, slight medial grinding, a biconvex cross-sectionand a slight hint of a shoulder (Figure 210:c).Combined with its slightly greater thickness, theseattributes suggest this specimen may represent a pointrather than an endblade.

Endblade preforms: The single example is a dis-tal fragment made of gray-speckled Mugford chert(Figure 210 0. It bears minimal lateral retouch limitedto within 2.5 mm of the edge.

Points: The single definite specimen (Figure210;e) is the proximal/lateral portion of a crystal

211/ Attu's Point L-5 tools, a, b: microblade cores; c-j:microblades: /c adze, I: celt/adze preform.

quartz point with a contracting stem and a biconvexcross-section (TH= 5.7 mm, stem L= 1 1.4).

Bifaces: Three small biface fragments werefound, all lateral edge fragments, two are made ofcrystal quartz, one of Ramah chert. The latter has avery slight hint of a shoulder, suggesting it was alanceolate biface.

Burins: Two of the three burins are fashionedfrom flakes, one is made on a microblade. Both of theflake burins are made of gray Mugford chert while themicroblade burin is made of patinated chert. None ofthe implements are ground. One of the flake burins isrelatively large (Figure 210:g) with fine retouch onboth lateral edges, dorsal on the left, ventral on the

ATTU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

295

right (L = 37.6 mm, W = 24.1, TH = 4.8). There is afaint shoulder on each side and a slight notch-likeindentation on the right side, where the retouch is bifa-cial. The proximal end is thinned bifacially but twolong parallel flakes were used to remove the bulb ofpercussion on the ventral side (similar to the techniqueused on some endblades). The right distal corner isbifacially retouched, providing a platform for theoblique removal of four burin spalls. The other flakeburin (Figure 210:h) exhibits minimal unifacial retouchon its lateral edges (L= 25.4 mm, W=14.9, TH=6.7). Asingle spall removal runs obliquely from a slightlyretouched area on the distal end to a terminus markedby a steeply retouched notch (65 ) on the opposite lat-eral edge. The notch might be either a remnant con-cave scraper edge or a termination control feature. Theretouched edge is wear-polished.

The third burin (Figure 21 0;i) is a very small imple-ment made on the proximal fragment of a microblade(L= 1 2.6 mm, W= 1 1.8, TH= 2.8). The left distal cornerhas a small notch that may have been made for a con-trolled snap of the microblade, but the notch alsoserved as a platform for the oblique removal of fourtiny burin spalls. No other retouch is present.

Combination scraper/bunns The single imple-ment (Figure 210:1) is made on a lozenge-shaped flakeof crystal quartz (L= 35.6, W= 22.4, TH= 6.5). Themedial-distal portion of one lateral edge has abruptscraper-like retouch on the dorsal side while on theother lateral edge the medial-proximal portion isretouched similarly on the dorsal side. Burinations arepresent at both ends of the implement; one end hastwo spall removals— the first an angle burination, thesecond oblique across the tip of the implement— whilethe other end has a single angle burination.

Burin spalls: Of the 17 burin spalls (MNI = 13),eight are complete, five are proximal fragments, threeare distal fragments and one is a medial portion. Eightare made from dark gray Mugford chert, five from grayMugford chert, one from light gray Mugford chert, twofrom light gray silicified slate and one from Ramah

chert (the latter is an uncertain spall). Two spalls areprimary, the rest are secondary. None are ground.Metrics are as follows; x L = 16.0 mm, r = 9.6-20.5,X W = 3.8, r = 2.4-5.2, x TH = 1.9, r = 1.1-3.2.

Scrapers: Three scrapers were recovered. One isthe distal fragment of an endscraper (Figure 210:k)made on a blade of light gray silicified slate, with a rel-atively narrow convex "nose" (W = 1 4.9 mm, TH = 3.8,edge angle = 40°). Another is an end/sldescraper(Figure 21 0;j) made on an irregular linear flake of darkgray Mugford chert. The partially retouched distal endis convex and half of one lateral margin is alsoretouched (L = 33.7 mm, W = 13.5, TH = 9.1, edgeangle = 65 ). The third specimen is a possible medialfragment of black chert that has shallow dorsalretouch on opposite edges.

Microblades: Of the 20 microblades (MNI=12),fourteen are made of Mugford chert, four of crystalquartz and two of Ramah chert (Figure 211: c-j). Onlyone is complete; 1 1 are proximal fragments, six aremedial fragments and two are distal fragments.Metrics are as follows: xW = 8.08 mm, r = 5.1-14.6,X TH = 2.1, r = 1.1-4.4. Platform angles: 85' = 1,80' = 7, 75 = 1, 70 = 3. Platform preparation: plain= 1, ground = 1, plain/ground = 1, retouch = 2,retouch/ground = 3. Four specimens have traces ofdeliberate retouch while eight exhibit minor notchingand use-wear.

Microblade cores: The first of the two cores(Figure 21 1 :b) is made on a sub-rectangular to trian-gular block of dark gray Mugford chert (L =56.4 mm,W =33.4, TH = 20.59). A triangular platform is posi-tioned at one of the long ends of the chert block. Theplatform surface is fully retouched by shallow flakesand has a platform angle of 80°. Flake scars from sixblade removals run the length of the front and sidesof the core. The blades ranged in size from 37-55mm long and 5.5-10 mm in width. The back of theblock is not retouched. The second example (Figure21 1 :a) is a tabular-shaped core of light gray silicifiedslate (L = 51.6 mm, W = 32.7, TH = 14.3). The plat-

296

CHAPTER 1 3

form is located on one of thelong ends of the core. Theedges of the core areretouched slightly, includingsome thinning on the long endopposite the platform. Theplatform is long, narrow andflat, without preparation; a welldefined point of impact inden-tation is found on the platformedge. The platform angle is80". One microblade ca. 29.5mm long and 10.1 mm widewas removed from the narrowlongtitudinal edge of the core.

Celts/adzes: Both speci-mens are made of green slate. Adefinite adze (Figure 211:k) ismade on a slate tablet and isbroken longtitudinally (L = >56.7mm, W = >27.2, TH = 1 2.7). Theimplement has a rectangularcross-section with lateral edgesflaked perpendicular to the toolfaces. On the dorsal side of thetool polish is mostly limited towithin 4.5 mm of the tool edge,although it extends up to 1 6 mmback. The ventral side is almostcompletely polished while thelateral edges are unpolished.There is little indication of usewear on the bit apart from threesmall fractures on the ventralside and a slight rounding of theedge. The second implement is acomplete unground preform fora celt or adze (Figure 21 1 :l). Itsoverall form is "pick-like," with asquare cross-section resulting

212/ Attu's Point L-7: axial structure, view towards the northeast.

213/ Attu's Point L-7: box-hearth with thermoliths. View towards the southeast.

214/ Attu's Point L-7 box-hearth, thermoliths removed. View towards the northeast.

ATTU'S POINT; A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

297

Table 86. Attu's Point L-7: Tool Classes by K-Means Cluster.

Cluster 1

Cluster 2

Other

TOTAL N (%)

Endblades

4.5*

1.5

6 (25.0)

Endblade preforms

1

1 (4.2)

Biface fragments

2

2 (8.3)

Burins

2

2 (8.3)

Burin spalls

6

6 (25.0)

Microblades

3

1

4 (1 6.7)

Utilized flakes

2

1

3 (12.5)

TOTAL

20.5

2.5

1

24

half numbers denote

refits across units

m

3x7y

3x4y

Gray Mugford chert concentrationF Flat rock

215/ Attu's Point L-7: axial structure and total flake distribution.

from perpendicular retouch on all sides (L = 1 1 5.4 mm,W = 24.9, TH = 24.3).

Utilized flakes: The 24 utilized flakes are made ofa variety of materials: seven of dark gray Mugfordchert, five of light gray Mugford chert, one of light gray

7x7y

silicified slate, one of crystalquartz, six of Ramah chert andone of slate. The relatively highfrequency of Ramah chert spec-imens is noteworthy.

L-7 EXCAVATION

L-7 was located in the middle ofthe site, just below the edge ofthe second beach ridge at 11 masl (Figure 193). The localityconsisted of a small but perfect-ly preserved axial feature,around which a total of 1 2 m^was excavated (Figures 212 to215). A debitage concentrationat the foot of the feature extend-ed slightly outside the limits ofthe excavation, so it is possiblethat an external midden arearemains uninvestigated.

The axial feature was justunder 3 m long, 1 m wide and was oriented northwest-southeast, perpendicular to the shoreline (Figures 212and 21 5). A beautifully preserved box-hearth lay at thecenter of the feature (Figures 21 3 and 21 4). It was com-prised of four thick inclined rock slabs that created a

7x4y

298

CHAPTER 1 3

Table 87. Attu's Point L-7: Tool Classes by Structural Position.

East

Axial

West

Ax/E

Ax/W

TOTAL

N (%)

Endblades

1.5

3.5

1

6

(25.0)

Endblade preforms

1

1

(4.2)

Biface fragments

2

2

(8.3)

Burins

1

1

2

(8.3)

Burin spalls

1

5

6

(25.0)

IVlicroblades

1

1

2

4

(16.7)

Utilized flakes

2

1

3

(12.5)

TOTAL

2.5

10.5

4

1

6

24

compartment of 60 by 40 cm. The compartment wasfilled with tightly packed fist-sized thermoliths (somefire-cracked) that overlay three small horizontal flatstone slabs at the base of the feature. The gravel at thebottom of the hearth contained a few flecks of solidcharcoal as well as a faint stain of powdered charcoal.

Two small clusters of probable thermoliths were foundoutside the hearth, one immediately to the east of thehearth within the axial feature, another outside the fea-ture 1 m north of the center of the hearth. There wasalso a 1.7 m long scatter of small rocks 1.3 m west ofthe axial feature that likely represents thermoliths

216/ Attu's Point L-7 tool distribution and k-means clusters.ArrU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

299

Table 88. Attu's Point L-7: Tool Raw Material Frequencies by Structural Position.

East

Axial

West

Ax/E

Ax/W

TOTAL N (%)

Dark gray Mugford chert

2.5

3.5

2

6

14 (58.3)

Light gray Mugford chert

3

3 (12.5)

Cray-speckled chert

1

1 (4.2)

Crystal quartz

1

1

1

3 (12.5)

Ramah chert

3

3 (12.5)

TOTAL

2.5

10.5

4

1

6

24

cached or discarded against the wall of a tent. Therewas no trace of tent anchor rocks.

A tiny charcoal sample collected from beneath theflat rocks at the bottom of the hearth was submitted toIsotrace Laboratory, University of Toronto, for AMSdating. The result was very surprising: 50±50 B.P. (TO-4793). Of all the charcoal samples from Attu's Point,this one seemed to have the strongest contextual asso-

ciation, virtually sealed underneath an undisturbedhearth feature. The anomalous result might be attrib-utable to recent burning of roots that had penetratedbeneath the hearth or post-excavation contamination.

Tool Distribution

The L-7 tool distribution is plotted in relation to a/(-means cluster analysis in Figure 216. Cluster 1 is

3x7y

7x7y

3x4y 7x4yCircle indicates location of 6 dark gray Mugford chert itemslacking point provenience

♦ Crystal quartz

A Dark gray Mugford chert

+ Gray speckled Mugford chert

• Light gray Mugford chert

* Ramah chert

21 7/ Attu's Point L'7: tool raw material distribution.

300

CHAPTER 1 3

3x7y

3x4y

S Concentration

Gray Mugford chert flakes

7x7y 3x7y

7x4y

3x4y

Black chert flakes

3x7y

3x4y

7x7y 3x7y

7x4y 3x4y

Crystal quartz flakes

Ramah chert flakes

3x7y

3x4y

7x7y

7x4y

Slate flakes

218/ Attu's Point L-7: flake raw material distributions.

ATTU'S POINT; A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

Table 89. Attu's Point L-7: Flake Raw Material Frequencies by Structural Position.

East

N (%)

West N (%)

TOTAL N (%)

Dark gray Mugford chert

18

(12.8)

1 57

(54.5)

1 75

(40.8)

Gray-speckled chert

1 9

(13.5)

54

(18.8)

73

(17.0)

Patinated chert

14

(4.9)

14

(3.3)

Black chert

3

(2.1)

1

(0.3)

4

(0.9)

Ramah chert

4

(2.8)

19

(6.6)

23

(5.4)

Crystal quartz

6

(4.3)

1

(0.3)

7

(1.6)

Slate

91

(64.5)

42

(14.6)

1 33

(31.0)

TOTAL

141

288

429

positioned on the northwestern arm of the structurewhile Cluster 2 flanks the feature. Six of the sevenquadrat provenienced items (five burin spalls and aburin) can be associated with Cluster 1, while oneitem (utilized flake) lay somewhere between the twoclusters. A refitted endblade connects the two clus-ters. All the implements are found on the northern(seaward) side of the excavation and Table 86 indi-cates almost all the tools belonged to Cluster 1 atthe northwest corner of the axial feature. Althoughthe distinct structure could facilitate a model-basedbilateral analysis, the paucity of tools limits the valueof such an approach. Nonetheless, Table 87 outlinesthe distribution of the tool classes partitioned byspatial position relative to the feature. Little can be

concluded except that the majority of tools wereassociated with the feature and that biface frag-ments and burin spalls tend to be associated withthe feature.

Spatial distributions of the tool raw materials areshown in Figure 217 and summarized in Table 88.Given the low frequencies little can be said except thatlight gray Mugford chert and Ramah chert tend to bemore closely associated with the axial feature than arethe other raw materials.

The total flake distribution (Figure 215) indicatesdeposition restricted to the north side of the structure,the same pattern as the tool distribution. Looking atthe distribution of individual flake raw materials(Figure 218), a major concentration of Mugford chert

Table 90. Attu's Point L-7: Total Lithic Raw Material Weights (Tools and Flakes). In Grams.

Tools g

Flakes g

TOTAL g (%)

Dark gray Mugford chert

5.9

52.1

58.0 (25.0)

Gray-speckled chert

0.4

10.7

11.1 (4.8)

Patinated chert

7

7.0 (3.0)

Black chert

2.6

2.6 (1.1)

Ramah chert

4.3

2.6

6.9 (3.0)

Crystal quartz

3.4

3.3

6.7 (2.9)

Slate

139.3

139.3 (60.1)

302

CHAPTER 1 3

3

1

1

1

15

147

10

Dark Gray Mugford chert flakes

B= 1

B= 1

p= 1

B= 1

p= 11

B= 1

p= 1

Patinated Mugford chert (P)Black chert (B)

16

4

52

2

Gray speckled Mugford chert

R= 1C= 1

R= 1C=2

R= 1C= 3

R= 19C=2

C= 1

Ramah chert flakes (R)Crystal quartz flakes (C)

1

1

60

4

1

8

16

31

9

Slate flakes

219/ Attu's Point L-7: flake raw material distributions by quadrat.

flakes (generic) is found at the northern terminus ofthe axial feature. This concentration is strongly sug-gestive of a restricted l<napping or dumping locale. Incontrast, although some of the slate flakes also occurat the northern end of the feature, they are clearly con-centrated in a small area east of the hearth. For quan-titative analysis the debitage was divided into two sub-units— east and west of the axial feature - based on

the 5x grid line that ran through the center of the fea-ture (see Figure 219). This is a somewhat inconvenientand arbitrary division, but in combination with thepoint-plotted debitage, the results are acceptable. Asoutlined in Table 89, Mugford cherts clearly dominateon the west side of the axial feature (mostly in the con-centration at the end of the feature), patinated chertoccurs exclusively on the west side and Ramah chert is

ATTU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

303

mostly on the west. Slate and crystal quartz are asso-ciated mainly with the east side. A chi-square test indi-cates there is a statistically significant difference in thedistribution of raw materials between the two sides ofthe feature (x^ = l 39.65).

Integration

Comparison of the tool and flake raw material distribu-tions (Figures 217 and 218) indicates Mugford cherttools have a distribution broadly similar to the flakes,although most of the tools (with the exception of thenon-provenienced burin spalls) were deposited slightlyoutside the dense concentration of flakes at the end ofthe axial feature. Despite the high frequency of slateflakes, no slate tools were recovered. Unless someslate implements are present in the unexcavated areaat the foot of the axial feature, they were either dis-posed of elsewhere on the site or curated to otherlocalities. The low frequency of the other raw materialsmakes their distributions hard to evaluate. Neither thecrystal quartz nor the Ramah chert flakes and tools areprecisely associated with each other and there are noblack chert tools to plot against the three flakes. Thetotal raw material weights (Table 90) are extremelylow. Slate and dark gray Mugford chert are the mostabundant materials by weight, although for slate this isexclusively flake material and for dark gray Mugfordchert it is primarily flakes. Overall, the paucity of lithicmaterial suggests a relatively short occupation.

The spatial organization of lithic-related activi-ties at L-7 is strongly oriented towards the seawardside of the axial feature, leaving the "back" areaalmost totally free of lithic material. Within this gen-eral tendency is a marked differentiation between aMugford chert deposit at the "front" of the featureand a slate concentration in the lateral area east ofthe hearth, suggesting spatial separation of reduc-tion activities linked to the two materials. On theother hand, refits between endblade fragments pro-vide a behavioral link between the front of the featureand the lateral area to the east (Figure 216).

L-7 Tool Assemblage

Endblades Of the six endblades, five are completeand one is a proximal fragment (Figure 220:a-e); fourof the five complete specimens are refits of brokenportions. Two are made of gray Mugford chert, two oflight gray Mugford chert, one of gray-speckledMugford chert and one of Ramah chert. All are trian-gular, but two size classes are represented. Five ofthe six are "medium-sized," with lengths rangingbetween 21.2-28.3 mm and widths between 1 1.9-1 5.4mm. Figure 220:b has a straight base and a sinusoidcross-section; it was broken medially (L = 26.2 mm, W= 14.1, TH = 2.2). Figure 220:c has a straight base, abiconvex cross-section, slight edge serration andfaint polishing on one basal corner (L = 26.7 mm, W =1 2.7, TH = 1.9). It was broken at about 1 /4 of the dis-tance up from its base. Figure 220:d has a straightbase and a biconvex cross-section; one lateral edge isnot completely retouched (L = 28.3 mm, W = 1 5.4, TH= 2.9). It was broken at about 2/3 of the distance upfrom its base. Figure 220:e has a straight base, a sinu-soid cross-section and slightly serrated edges (L =21.2, W = 1 1.9, TH = 1.8); it was broken medially. The

220/ Attu's Point L-7 tools, a-e: endblades; f: endbladepreform; g: biface tip; h-i: burins; J: microblade.

304

CHAPTER 1 3

proximal fragment (not illustrated) has a thinned base(W = >14.1 mm, TH = 2.3).

The sixth specimen is a very small completeendblade made of Ramah chert (Figure 220:a). It hasa biconvex cross-section, a slightly concave base(depth= 0.5 mm) and faint edge serration (L= 16.3mm, W= 8.5, TH=1.7). There is also slight medialgrinding on both faces.

Endblade preforms: The single endblade pre-form (Figure 220: f) is a proximal fragment made ofgray Mugford chert. It has a straight base and roughbifacial flaking (W= 16.8 mm, TH= 2.9).

Points/endblades: The two fragments are sosmall it is impossible to determine which tool classis represented. One of them is a distal element madeof crystal quartz (Figure 220:g) with a biconvexcross-section and slight edge serration. The other isa medial fragment made of light gray Mugford chertwith a biconvex cross-section.

Burins: The two burins are both made of grayMugford chert. One is a small specimen that initiallywas classed as an endblade fragment (Figure 220: h).The implement is made on a very thin flake with aremnant basal striking platform. It is completelybifacially flaked and a burination platform was pre-pared using a small bifacial distal notch. Two spallswere removed obliquely from the notch; the firstsheared off most of one lateral edge of the flakewhile the second is very short and runs parallel tothe first. Much of the medial portion of one face isground while the other face has slight grinding dis-tally (L = 20.6 mm, W = 9.3, TH = 1.6). The secondexample is a distal fragment, also made on a smallthin flake (Figure 220:i). Fine retouch towards thedistal end of one lateral edge was used as a platformto remove a transverse spall. This spall surface wasthen employed as a platform to remove two smallspalls from the other lateral edge of the flake. Nearthe distal end on both faces there are numerous stri-ations that run 70-80 to the burin spalls; thisappears to be incipient grinding.

5x7y

5x5y -

5x3y

I I Hearth border rock

F Flat rock

■ Core fragment

+ Microblade

• Utilized flakeA Black chert flake

* Slate flake

□

6x3y

221/ Attu's Point L-9: axial structure.

Burin Spalls: Of the six burin spalls, three arecomplete, two are proximal fragments and one is amedial fragment. All are made of gray Mugford chert.One IS a primary spall, the rest secondary. The pri-mary spall is long (24.7 mm) while the two completesecondary spalls are half its length (1 1.7, 1 3.6 mm).Additional metrics: xW = 3.5 mm, r = 2.0-4.4, xTH =2.1, r = 1.2-3.3.

Microblades: All four of the microblades (MNI =2) are medial fragments. Three are made of grayMugford chert, one of crystal quartz (Figure 220: j,illustrates a Mugford chert example). Reliable widthsvary between 6.5-8.6 mm. One has retouch on bothlateral edges while two others exhibit slight use-wearon their margins.

Utilized Flakes: Two of the three utilized flakesare made of Ramah chert, one of crystal quartz.

ATTU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

305

222/ Attu's Point L-9 tools, a. core fragment; b: macrob-lade. c. utilized flake, d macroblade.

L-9 TEST EXCAVATION

L-9 was located on the uppermost beach ridge at 1 2 masl. (Figure 193). At first glance it appeared to consistof a well-preserved axial structure, so a 1 m by 4 mexcavation unit was placed along the length of the fea-ture (Figure 221). After exposure, a hearth was clearlyidentifiable but other structural elements were less dis-tinct. The axial feature was 3.5 m long, 0.80-1.0 mwide and was oriented east-west, perpendicular to thebeach front. The slightly disturbed hearth was com-posed of three thick border rocks and a fourth largeflat rock that surrounded a pair of small horizontal flatslabs, creating a compartment of 60 by 40 cm. Someof the fist-sized stones within the hearth area werelikely thermoliths and small fire-cracked rocks werenoted on the eastern edge of the hearth. Small flecksof charcoal were found in the gravel on the outerperimeter of the hearth and beneath some of thehearth and central axial feature rocks. Just outside theexcavation at the western end of the feature was asmall rock cluster that might be part of the L-9 feature,but it could also represent a separate structure. A

223/ Attu's Point surface collected tools, a, b: bifaces (L-4);c large Ramah chert flake (L-4), d: adze (L-3), e-f: burin,endblade preform (L-15).

small charcoal sample procured from the gravel imme-diately adjacent to the hearth rocks was submitted tothe Isotrace Laboratory, University of Toronto, for AMSdating. The result was an unacceptably recent date of690 ± 60 B.P. (TO-4794). The sample was not from asealed context and could conceivably be related to apost-occupation vegetation burn.

Very little lithic material was found in the L-9 exca-vation: two "macroblades," one core fragment, a bifacefragment and two utilized flakes. Both macroblades(Figure 222:b, d) are made of gray Mugford chert; oneis complete (L = 56.8 mm, W = 18.9, TH = 8.9), theother a proximal fragment. Both have a platform angleof 80'; one has a unprepared plain platform the otherplatform is retouched. Both have slight use-wear ontheir edges. The core fragment (Figure 222:a) is made

306

CHAPTER 1 3

a

224/ Attu's Point surface collected tools, a-b MaritimeArchaic biface, Maritime Archaic stemmed point (L-l 2):c: lanceolate biface (L-6): d: lanceolate biface (east of L5).

of gray Mugford chert. The biface fragment is a tiny,finely flaked lateral edge element of black chert. Oneof the utilized flakes is made of gray Mugford chert,the other of crystal quartz (Figure 222:c). Eight flakeswere collected, five of which are made of black chert,two of slate and one of dark gray Mugford chert.

OTHER LOCI

Throughout the course of the work at Attu's Point thesite surface was scanned for traces of additional struc-tures and artifact concentrations. Surface collectionswere made at some of these localities. Each isdescribed briefly below (see Figure 193 for locations).

L-2: Located on the first beach terrace at 1 0 masl., there was a possible axial structure, 3.5 m long,oriented northwest-southeast. Visible on the surfacewas a microblade and flakes of Mugford chert, Ramahchert and slate.

L-3: Situated on the first beach terrace at 1 0 masl., a few rocks and flat slabs were observed, but noclear structure. A flake scatter measuring 4.5 m north-

south and 2.5 m east-west contained Mugford chertand abundant slate. A complete adze of green slate(Figure 223: d) was surface collected. The implement issub-rectangular in form, with abrupt perpendicularflaking on one lateral edge and more irregular retouchon the other lateral edge (L = 78.6 mm, W = 33.2, TH= 21.6). The dorsal side of the adze bit was formed byflaking out a concavity, then polishing no more than4.5 mm back from the edge (edge angle = 75 ). On theventral side the bit is mostly polished within 6.0 mm ofthe edge, although it extends back to 21.5 mm. Edgewear consists of a few small fractures and a slightrounding of the edge.

L-4: This locality was situated on the edge of thelowest beach terrace, just under 1 0 m asl., so it couldbe the youngest locus at the site. Various rocks werepresent, but no clear structure. A lithic scatter measur-ing 4.5 m north-south and 2.5 m east-west containedMugford chert, slate and large Ramah chert flakes. ARamah chert biface fragment, a biface preform of blackchert and a large Ramah chert flake were surface col-lected. The Ramah chert biface (Figure 223:b) is bro-ken in the middle and is missing part of its mid-sec-tion. It is unfinished, with a slightly convex base bear-ing traces of grinding and there are three slight notch-es near the proximal end of one lateral edge (L = ca.76.5 mm, W = 32.1, TH = 1 3.7). The black chert bifacepreform (Figure 223:a) is leaf-shaped: one face of thedistal end is fairly well flaked but the rest of the imple-ment is only retouched marginally (L = 49.8 mm, W =26.0, TH = 7.7). The large Ramah chert flake (Figure223:c) is the largest piece of that material observed atthe site (L = 82.9 mm, W = 32.1, TH = 1 3.7).

East of L-5: About 4.75 m east of the L-5 exca-vation the mid-section of a lanceolate biface made ofRamah chert (Figure 224:d) was surface collected. Itis completely retouched bifacially, with a biconvexcross-section. Weak shoulders occur just below themid-section on both lateral edges, but there is moredistinct stemming near the base (L = > 49 mm, W =23.9, TH = 8.1).

ATTU'S POINT; A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

307

225/ Attu's Point surface collected tools, a stemmed point(L-14): b-c: biface tip, bunn (L~l 5), d bunn (L-16),e-f: biface base, sidescraper (L-14).

L-6 Positioned on the upper portion of the firstbeach level at 10.5-1 1 m asl., this locality consisted ofan indistinct rock structure, flakes of slate, crystalquartz and black chert, as well as a lanceolate bifacefragment and a core tablet. The biface fragment(Figure 224:c) is a proximal specimen made of grayMugford chert, with a biconvex cross-section and aslight contraction towards the base (W= 21.4 mm, TH=5.6). The core tablet is made of black chert; three lin-ear flakes removed from one end of a flat-flaked plat-form suggest it was a test piece for a microblade core(L = 76.4 mm, W = 62.3, TH = 22.6).

L-8: Located on the upper portion of the firstbeach level at 1 1 m asl., an axial structure may bepresent in a moss-covered area 3.8 by 3.0 m in size.Flakes of Mugford and Ramah chert were noted, alongwith a large microblade of Mugford chert.

L-IO: This locality was situated in the middle ofthe second beach terrace, just under 12 m asl. Thereappeared to be a small axial structure, 2.4 m long, 70

cm wide, oriented northwest-southeast. A bifacialimplement of Ramah chert was noted nearby.

L-] I: Near the middle of the second beach ter-race, at just under 12 m asl., was an indistinct rockstructure associated with flakes of Ramah chert, slateand crystal quartz, as well as a large black chertmicroblade.

L-12: This find spot was situated at the extremeeastern edge of the site, on the uppermost beach levelat 1 2 m asl. It consisted of a Ramah chert stemmedpoint of Late Maritime Archaic Rattler's Bight form anda Ramah chert biface fragment that might also be ofMaritime Archaic origin. A 1 m^ test pit was excavatedin a mossy area 2 m southeast of these surface finds,since a few rocks suggested the possibility of a fea-ture, but no cultural material was encountered. Thestemmed point is complete except for its tip (Figure224:b). It has well-defined shoulders and a strikingplatform at the base of its stem. The dorsal side of thestem is completely retouched, but the ventral side isonly partially retouched. Only the margins of the bladeelement are retouched (L = >40 mm, W = 20.2, TH =4.9, Stem L = 12.5 Stem W[shoulder]= 11.8, StemW[base] = 9.5). The Ramah chert biface is a distal frag-ment (Figure 224:a). Its dorsal face is almost complete-ly flaked while the ventral retouch is limited to the mar-gins ( W = >45 mm, TH = 6.3).

L-13 This small locality was situated on theuppermost terrace of the beach, near the southwesternedge of the site at just under 1 2 m asl. It consisted ofa dense concentration of green slate flakes in front ofa boulder, suggestive of a reduction locale foradze/axe production.

L-14 & 15: These two localities seemed continu-ous with each other and were located on the upper-most beach terrace at the western extremity of thesite, about 1 1 m asl. L-14 contained possible structur-al rocks and a surface collection procured there con-sisted of a stemmed point, a biface base, and a largesidescraper. Slate flakes were also observed. Thestemmed point (Figure 225:a) is a distal fragment

308

CHAPTER 1 3

made of Ramah chert with a biconvex cross-sectionand slightly serrated lateral edges (W= 1 1.2 mm, TH=2.5). The biface base (Figure 225:e), also made ofRamah chert, exhibits a faint trace of a shoulder 1 7.5mm above the base; it is probably part of a shoul-dered lanceolate implement (cf., Figure 224:c, d). Thecomplete sidescraper (Figure 225:0 is made on ablade-like flake of dark gray Mugford chert (L = 57.0mm, W =21.6, TH =6.3). The working edge is slightlyconcave, with a 65" angle. Both lateral edges areretouched and ground slightly, while the ventral sideof the proximal end exhibits some thinning retouch.Use-wear in the form of edge rounding and a fewsmall ventral fractures is present on the screwdriver-like distal tip and the distal portion of the workingedge. The implement is almost identical to the combi-nation burin/scraper from L-1 (Figure 201 :c), minusthe burination.

At L-1 5, 2 m northwest of L-1 4, flakes of Mugfordchert and slate were observed and an endblade pre-form, biface tip and two burins were surface collected.The endblade preform (Figure 223: f) is triangular,although missing its tip, and made from crystal quartz.It has a slightly concave base, which has been thinnedbifacially, and a roughly biconvex cross-section (W =16.2 mm, TH = 4.0). The biface tip (Figure 225:b) ofpatinated chert has a biconvex cross-section. Bothburins are made of gray Mugford chert and areunground. The first specimen (Figure 225:c) is madeon a large flake with a striking platform at the base (L= 33.4 mm, W =21.6, TH =6.2). On its dorsal side theproximal end is retouched with long flakes extendingover the entire surface, while on the ventral sideretouch is limited to the edge margins. One lateraledge has a slight shoulder while the other exhibits asmall notch below the termination of a burin scar. Thedistal end platform has unifacial dorsal retouch, fromwhich eight burin spalls have been removed obliquely.The second burin (Figure 223:e) is also made on aflake with a striking platform at its base (L =28.5 mm,W =1 7.5, TH = 4.3). The proximal portion of one later-

al edge has a faint shoulder created by fine ventralretouch and slight grinding. The other lateral edgeexhibits ventral retouch that thinned the bulb of per-cussion. The distal end is "beaked" with three burina-tion planes that involved 10 visible spall removals.

L16: This small locality was located downslopefrom L-1 4/1 5 at 1 1 m asl. It consisted of a lithic scat-ter of Mugford chert flakes, a burin and an endblade;only the burin was collected.

The burin (Figure 225:d) is made on a flake of grayMugford chert with a striking platform at the base (L= 28.9 mm, W = 20.9, TH = 6.2). Its lateral edges areslightly retouched dorsally, producing faint constric-tions on each edge. The distal end has oblique dorsalretouch, including a small notch. Two burin spalls wereremoved, slightly obliquely. There is no facial grinding.

L-17. This locality lay between L-7 and L-8 at 1 1 masl. Possible structural cobbles were associated withflakes of Mugford chert and slate.

L-]8. About 1 m south of L-9, on the uppermostbeach terrace at 1 2 m asl., was a rock structure 2 m indiameter that was associated with Mugford chert,Ramah chert and slate flakes.

L-]9. Positioned near the eastern edge of the sitebetween L-1 1 and L-1 2, at 1 2 m asl., this find spotcontained a few Mugford chert flakes.

L-20. Located between L-1 and a bare rock out-crop to the southwest, at 1 0 m asl., L-20 consisted ofpossible structural remains associated with a Ramahchert biface base and crystal quartz flakes.

L-2] Southeast of L-1 was a vegetated areabetween two rock outcrops. A few flakes of Mugfordchert and slate were observed and there is potential forstructural remains beneath the vegetation.

INTER-LOCUS COMPARISONS

The preceding sections explored spatial variation with-in each locus. Before providing an overall assessmentof the site a comparison between the excavated lociwill be presented, considering variation in tool types,lithic raw materials and spatial organization. Table 91

ATTU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET 'CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

309

Table 91. Attu's Point: Comparison of Tool Classes by Excavated Loci and Other Collections.

L-1

N (%)

L-5 N (%)

L-7 N (%)

Surface, L-9 N (%)

Endblades

4

(8.2)

4

(4.9)

6 (25.0)

Endblade preforms

4

(8.2)

1

(1.2)

1 (4.2)

1 (5.0)

Endblades/points

2

(2.4)

2 (8.3)

Stemmed points

1

(1.2)

1 (5.0)

Lanceolate bifaces

2 (10.0)

Bifaces

2

(4.1)

3

(3.7)

5 (25.0)

Burins

3

(3.7)

2 (8.3)

3 (15.0)

Burin spalls

1 1

(22.4)

1 7

(20.7)

6 (25.0)

Microblades

1 3

(26.5)

19

(23.2)

4 (16.7)

2 (10.0)

Microblade cores

2

(2.4)

Other cores

2 (10.0)

Scrapers

2

(4.1)

3

(3.7)

1 (5.0)

Scraper/burins

1

(2.0)

1

(1.2)

Utilized flakes

10

(20.4)

24

(29.3)

3 (12.5)

2 (10.0)

Celts/adzes

2

(4.1)

2

(2.4)

1 (5.0)

TOTAL

49

82

24

20

Table 92. Attu's Point: Comparison of Tool Raw Material Frequencies by Excavated Loci and Other Collections.

L-1

N (%)

L-5 N (%)

L-7 N (%)

Surface, L-9 N (%)

Dark gray Mugford

18

(36.7)

36 (43.9)

14 (58.3)

9 (45.0)

Light gray Mugford

16

(32.7)

3 (3.7)

3 (12.5)

Cray-speckled chert

3

(6.1)

6 (7.3)

1 (4.2)

Patinated chert

2 (2.4)

1 (5.0)

Black chert

1

(2.0)

4 (4.9)

3 (15.0)

Ramah chert

2

(4.1)

11 (13.4)

3 (12.5)

4 (20.0)

Crystal quartz

6

(12.3)

10 (12.2)

3 (12.5)

2 (10.0)

Slate

2

(4.1)

2 (2.4)

1 (5.0)

Gray silicified slate

1

(2.0)

8 (9.8)

TOTAL

49

82

24

20

outlines the variation in Pre-Dorset tool types betweenthe three excavated loci and the other localities at thesite. Most notable is the relatively high proportion ofendblades and preforms at L-7 (the smallest sample)versus their low proportion at L-5 (the largest sample),

a trend supported by the expected frequencies calcu-lated for the table. The proportion of burin spalls isconsistent across the loci, although burins themselvesare absent at L-1, aside from a single combinationscraper-burin. L-7 is relatively lacking in implement

310

CHAPTER 1 3

Table 93. Attu's Point: Comparison of Flake Raw Material Frequencies by Excavated Loci.

L-1

N (%)

L-5 N (%)

L-7 N (%)

Dark gray Mugford

1 1

(4.8)

38

(1 1.9)

175 (40.8)

Light gray Mugford

99

(43.2)

9

(2.8)

Cray-speckled chert

5

(2.2)

1 1

(3.5)

73 (17.0)

Patinated chert

32

(13.9)

16

(5.0)

14 (3.3)

Black chert

5

(2.2)

4

(1.3)

4 (0.9)

Ramah chert

2

(0.9)

44

(13.9)

23 (5.4)

Biostrome chert

1

(0.3)

Crystal quartz

1 8

(6.8)

4

(1.3)

7 (1.6)

Slate

57

(25.6)

1 1 5

(36.3)

133 (31.0)

Clastic slate

62

(19.6)

Light gray silicified slate

1 3

(4.1)

TOTAL

229

317

429

Table 94. Attu's Point: Comparison of Total Lithic Raw Material Weights by Excavated Loci. In Grams.

L

1 g (%)

L-5 g (%)

L-7 g (%)

Dark gray Mugford

48.6

(10.1)

89.7

(17.4)

58.0

(25.0)

Light gray Mugford

59.9

(12.5)

16.5

(3.2)

Gray-speckled chert

24.0

(5.0)

7.8

(1.5)

1 1.1

(4.8)

Patinated chert

13.2

(2.8)

9.4

(1.8)

7.0

(3.0)

Black chert

3.1

(0.6)

7.0

(1.4)

2.6

(1.1)

Ramah chert

42.5

(8.9)

30.8

(6.0)

6.9

(3.0)

Biostromatic chert

0.4

(0.1)

Crystal quartz

28.3

(5.9)

8.3

(1.6)

6.7

(2.9)

Slate

259.8

(54.2)

222.5

(43.2)

1 39.3

(60.1)

Clastic slate

72.5

(14.1)

Light gray silicified slate

50.1

(9.7)

classes that might be considered "maintenance" tools:microblades, scrapers, and utilized flakes. Celts/adzeswere also absent at L-7, despite the presence of con-siderable slate debitage. Lanceolate bifaces ("knives")are lacking from all three loci, with the possible excep-tion of a biface edge fragment from L-5, although theywere surface collected elsewhere at the site. The limit-ed excavation areas may contribute to sampling error,

ATTU'S POINT, A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

but there seem to be functional or depositional differ-ences here.

The overall trend in the excavated and surface col-lected material is towards a high proportion of har-poon endblades and preforms, relatively few stemmedpoints or small bipointed bifaces that might be arrowpoints, relatively few burins, scrapers and bifacialknives. There is a fairly high proportion of burin spalls

31 1

relative to burins and a low proportion of microbladecores relative to microblades, both of which point tocuration processes. The functional significance of thispattern for the site as a whole will be taken up below.

Table 92 displays the frequency of tool raw mate-rials across the excavated and surface collected loci.Dark gray Mugford chert dominates overall. The mostnotable differences are that tools of light gray Mugfordchert are found primarily at L I, less Ramah chert ispresent at L-1 and most of the gray silicified slateoccurs at L-5. When expected frequencies are consid-ered it is clear that the high proportion of light grayMugford chert at L-1 is the strongest pattern. Table 93compares the flake raw material frequencies across thethree excavated loci. The clearest patterns are the pre-dominance of dark gray Mugford chert at L-7, lightgray Mugford chert at L-1, a slightly higher proportionof gray-speckled chert at L-7, a higher proportion ofpatinated chert at L-1, a higher proportion of Ramahchert at L-5 and the limitation of clastic slate to L-5.These trends are confirmed when expected frequen-cies are considered. Slate occurs in high proportionsacross the board.

If we compare the proportions of tool and flake rawmaterials there are several examples of inconsistenciesbetween the two. Both L-1 and L-5 seem to be somewhatlow in debitage of dark gray Mugford chert comparedwith their abundance of tools made of this material.Conversely, L-1 and L-7 are completely lacking in toolsmade of patinated chert, while each has at least a mod-est number of flakes of the material, and L-7 lacks toolsof black chert but contains a few flakes of the material.L-7 also lacks tools made of slate, while it has the high-est frequency of slate flakes of the three localities.These inconsistencies point to a technological organiza-tion involving asynchronous tool production/retouchand discard; in other words, curation processes andlocational staging of reduction. Variations in the quan-

tities of raw materials can result from the differentialaccess of social units to point sources, personal pref-erence, or from households being at different posi-tions on the supply/consumption cycle. Table 94 com-pares total lithic raw material weights across the loci.Generic slate is clearly dominant in all cases, followedby dark gray Mugford chert, but the other materialsvary somewhat in their proportions.

Organizational differences in lithic reductionbetween the loci might also be seen in flake size dis-tributions. Figure 226 shows the size distributions ofMugford chert flakes (all variants lumped together) ateach locality.^ ^ L-1 and L-5 have similar profiles, butL-7 has a much higher percentage of material in the<10 mm category and lower percentages in the cate-gories from <20 mm and larger. While sample size maybe a factor, the L-7 material suggests more intensivesecondary/tertiary reduction. In contrast, the flake sizeprofiles for slate are very similar for all three loci(Figure 227). Furthermore, slate flake sizes are signifi-cantly larger than Mugford chert flakes, the formerwith modes ranging from <20 mm to <25 mm, the lat-ter with modes at <10 mm and <15 mm. Thus, notonly is slate the most abundant material by weight atall loci, it is also reduced with less secondary/tertiaryretouch than is the case for Mugford chert. This ten-dency may result from larger sized slate raw materials,the role of grinding rather than fine retouch in creatingthe final working edge, or lack of concern for materialconservation.

The ambiguous nature of the structural remains atL-1 and L-5 render comparisons of spatial organizationsomewhat difficult. Nonetheless, a set of similaritiesand differences can be formulated. At both L-1 and L-7 the majority of lithic materials were deposited on theseaward ("front ") side of the features. At L-7 this mightbe a consequence of the feature's orientation perpen-dicular to the beach front, with most activity being cen-

Given the lack of screening the smaller size categories may be underrepresented.

312

CHAPTER 1 3

226/ Attn's Point: Mug ford chert flake size distribution.

Slate Flake Size Distribution

35302520151050

<10 <15 <20

=25 <30 <35 <40 <45 <50 >505 mm classes

227/ Attu's Point: slate flake size distribution.

tered on a dwelling entrance. L-1 is problematic sincethe orientation of the apparent structure is uncertain,possibly oblique to the beach but conceivably parallel.Also, there may be more than one feature represented.One interpretation of the L-5 pattern was of an axialfeature oriented parallel to the beach front with a pos-sible "external" activity area positioned along that par-allel axis. In the parallel to the beach interpretation of

both L-1 and L-5, a hearthwould be positioned at the ter-minal end of the feature ratherthan in the middle. An alterna-tive reading of L-5 as a linearseries of three hearths wouldrepresent a quite differentorganization of space than theother two loci.

At all three localities a highproportion of the tools tend tobe associated with the axial fea-tures (or in the case of L-5 pos-sibly an isolated hearth),although a few implementsoccur on the flanks of the fea-tures. Tool frequencies are toolow to identify statistically sig-nificant patterns in the spatialdistribution of types, but a fewobservations are pertinent. At L-7 endblades and preforms layclose to the axial structure witha refit leading to a small groupon one flank of the feature. At L-1 endblades and preforms wereconcentrated in a cache-likedeposit, although this lay somedistance from the hearth.However, if the L-1 feature wasoriented parallel to the beachfront, then the endblade/pre-form concentration would lie atthe foot of the structure, a placement similar to L-7. Atboth L-1 and L-7 burin spalls were concentrated nearthe hearth/axial feature areas.

One reason for the limited spatial patterning intool types, which has also been observed elsewhere inthe eastern Arctic (e.g., Dekin 1976; McChee 1979:52-55; Jensen 1 996:1 57; Mikalsen 2001:86), may simplybe the narrow range of types represented at the Attu's

L-1

L-5

L-7

ATTU'S POINT A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE' ON WEBB BAY

313

Point localities. The paucity of burins, bifaces andscrapers is probably related to functional or socialaspects of site use (see below). Another variable ispreferential deposition of tools in the vicinity of axialfeatures after use or rehafting, rather than in theplaces they were used— an axial feature "attractioneffect" Oensen 1 996:1 56-1 58).

Jensen's (1996) analysis of the spatial sorting ofraw material types at Paleoeskimo sites in eastGreenland observed that: "...each raw material musttherefore have had its own individual depositional his-tory" (Jensen 1996:156; see also Mikalsen 2001).There are hints of similar patterning at Attu's Point. Atboth L-1 and L-7 Mugford chert flakes are generallyassociated with the axial features while slate flakes areconcentrated in separate clusters on the flanks, sug-gesting the reduction activities for these materialswere deliberately separated. This does not seem to bethe case at L-5, but there it is possible to discern spa-tial distinctions in the deposition of "normal" versus"clastic" slate debitage. At L-1 there is a clear patternof crystal quartz tool and flake deposition centered onthe hearth/rock feature, but this does not seem to bethe case at either L-5 or L-7. The frequencies of otherraw materials are either too low or too variable fromlocus to locus to draw any conclusions. Nonetheless, itdoes seem that some of the more useful behavioralinferences from Paleoeskimo dwellings will be derivedfrom raw material distributions, combined withdetailed refitting studies.

Chronology

The 21 loci at the site occur as three separate linear dis-tributions on two main beach terraces, suggesting thatAttu's Point was repeatedly occupied over some lengthof time. All loci lie between 10-12 m asl., a typical ele-vation for Pre-Dorset sites in the Nain region. The twoexcavated localities at 10 m asl. on the lowermostbeach terrace, L-1 and L-5, were radiocarbon dated3750±60 B.P. and 3790±70 B.P., respectively. Theseassays provide a fairly good maximum date for the low-

est beach level. As noted previously, attempts toacquire reliable radiocarbon dates from the higherbeach levels were unsuccessful. Although the Pre-Dorset (and Maritime Archaic) material on the upper-most beach level near 12 m asl. could date ca. 4000-3900 B.P., it is also possible that some of it could dateca. 3700 B.P. or later. Although the linear distribution ofthe Pre-Dorset occupation on three different levelsmight indicate three periods with several contempora-neous social units, there is no reason to believe that set-tlement of the gently sloping beach was so closelybound to the shoreline that the different levels were notused simultaneously. One might even argue that theundisturbed condition of the axial feature at L-7, on themiddle beach level at 11 m asl., could indicate that itwas the last occupation at the site, post-dating the local-ities on the 10 m level. Consequently, without furtherradiocarbon dating, shoreline relations provide littlehelp in developing an internal chronology for the site.

In the absence of sufficient radiocarbon dates weare left with tool typology. Unfortunately, it has proveddifficult to seriate Labrador Pre-Dorset sites beyondEarly (4000-3600 B.P.), Middle (3500-3000 B.P.) andLate (3000-2800 B.P.) phases (Cox 1978); indeed, ithas been particularly difficult to identify sites pertain-ing to the Middle phase. Cox (n.d.:8) concludes that,typologically speaking, Pre-Dorset was fairly staticuntil 3000 B.P., when a series of changes led to theemergence of Croswater. He suggests that "subtle" dif-ferences may signal Middle phase material: concave vsstraight based triangular endblades, thicker and lesswell-flaked triangular endblades, lack of edge serrationon scrapers and burins, less edge serration on bifaces,predominantly straight vs tapered stems on bifacesand the presence of very small burins. One might addto this an increase in facial grinding on burins.

It is difficult to identify any substantial evidencefor such "later" attributes in the Attu's Point collection.Typologically, the two loci radiocarbon dated ca. 3800-3700 B.P. exhibit typical Early Pre-Dorset features suchas straight-based triangular endblades with slight edge

314

CHAPTER 1 3

serration. The only unusual item is a tiny burin on amicroblade at L-5 (Figure 210;i). L-7, however, has afew implements with a possible later stamp. The twoburins from this locus were both unusual types madeon small flakes, one a very thin bifacially retouchedspecimen with partial grinding on both faces, the otherwith striations indicative of proto- or incompletegrinding (Figure 220:h, i). Additionally, a small triangu-lar endblade was slightly ground on both faces andanother triangular endblade had slight grinding on onebasal corner (Figure 220: a, e). These features are theonly support for the suggestion that the undisturbednature of the axial structure at this locus may indicatea late phase in the site occupation. In conclusion, with-out further excavation and dating of other loci at thesite there are no grounds for supposing that the occu-pation of Attu's Point extends beyond the 4000-3600B.P. period.

Structural Comparisons

The well-preserved axial structure at L-7 bears someresemblance to the partially excavated structure at L-9. L-7 is also broadly similar in form to Pre-Dorsetfeatures excavated at Dog Bight L-5, east of Nain(Fitzhugh 1 976a: 1 30-1 33; Cox 1978:101). The lattersite contained three structures, two of which consist-ed of well defined axial features measuring 3 m by 1m in size, with central box-hearths constructed ofthick rocks and partial rings of tent anchor rocks.One of these structures had a number of small ther-moliths concentrated within the bounds of the axialfeature, although there were few within the box-hearth itself (Fitzhugh 1 976a:l 33). A third structure,possibly disturbed, had an axial feature 2 by 1 m insize. The main difference between these structuresand L-7 is the total lack of perimeter anchor rocks atL-7. Looking further afield, L-7 bears a strikingresemblance to an axial structure at Tuapagssuit(64V1-I,10) near Nuuk, west Greenland (Gullov1 983:51; Gullov and Kapel 1988:47). Otherwise, L-7clearly lies within the broad tradition of Paleoeskimo

axial features with box-hearths and thermoliths thatis well documented from Independence I and Saqqaqcontexts (e.g., Gronnow and Jensen 2003; Gronnowand Meldgaard 1991; Knuth 1967; Kramer 1996;McChee 1979; Mikalsen 2001; Mobjerg 1998, 1999;Olsen 1998; Schlederman 1990).

The features at L-1 and L-5 are more difficult toevaluate given the likelihood of disturbance, but inboth cases a hearth is positioned at the terminal endof a rock alignment rather than in the middle. Whetherthis signals a functional difference from the more stan-dard axial model at L-7 or individual choice in hearthplacement cannot be determined from the presentdata. It is also conceivable that the spatial pattern at L-5 should not be interpreted within the expectations ofthe axial model, but instead as a linear series ofhearths such as at Port Manvers Run-1 (Chapter 12).Not only might a linear hearth arrangement signal afunctional difference from axial features, it could alsobe associated with different socio-spatial practices.

Functional Variability

The term functional variability denotes activity-related variability attributable to resource extrac-tion practices, the latter being subject to seasonaldifferences. As such, functional variability at Attu'sPoint is considered along two dimensions: dwellingstructures and lithic assemblages.

Arctic archaeologists have increasingly recog-nized formal variability in Early Paleoeskimo struc-tures, some of which is probably seasonal innature. Yet there are no solid criteria for identify-ing structures of different seasonality. The mostcommon assumption is that cold weather struc-tures were of more substantial construction andshould exhibit considerable attention to heatingfacilities, resulting in emphasis on the hearth/axialfeature arrangement and possibly larger accumula-tions of charcoal and fire-cracked rock (e.g.. Cox1978:98; Knuth 1967:45-51; Maxwell 1985:96-98;Odgaard 2003; Olsen 1998:111-116; Renouf

ATTU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

315

1993:191-197). It is also expected that there maybe larger accumulations of tools than at warm-weather sites, and that these accumulations willoccur primarily inside the structures, whereaswarm-weather dwellings may be associated withexternal activity areas.

On the other hand, Maxwell (1985:98) suggest-ed that sites lacking structural remains may betraces of snow house camps. Ramsden and IVIurray(1 995) provide tentative support for this from faunalassociations that suggest "substantial" structuresrepresent warm weather tent structures, while fea-tures consisting only of small vegetation patcheswith rocks indicate snow-walled winter dwellings.They also note, however, that structural variabilitycan be expected in "transitional" seasons with vari-able weather and variable demands on constructiontechniques (Ramsden and Murray 1995:115-116).Although the safest conclusion to draw is that corre-lating structures and seasonality is highly problem-atic in the absence of faunal remains, it is by nomeans the case that the presence of faunal materialwill be decisive for interpretation. Cronnow andJensen (2003: 337) note significant contradictionsbetween faunal data and structural and lithic evi-dence from Independence I sites in northernmostGreenland.

None of the excavated localities at Attu's Pointexhibit structural remains that might be consideredsubstantial constructions. There is little besides ahearth and the remains of a small axial feature orrock alignment. None of the features display a clearperimeter of anchor rocks. L-7 is unusual in itsdegree of preservation; its classic box-hearth illus-trates the use of thermoliths, but there was minimalaccumulation of fire-cracked rock and very few tools.At L-5 there were few tools or flakes associated withthe possible axial feature, but larger quantities oflithics were found a short distance away in a contextthat could be interpreted either as a disturbed struc-ture or as an external dump/activity area.

The lack of perimeter rocks might be explainedeither by warm season use of wooden pegs to holddown tent skins or cold season use of snow. The lackof lithic accumulation has dubious relevance to theseasonality issue, since it is linked to longevity of occu-pation, group size and staging behavior in technologi-cal organization. The location of the Attu's Point fea-tures on beaches highly exposed to westerly winds isadvantageous for mitigating insect torment duringwarmer seasons, but disadvantageous for cold sea-sons. In sum, the structural information is, by itself, oflittle value for the interpretation of site seasonality.

As far as lithic assemblage variability is con-cerned, given the lack of fully published Pre-Dorset col-lections from other parts of Labrador it is difficult toprovide a concrete assessment of how the Attu's Pointassemblage fits into the overall range of functional vari-ation in Pre-Dorset material. The few existing accountseither provide no information on tool frequencies orlump together material from what are probably differ-ent loci, such that intra-site variation is masked (Cox1977, n.d.; Fitzhugh 1976; Tuck 1976). Inter-site com-parisons are of limited value without control over intra-site variation. That said, Attu's Point seems to exhibit alower proportion of burins and perhaps scrapers thanelsewhere. Lanceolate bifaces, probably hafted asknives (Cronnow 1994:206-207), are absent from theexcavated loci (except for a possible fragment at L-5),although two were surface collected. There is a paucityof small stemmed or bipointed bifaces, which else-where have been identified as arrow points (Crennow1994:224; Gr0nnow and Meldgaard 1 991:135), pre-sumably for hunting terrestrial mammals.

On the other hand, Attu's Point exhibits a fairlyhigh proportion of triangular endblades, which wereused as harpoon tips. Consequently, the excavatedassemblages give the impression of being weightedtowards "procurement" rather than "maintenance"activities and possibly towards the exploitation ofseals rather than land mammals. This contrasts withthe situation further north at Okak, where inner bay

316

CHAPTER 1 3

sites have relatively few triangular endblades, whichCox (1 978:1 02) interprets as indicating summer occu-pation with less emphasis on sea mammal hunting.However, endblade equipped harpoons could also beused for hunting caribou, which seems likely at Pre-Dorset inland sites from the Barrenlands of theNorthwest Territories (B. Gordon 1 996:1 55-1 59).Finally, the presence of three slate adzes and twocelt/adze preforms indicates that procurement andprocessing of wood products, and/or butchering offrozen meat, may have been an important activity atthis inner bay settlement.

The emphasis in the foregoing was on tool assem-blages reflecting different activities. A related dimen-sion is the articulation of activities with social groupcomposition.

Some of the observed variation in assemblagescould be related to differences in the gender composi-tion of the social units responsible for each occupation.For example, the high proportion of endblades andlack of maintenance tools (e.g., L-7) might indicate apredominantly male hunting party. On the other hand,there are no compelling grounds to assume stronglygender-specific tools, and the absence of such toolswould not necessarily imply the absence of a gender.

The quantity of Mugford cherts used at Attu'sPoint is fairly typical of Labrador Pre-Dorset. Blackchert, on the other hand, seems unusually low in fre-quency for the Nain region. The high frequency of slatedebitage also seems unusual for the Nain area, but ageographically comparable site from deep within theinner bay zone of the Okak region, Sipukat Bay-1(HjCn-1), also has a high frequency of celts/adzes(n=6) and slate is the dominant raw material (Cox1 977:230-237).^ The use of large quantities of slatefor celts/adzes in the inner bay zones of Nain andOkak presumably is related to wood procurement andprocessing in forested areas. The quantity of Ramah

chert found at Attu's Point appears to be somewhatgreater than that noted at other Pre-Dorset sites in thePort Manvers Run area, but it is well below that report-ed for sites closer to the Ramah chert sources, such asTuck's (1975:1 35) localities at Sagiek Bay (5.4-37.2%of the tools). It is possible that Pre-Dorset people atAttu's Point procured some of their Ramah chert fromtheir Maritime Archaic neighbours in the Nain region,or that they scavenged chert from abandoned MaritimeArchaic sites such as Attu's Bight (see Chapter 12).

These superficial observations on functional varia-tion in Pre-Dorset lithic assemblages underline theimportance of more detailed studies of Pre-Dorsettechnological organization. More information is need-ed concerning how Pre-Dorset lithic assemblages wereformed and how variability relates to seasonal and sit-uational factors as well as raw material availability.

CONCLUSIONS

Attu's Point was used repeatedly for short seasonaloccupations, presumably over a few hundred years.These occupations were directed towards a relativelylimited range of functions and in some cases mighthave involved social units of restricted composition.But despite the ephemeral nature of individual loci, therepeated use of the site suggests it played a significantrole in the regional settlement pattern, serving as aseasonal "central place." Few other Pre-Dorset sites inthe Nain area exhibit such repetitive use.

The functional signature of the Attu's Point lithicassemblage points to two main activities: sea mammalhunting and wood procurement and processing.Contemporary fauna availability patterns suggest it ismost likely Attu's Point was occupied either in the earlyspring or the fall. At both these times a variety of sealspecies (but especially harps) may be plentiful in WebbBay and could have been harpooned close to the site asthey moved through the narrow passage between Igloo

Sipukat Bay-1 was surface collected for tools, so no quantitative information on debitage frequencies is available.

ATTU'S POINT: A PRE-DORSET "CENTRAL PLACE" ON WEBB BAY

317

Island and the mainland (Figure 1 53). Today the pas-sage sometimes may not freeze over until February;if this was the case in the past, open water sealingmight have been possible during the early winter.Caribou have wintering areas in the mountains to thenorth and west of Webb Bay (Brice-Bennett 1 977:1 58-1 59), but in some years herds may winter on thecoast, including in the valleys of neighboring SouthAulatsivik Island. Their early spring and early wintermovements over the ice between the mainland andSouth Aulatsivik Island^ ^ might be ideal periods tointercept major herd concentrations. However, thelow frequency of stemmed points and lanceolatebifaces could indicate this was not a major activity atAttu's Point.

Our own experience in early-middle July wasthat relatively little game is available at that time, orat least it is difficult to find. A shift to coastal settle-ments would be more advantageous during this

period when seals, fish and sea birds are concen-trated in the outer island fringe. The situationchanges in late summer and early fall when char andsalmon re-enter the inner bays, geese and ducks areplentiful and black bears come down to the shoresand stream mouths. Later in the fall harp seals movethrough Port Manvers Run. Consequently, latesummer and fall might provide a mix of resources todraw Pre-Dorset people from the outer coast.Additionally, given the prominence of slate toolsand debitage at Attu's Point, it is likely that falloccupations were used to stock up on needed woodsupplies and to prepare wooden implements forthe winter, while spring occupations could havereplenished supplies exhausted during the winter.How this interpretation of Attu's Point fits into thebroader view of Pre-Dorset settlement patterns inthe Nain area and Labrador as a whole is taken up inChapter 1 4.

A nefarious crew at Immilikulik Island. Left to right: Eric Loring, Dosia Laeyendecker, Susan Rowley, Ben Fitzhugh,Joshua Fitzhugh. (Photo: W. Fitzhugh 1985)

^5 Such a situation was observed in late April 1994, with westward moving animals crossing the ice over the southernentrance to Port Manvers Run near Double Island Cove.

318

CHAPTER 1 3

The St.ucturat.on of

Maritime Archaic/Pre-DorsetSocial boundaries in L_ a brad or

One of the recurring themes in Labrador prehistoryand history has been the shifting social boundariesbetween Inuit/Pre-lnuit and Innu/Pre-lnnu peoples(e.g., Fitzhugh 1972, 1977, 1987; Taylor 1979).Withthat in mind, it is now time to draw together severalthreads that were developed in the previous two chap-ters and address the question of social boundary rela-tions between the Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorsetpeoples. Evidence accumulated since the early 1 970sdemonstrates that these two cultures overlapped intime between 4000-3500 B.P., corresponding to 2500-1800 BC (calibrated). Despite this lengthy period ofcoexistence, the archaeological assemblages of thetwo cultures exhibit virtually no unambiguous indica-tions of interaction.

Up to this point, the Maritime Archaic/Pre-Dorsetboundary problem has been discussed largely as aculture-historical problem, using the traditional con-cepts of contact situations with a cultural-ecologyoverlay. This has been useful, certainly, but the impor-tance of this unique situation for understanding thedevelopmental trajectories of each culture necessi-tates linking the specific historical context to broadertheoretical issues. This chapter considers frameworksfor doing so, although some new data will also be pre-sented. These frameworks are drawn from differentparadigmatic sources, one emphasizing ecologicalcausality, the other focusing on culturally constructed

landscapes. Crudely put, they correspond to the theo-retical boxes termed, respectively, processual andpost-processual archaeology. The boundaries con-structed around these viewpoints originate frommajor ontological differences, but their architecture isalso derived partly from the polemics of territorialdefense within theoretical identity politics. Althoughthe pragmatic approach is to regard the opposedarguments as representing alternative entry points toa common problem and work towards some form ofintegration, it is difficult to reconcile conceptual struc-tures emanating from divergent ontological first prin-ciples. Consequently, one function of this chapter isto reflect upon the dilemma of working with the con-ceptual tensions found at the boundaries between dif-ferent archaeologies. When all is said and done, it ishoped that the chapter can show how a specific prob-lem in Subarctic culture- history can, in a modest way,illuminate central issues in archaeological knowledgeconstruction.

CULTURE-HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

The potential for interaction between the MaritimeArchaic and Pre-Dorset in Labrador was first identifiedduring James Tuck's 1969-1971 research at SagiekBay (Tuck 1975, 1976). Given virtually contemporane-ous radiocarbon dates for the cultures from superim-posed strata at Rose Island Site Q, Tuck (1975:195-

A shorter preliminary version of this chapter was published in Hood (2000).

THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE-DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADOR

319

196) speculated about possible cultural transfers: tog-gling harpoons from the Maritime Archaic to the Pre-Dorset and the bow and arrow from the Pre-Dorset tothe Maritime Archaic, as suggested by the initialappearance of small projectile points in the LateMaritime Archaic. More recent research indicatesthese proposals are problematic. Toggling harpoonshave been found in early Saqqaq contexts such asQeqertassusuk, Greenland (Crannow 1994) and small"flake points" have been found in Maritime Archaicsites dated as early as ca. 6000-5500 B.P. (e.g.,Nukasusutok-5), although these need not indicate thepresence of bows and arrows.

During the 1970s and 1980s, William Fitzhughand his colleagues' fieldwork on the north coast ofLabrador expanded the data base for both cultures andradiocarbon dates confirmed the overlap of the LateMaritime Archaic Rattlers Bight Phase and Early Pre-Dorset between 3900-3500 B.P. (Cox 1978, 1988;Fitzhugh 1975, 1976, 1978, 1980, 1984; Thomson1982, 1983, 1985). Although the two cultures some-times occupied the same or nearby sites, little indica-tion of contact was seen in their tool assemblages.Fitzhugh (1978:91, 1984:22) referred to a possibleMaritime Archaic copy of a Pre-Dorset burin, Cox(1 977:235) pointed to a Maritime Archaic gouge re-worked by the Pre-Dorset and the presence of aMaritime Archaic sandstone plummet at a Pre-Dorsetsite (Cox 1988:3), and Chapter 13 in the present vol-ume reported a Late Maritime Archaic stemmed pointand possible biface on the upper terrace of the Attu'sPoint Pre-Dorset site. Each culture used a distinct set oflithic raw materials. The Maritime Archaic focussedalmost exclusively on translucent Ramah chert for theirflaked stone tools; this had to be procured from theRamah Bay region at the northernmost periphery of theMaritime Archaic world (Cramly 1978; Lazenby 1980).The Pre-Dorset used a varied set of colored cherts,most of which were obtained in the Cape Mugfordarea, north of Okak (Cramly 1978; Lazenby 1980),although varying amounts of Ramah chert also appear

in their assemblages. The organization of their lithictechnologies was therefore anchored at differentpoints in the landscape.

Much of the 1980s' fieldwork focussed on inter-preting Maritime Archaic social organization and com-munity structure. Late Maritime Archaic people usedlonghouse structures— presumably interconnectedtent dwellings— ranging in size from 15 to 100 mlong. The individual segments of the longhouses wereinterpreted as the floor spaces of individual families,which suggested co-residential group sizes rangingfrom 50 to 100 people. The northern Labrador site ofNulliak Cove, situated between Hebron and Sagiek Bay,contained up to 27 longhouses and was interpreted asa short-term seasonal staging camp for accessing theRamah chert sources, 50 km to the north (Fitzhugh

1980, 1984, 1985a,b). Maritime Archaic longhousecommunity organization, combined with mortuary cer-emonialism and exchange systems, suggested somedegree of social elaboration or "complexity" (Fitzhugh

1981, 1984; Hood 1993, 1995).

In contrast, Pre-Dorset usually maintained smallgroup sizes of perhaps one to three co-residential fam-ilies housed in independent tent dwellings. There are,however, a number of Pre-Dorset sites with multipleoccupation locales indicating either seasonal aggrega-tion or regular re-occupation. In contrast to theMaritime Archaic, Pre-Dorset exhibits no evidence forsocial "complexity," at least if one considers the mostfrequently used indicator variables.

The spatial distribution of Maritime Archaic andPre-Dorset sites from Nain to the Torngat Mountainssuggested that the two cultures partitioned their set-tlement space. Fitzhugh (1984:21-23) proposed an"enclave model" that consisted of a Maritime Archaic"core area" along the central coast south of Nain and aPre-Dorset core area in the northern Torngat moun-tains and the Nain-Okak regions. The Pre-Dorset coreareas encompassed both the sources of their preferredcherts near Cape Mugford as well as the Ramah chertsources preferred by the Maritime Archaic (Figure

320

CHAPTER 14

Ramah chertSagiek

Hebron

Mugford chert

100

km

I I Pre-Dorset core area\^//\ Maritime Archaic core areaExx^ Overlap

Hamilton Inlet

228/ Distribution of Late Maritime Arcliaic and Pre-Dorset settlement in Labrador: themacro-territorial model (after Fitzhugh 1984).

228). The Hebron-Sagiek area was an overlap zonesince it contained Maritime Archaic seasonal stagingcamps for accessing the Ramah chert sources.Fitzhugh (1984:21-23) identified a local MaritimeArchaic enclave at Nulliak Cove, situated betweenHebron and Sagiek, and a local Pre-Dorset enclave atHarp Isthmus on the south side of the entrance toHebron Fjord. In later years, the find of a substantialLate Maritime Archaic Rattlers Bight Phase site atAttu's Bight in the Main region (see Chapter 12) ledFitzhugh (1986:57) to suggest the enclave modelmight have to be modified.

One implication of the enclave model is that theMaritime Archaic need to maintain seasonal bases in

northern Labrador in order toacquire Ramah chert, thestress of maintaining a longdistance chert delivery system,and territorial behavior in theoverlap zone, may all havecontributed to the culturalelaboration seen during theRattlers Bight Phase (Fitzhugh1984:23-24). Ultimately, how-ever, these features may haveoverloaded Maritime Archaicorganizational capacities andcontributed to the apparentdisappearance of the cultureas a recognizable entity in thearchaeological record after3500 B.P. (Hood 1993:179).Although the situation is usu-ally seen from the perspectiveof the Maritime Archaic (givenfascination with the puzzlingdisappearance of "complexi-ty"), Pre-Dorset was also affect-ed by the inter-cultural dynam-ic. The visibility of Pre-Dorsetsites also diminishes markedlyafter 3500 B.P., although to some extent this mightbe attributable to few radiocarbon dates and limitedtypological change that masks the presence of sitespost-dating 3500 B.P. (Cox 1988).

With this basic culture-historical framework inmind we can consider the issues involved in theorizingMaritime Archaic/Pre-Dorset social boundary relationsusing Fitzhugh's (1984) preliminary model as a pointof departure. On the one hand, the model postulatescultural macro-territoriality: the Maritime Archaic dom-inating the central coast, Pre-Dorset the Torngats andthe Nain-Okak regions. On the other hand, the modelalso postulates micro-territoriality occurring within azone of seasonal overlap (Hebron-Ramah) in which the

THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE-DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADOR

321

Maritime Arclnaic maintained "enclaves,"staging campsfor Ramah chert acquisition expeditions. While usefulas an initial discussion, this image is somewhat static,implying a degree of boundary equilibrium over sever-al centuries. Additionally, territoriality is a complexconcept that has often been formulated in ecologicalterms, but w/hich has intertwined ecological and socialcomponents that need to be drawn out. The followingpages will attempt gradually to re-work this prelimi-nary image into something potentially more dynamic.

One issue that needs to be addressed is whetherthis "contact" relationship might be formulated interms of ethnicity. Over 30 years later, it is still thecase that Barth's (1969) conceptualization of ethnicityremains fundamental. Summarized briefly, it postu-lates that ethnicity is a self-ascribed category and aform of social organization used to structure interac-tion. Ethnicity arises through engagement rather thanisolation, such that "...boundaries persist despite aflow of personnel across them" (Barth 1969:9). Inter-ethnic relations are ordered by rules that define poten-tial roles and statuses and boundaries are signaled bya selected range of features, behaviors or values thatagents regard as significant. Fundamental as this defi-nition may be, the conceptualization is inconvenientfor prehistoric archaeologists in that self-ascriptionand the persistence of boundaries despite socialmobility render recognition of ethnic boundaryprocesses highly problematic in the absence of supple-mental textual information. Variations in material cul-ture can be related to the formation of social identitygroups at different scales (e.g., clans, gender, region-al bands, dialect groups, etc.) and it is difficult tountangle the various threads in archaeological situa-tions. For example, contrasts between the northernand southern branch Maritime Archaic, as exemplifiedby the intrusive Black Island Complex (4500-41 00 B.P.)at Hamilton Inlet (Fitzhugh 1975), suggest the exis-tence of different social identity groups in southernand central Labrador prior to the Pre-Dorset coloniza-tion, but to what extent can those differences be

viewed as "ethnic"? Most archaeologists would agreethat the material culture and behavioral differencesbetween the Pre-Dorset and the Maritime Archaic areso marked that they were distinct social identitygroups, but it is debatable whether understanding oftheir interaction can be enhanced by invoking ethnici-ty theory. In any event, one could say that pronouncedethnic differences may not have existed in northernLabrador prior to the Pre-Dorset colonization ca. 4000B.P.. Ethnicity only became an emergent relation in aculture contact situation structured by marked differ-ences in language and behavior, and potentially com-petitive land-use relations.

Whether or not ethnicity concepts are involved,the interaction situation must be understood in termsof two main dimensions. First, there must be ecologi-cal parameters focusing on the energetics of boundarymaintenance. Population interaction models from evo-lutionary ecology may direct us towards alternativemodes of resource partitioning with different out-comes for inter-cultural relations. Second, there mustbe social parameters involving the different organiza-tional and cultural practices used by the two societiesto structure boundary maintenance strategies. Overall,how did the cultural construction and use of the land-scape articulate with these two dimensions of humanaction? Here we have a set of seemingly incompatibleor incongruent themes— one ecological and material-ist, the other social and constructionist— that networkthemselves around a common problem. How do we goabout constructing interpretive narratives or theory inthis or similar situations? The next section lays outsome of the issues that draw our local problem intothe heart of recent debates in archaeological theory.

WORKING AT THEORETICALBOUNDARIES: "LANDSCAPE"AS A PLATFORM FOR DIALOGUE?

After over 1 5 years of often heated debate andmutual dismissal tactics between what we have cometo call processual and post-processual archaeologies, a

322

CHAPTER 14

series of statements have appeared that call for somedegree of convergence, reconciliation, or modus Viven-di. Schiffer (2000) for example, advocates "buildingbridges" between different conceptual structures.Following Galison (1996), Wylie (2000) refers to inter-field "trading zones." Hodder (2001) and Preucel andHodder (1996) argue for a multi-perspectival plural-ism, while Schiffer (2000) sees this as resulting inpotentially dangerous fragmentation and eclecticism.Despite the proliferation of various archaeologicalsects since the 1980s and the groping towards somefusion of interpretive horizons, much of the disci-pline's discourse still seems to migrate towards polesdefined by "processual" or "post-processual," whichhave now become firmly entrenched categories ofresearch history as well as axes of social organizationwithin archaeology.

Tendencies towards polarization have been aidedand abetted by clinging to resistant first principles thatare played out as a series of explicit or implicit concep-tual dualisms which, when assembled, constitute twocompeting ontologies of archaeology. One ontologyprivileges the view of humans as biological beings andis founded on adaptation as its central metaphor, fromwhich a series of more specific causal theories isderived. The other ontology privileges the view ofhumans as thoroughly cultural beings, suspended inwebs of significance they themselves have construct-ed. Language is the dominant metaphor, from whichsubsidiary interpretive theories of meaning are drawn.Thus, the Nature/Culture opposition is the eminencegris lurking behind much of the debate.

Attempts to move beyond the sterile processual/post-processual debates require working at overcom-ing the troublesome Nature/Culture dualism. A recentreview article by Anschuetz et al. (2001), who writefrom an American "liberal processual" perspective,suggests that a "landscape paradigm" can bridge thegreat divide between processual and post-processualviews. The authors are careful to define this approachas a "methodological paradigm": a set of tools that can

be used in solving common puzzles (as perMasterman1970:70), thereby leading to accommodation or inte-gration between different theoretical frameworks(Anschuetz et al. 2001:160-164, 191). Besides theresidual odor of "unified science" views (cf., Wylie2000), which are highly problematic, this "integrative"methodological approach attempts to insulate practi-cal action from ontological issues and deliberatelyskirts the difficulties of bridging radically differentconceptual structures. Research in cognitive history ofscience and on conceptual change in general suggeststhese issues cannot be ducked so easily (e.g., Chi1992; Giere 1994; Kuhn 2000; Latour 1993;Nersessian and Andersen 1997; Thagard 1992).

Writing from a different perspective, Tilley's(1994) landscape phenomenology has also argued forovercoming the Nature/Culture opposition. It is diffi-cult to quarrel with Tilley's statement that: "...the rela-tionship between people and it [landscape] is a con-stant dialectic and process of structuration: the land-scape is both medium for and outcome of action andprevious histories of action. Landscapes are experi-enced in practice, in life activities" (Tilley 1 994:23). ButTilley's landscape phenomenology is positioned instrategic opposition to adaptationism, so he takes athoroughly constructionist view of landscape struc-turation: "Landscape is a signifying system throughwhich the social is reproduced and transformed,explored and structured — process organized.Landscape, above all, represents a means of conceptu-al ordering that stresses relations" (Tilley 1994:34).With Tilley it is the meaningful and symbolic that isprivileged, with practice and life activities exemplifiedby Australian hunter-gatherers moving through a land-scape of sacred places encoded by Dreamtime mythol-ogy, but completely without reference to practices andenvironmental knowledge that facilitate subsistence.To adapt a phrase from Tim Ingold, Tilley treats Natureprimarily as "...raw material for imaginative acts ofworld-making" (Ingold 1996:1 50). The landscape is sogood to think we don't need to worry about eating.

THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADOR

323

Ingold's (1996:150) critique of constructionistthinking argues that constructionism reinforcesrather than challenges the ecological deterministmodels because its logic creates separate domains inwhich such models can be used. With a slice of theintellectual knife, two conceptual planes are created:(1) Nature, a space inhabited by biological organisms(animals) that forage to extract resources, and (2)Society, consisting of persons (thinking subjects) liv-ing in a culturally constructed landscape andengaged in the production and distribution ofresources (Ingold 1996:127, 149). Ingold rejects thecultural constructionist argument that social rela-tions serve as a model for ecological relationsbecause it requires a disembedding of practicalengagement with the environment from the socialrelations that constitute humans as social actors, aseparation of Mind from World, Nature from Society,Organism from Person and Biological relations fromSocial relations (Ingold 1996:126-128). Ingold sug-gests hunter-gatherers do not make such conceptualseparations; instead, they have similar kinds of rela-tions with both the human and non-human con-stituents of the environment. In hunter-gathererworlds, animals can be persons and humans havesocial relations both with other humans and with ani-mals, such that harvesting animal resources is notjust a technical relation (Ingold 1996:127-131).Consequently, landscapes are not simply "sociallyconstructed" by imposing a conceptual schema overNature. Movement through the landscape involvesengagement and learning, discovery rather thanimposition of a predefined mental grid; practice inthe environment constitutes persons and personsconstitute their environments (Ingold 1 996:1 38-1 46).There is no radical break between ecological andsocial relations and "environments are constituted inlife, not Just in thought, and it is only because we livein an environment that we can think at all" (Ingold1996:1 50-1 51).

While Ingold's argument is attractive, it is far fromclear how such ontological reflection can be translatedinto research practice. The analysis of concrete archae-ological/anthropological problems may be difficultwithout some sort of fundamental Nature/Culture con-ceptual categorizations (Ellen 1996:29-30). Analyticalarguments, as opposed to abstract ontological reflec-tions, require a choice of entry points, each of whichcommit the entrant to navigate certain directions alongconceptual networks rather than others. The alterna-tive is eclectic incoherence or a discussion conductedat such a high level of abstraction that it would lose thevery connection with human practice that Ingold viewsas the key issue. One of the hallmarks of "paradigm"shifts is the emergence of new concepts, changes inthe meaning of old concepts and the shifting of oldconcepts into new systems of relations, sometimes byanalogical extension, which involves major changes inlexical systems and results in incommensurabilityproblems (e.g., Chi 1992; Kuhn 2000; Nersessian andAndersen 1997; Thagard 1992). For Ingold's (2000)perspective to become a viable alternative researchprogram it is necessary to build up a new conceptualsystem that embeds his terms— such as "enskillment,""affordances" and "taskscapes"— within a semanticnetwork of greater depth and precision that includesarchaeologically relevant categories. Gamble (1999)has made a valiant effort in that direction, but the con-ceptual affordances for steering concrete researchproblems remam very limited.

All things considered, during the current periodof stalemate between competing ontologies of archae-ology there is something to be said for Anschuetz etal.'s (2001) advocacy of a landscape perspective.Although their view of landscape as an integrativemethodological paradigm should be rejected, there isno reason why "landscape" cannot serve as a platformfor dialogue, a point of departure for debating theproblems and commitments that separate contempo-rary archaeologies.

324

CHAPTER 14

PARTIAL READINGS:NAVIGATING THEBOUNDARIES

...tension in theories, as in politics, is acreative force...we may see theories...asarticulated within an intertextual fieldwherein they derive much of their mean-ing from what they oppose and thus, in asense, confirm the importance of whatthey deny...Let us call this dissonance,facetiously, 'hypertension'... (Edwards1994:261-262).

If there are incommensurable frame-works or conceptual schemes, asCollingwood, Kuhn and others affirm,there could be no neutral overarchingstandards in virtue of which a rationaladjudication between them could bemade. Yet the mutual non-translatabilityof such schemes does not prohibit onefrom pursuing each in turn— much as abilingual uses one language and thenanother— all the while constrained bysuch practical matters as the seeminglyobvious requirement that one mustspeak one language at a time or by thedifferent aims inherent in each frame-work (Harre and Krausz 1 996:21 7).

Arguments that today's competing archaeologies areirrevocably incommensurate are exaggerated andserve mostly as a boundary maintenance strategy intheoretical identity politics. Despite significant concep-tual differences, competing "paradigms' must overlapto some extent, otherwise discussion between theirrespective proponents would be impossible (Bernstein1983:85-93). Paradigms may be compared in variousways by moving back and forth between them in orderto draw out elements of overlap and contrast(Bernstein 1 983:86, 90); Wylie (1 989) uses C.S. Pierce's"cables and tacking" metaphor to characterize these

interpretive strategies at the boundaries of differentframeworks. Working at these points of contact andcontrast may help expose the processes through whichintellectual boundaries are constructed. The opposi-tional tone between processual and post-processualarchaeologies was understandable and perhapsinevitable, but such "hypertensional" rhetoric mayserve as a cloaking device, disguising the processwhereby each side "...derive[s] much of their meaningfrom what they oppose and thus, in a sense, confirmthe importance of what they deny" (Edwards1994:261). Also cloaked is how these conceptualboxes create artificial closures around what are bestdescribed (metaphorically) as idea networks. Suchpolemical closures are ironic for post-processualistswho otherwise write of intertextuality: they ignore theconsequences of their own constructionism.

Intertextuality notwithstanding, navigating con-ceptual structures cannot be a random walk through anetwork. Choices of entry point are required and thesechoices have consequences for the direction of theentrants' navigation route. One cognitive-philosophicalapproach sees knowledge as structured in type hierar-chies, with different type hierarchies implying differentontologies about how the world is organized (e.g., dif-ferent type hierarchies for the adaptationist vs culturalconstructionist ontologies). Since concepts at lowerportions of a hierarchy inherit properties from super-types positioned higher in the hierarchy, activatingconcepts at any level of the hierarchy implicitly down-loads other properties of the ontological system(Aronson et al. 1995:27-54). This is not to say thatsuch structures are governed by rigid necessity; if theyare to function in practice and develop further theymust be marked by an "open texture" that permitssome flexibility in ordering (Harre 2002:264). But itdoes suggest that working at the boundaries of ontolo-gies and attempting to develop new "conceptualblends" (Fauconnier and Turner 2002) cannot escapethe dilemma of conceptual inheritance that is an auto-matic consequence of choosing a starting position.

THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE-DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADOR

325

Considering the multitude of problems attendantwith attempts to build new theory at the boundariesbetween current archaeological ontologies, the follow-ing discussion of theoretical models is presented intwo parts: ecological space and culturally constructedsocial and ideological landscapes. Selected aspects ofthese models are used to frame the subsequent cul-ture-historical narratives. Although this mode of pres-entation remains trapped in the Nature/Culture dual-ism, each model and narrative is considered a partialreading, using one language at a time, launched fromentry points that activate different conceptual domainsrelevant to human practices in the landscape.

ECOLOGICAL SPACE

From the perspective of the humans as adaptive beingsontology, the landscape is an ecological space withvarying distributions of resources from which foragersmust make rational selections in order to reproduce ormeet social obligations. Interaction between popula-tions of organisms inhabiting the same ecologicalcommunity and engaged in foraging for similarresources (niche overlap) leads ecologists towardscompetition theory. Two main types of competitionhave been identified: exploitation and interferencecompetition. In exploitation competition, foraging byone organism reduces the quantity of a resource need-ed by another organism. In interference competition,one organism reduces the ability of another to makeuse of a common resource, through mechanisms suchas territoriality (Carothers and Jaksic 1984; Keddy1989). Although the first type is the most traditionalview of competition, the second has become increas-ingly significant to researchers and seems more rele-vant for discussing human practice in the environment,so interference competition will be the focus here.Another approach to niche overlap— mutualism— has

been less theorized in ecology (perhaps for ideologicalreasons,^ ^ Keddy 1989), but may have considerablerelevance for human practice (Spielmann 1986).Competition theory has been marked by the extensiveuse of mathematical models. Most of these are con-cerned with the relationship between resource avail-ability and population dynamics in situations of nicheoverlap. The following discussion will not be con-cerned with this quantitative dimension and popula-tion dynamics will play little role in the discussion.Much of the focus will be on spatial dynamics, sincethis has the most visible archaeological consequences.

The central element in competitive or mutualrelations concerns how organisms partitionresources and habitats. Partitioning can be accom-plished by scheduling the use of foraging sites at dif-ferent points in time, by dispersing foraging sites inspace, or by shifts in foraging behavior towards spe-cialization on different resources. Preventing tempo-ral overlap at foraging sites can minimize the poten-tial for direct conflict in interference competition,such as fighting over the best fishing or sealing loca-tions, stealing food etc. Temporal partitioning of thesame foraging sites may be accomplished by thepotential competitors selecting resource types thatare available at different times, or by exploiting con-tinually renewing resources at different times. Aneffective temporal partitioning of activity may notrequire or result in the partitioning of other variables,such as habitat space or particular food resources(Carothers and Jaksic 1984:405-406). Some highlydesirable resources, however, may be available onlyfor short time frames (e.g., seasonally), decreasingthe likelihood that temporal partitioning would be aneffective means of limiting competition.

Partitioning of space is perhaps the most frequentmeans of preventing direct competition. In patchy

' ' "Competition" is a category in need of deconstruction. Its conceptual privileging relative to other relational possibilities-such as mutualism— may reflect its metaphorical role in the intertextual relations between biological and sociopolitical dis-course (Keddy 1989:160-162). Keene (1983) discusses the sociopolitical baggage of evolutionary ecology in archaeology.

326

CHAPTER 14

environments where resources are dispersed, dispersalof foraging sites in space minimizes competition. Ofcourse, patches may differ markedly in their quality ofresources such that competition may arise from forag-ing decisions to prioritize high quality patches. Thelikelihood of competition increases if such resourcesare also temporally limited in availability. For example,seasonally migrating harp seals have, in a generalsense, a patchy distribution. But they may have higheraccessibility to human foragers in certain predictableplaces, such as narrow inlets and passages that restrictand funnel herd movements. Such places may becomethe focus of competition.

One of the central (and traditional) issues in spa-tial partitioning is territoriality. As humans use such awide range of interaction mechanisms it is very sim-plistic to categorize behavior as either territorial ornon-territorial (Dyson-Hudson and Smith 1978). Onemight say there is a continuum of territorial behaviourfrom highly territorial competitive exclusion, to coop-erative interaction as non-territorial behaviour. Dyson-Hudson and Smith (1978) regard territoriality as aresponse to interaction situations in which resourcesare dense and predictable. The articulation of thesetwo properties promote territoriality by setting condi-tions of economic defendability. Kelly's (1 995) discus-sion of territoriality among foragers builds largelyupon their observations. Although he gives lengthyconsideration to the social mechanisms involved agroup's extending permission to others to use theirterritories (Kelly 1995:181-189), his arguments turnon the centrality of resources and demography, seen interms of cost-benefit analysis: "...for any given case weshould be able to translate the interplay between envi-ronmental and population variables into their signifi-cance in terms of intragroup variance and intergroupcorrelation, and from these predict the specific form of

land tenure" (Kelly 1994:201). Although Kelly is sensi-tive to the social mechanisms involved in regulatingaccess to the landscape, his view of "land tenure" ispremised on a reductionist attempt to predict socialrelations from ecological relations (Ingold [1986:130-1 33] provides an alternative conceptualization of theseterms, see below). It should be noted, however, thatmost of Kelly's ethnographic examples pertain toboundary processes between social units within singleethnic/linguistic units, rather than across such units.

To this point the discussion has focused on theproperties of available resources, but variations in thebehavioral properties of the competitors must also beconsidered. Competitors may exhibit varying techno-logical capacities for resource extraction or differencesin organizational characteristics, such as labor mobi-lization or social differentiation. These abilities maychange over time, resulting in either shifts of compet-itive advantages/disadvantages, or the development ofcoexistence. In the ecological literature, the relativedegree of specialization/generalization in resourceexploitation (niche breadth) is a frequently useddimension of variation.^ ^ In some situations bothcompetitors may specialize, thereby minimizing nicheoverlap and potential competition. If two populationsspecialize on different resources we might expect thedevelopment of relatively weak territoriality, or per-haps even reciprocal resource exchange in a mutualis-tic relation between the two populations (cf.,Spielmann 1986). In other situations one competitormay shift to more generalist strategies, exploiting theresource patches not used by the specialist.Depending on the degree of niche overlap, this couldbe an unstable coexistence marked by some degree ofterritoriality. The specialists might be expected toinvest in defending their resources since they have lessalternative resource flexibility than generalists and

'° How such a distinction could actually be measured empirically among human foragers is a serious problem, particularlyin archaeological cases for which we lack zooarchaeological data, and draw subsistence inferences primarily from site loca-tion, such as in the Pre-Dorset/Maritime Archaic context.

THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE-DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADOR

327

thus much to lose. The generalists would be unlikely toincur defence costs for gaining only a small increase inresource variety unless the niche overlap with the spe-cialist included resources that were seasonally criticalfor the generalist. In all these cases, as long as theinteraction effects are fairly equal for both parties, thecompetition could be termed symmetric (Keddy1989:1 5-16).

But an inability to shift niche breadth or foragingcharacteristics may militate against coexistence, lead-ing to exclusion of one of the competitors. Markedorganizational differences between populations raisethe possibility of competitive dominance, or asymmet-ric competition (Keddy 1 989:1 6). Asymmetric relationsmight involve avoidance strategies on the part of sub-ordinate populations, such as: a) refuging behavior,with movement to poorer quality habitats or favoredretreat sites, perhaps linked with an increase in spe-cialization, b) a "floating-nomadic" existence, movingthrough the interstices between the favoured locationsof the dominant population, perhaps involving a shiftto more generalist strategies, or c) shifts in activitytimes, such as the subordinate exploiting a dominant'sfavoured resource during a non-optimal period(Carothers and Jaksic 1984:405; Schoener 1974b;Smith 1978; the latter two cited in Carothers andJaksic 1984:405).

Dominance patterns may also be related to thetemporal dimension of niche relations. Yodzis(1 978:25) discusses spatial pre-emption resulting fromthe history of colonization sequences. It is generallyassumed that already established organisms have acompetitive advantage over new colonizers, resultingin what Yodzis (1 978:26) calls founder-controlled com-munities. In such communities, colonization by neworganisms may involve a "reshuffling" of speciesamong patches, a rearrangement structured byfounder-dominance, which results in re-equilibration.In some cases, however, repeated colonization eventsmay produce what Yodzis (1978:49) terms "quasi-cycles": a series of colonizations without equilibrium.

This discussion is important in that it draws attentionto the problem of historical contingency in competitiverelations and highlights the static nature of the stan-dard equilibrium models.

Another dimension that may lead away from sim-ple equilibrium models is temporal variation in theenvironment, which may be linked to variable compe-tition over time (Wiens 1 977). In general, there shouldbe limited competition when resources are abundantand maximal competition at resource lows. In environ-ments marked by strong spatial variations in resourceavailability, periodic resource minimums will lead togreater competition for the limited high qualityresource patches or extraction locales. Although formodelling purposes temporal variation in resourceavailability has often been depicted using shiftingequilibrium models, cycling between high and lowabundance, more recent non-linear systems ecologydraws in the abrupt and chaotic aspects of environ-mental change. This puts a premium on the historical-ly contingent in Nature/Culture relations.

For the purposes of further discussion related tothe specifics of the Maritime Archaic/Pre-Dorset socialboundary issue, three aspects of spatial partitioningare extracted for particular attention. First, "territorial-ity," involving either: a) symmetric relations or mutual-ism, or b) asymmetric relations marked by the relega-tion of one group to less favored patches or refugingbehaviour. Second, "floating" strategies, involvinginter-patch mobility through cultural interstices toavoid contact. Third, "cycling," involving repeated col-onization events on varying time scales within regions,either as a partial avoidance strategy or simply failureto colonize permanently.

CONSTRUCTED SOCIAL ANDIDEOLOGICAL LANDSCAPES

From the perspective of the humans as intrinsically cul-tural beings ontology, space is not a neutral resourceforaging arena, but a culturally constructed landscapeimbued with social and ideological meanings. Instead

328

CHAPTER 14

of locations or sites that are the settings or physicalframes for activities— simply utilized spaces— land-scapes are actively constructed and experienced byminds and bodies. Natural spaces become culturallandscapes by being enveloped in conceptual gridsand a history of practices as well as through the con-struction of built environments that physically andconceptually act back upon the humans who experi-ence these places. The central point is that in thecourse of social practice, agents "draw on their set-tings" as resources for action and, in turn, that placesconstitute agents as social actors (Giddens 1979:206;Tilley 1994: 16,19-20, 23). The "existential spaces" inwhich agents act are not static, but are continually pro-duced and reproduced through practices involvingmovement through the landscape (Tilley 1 994:1 6-17).Thus, the biographies and identities of individuals andgroups are constructed in relation to places and in thecourse of movement along the paths that tie placesinto meaningful networks, and these relations betweenplace, people and movement are central to the con-struction of cultural memory (Tilley 1994:27-28). Themutual structuration of practices and networks ofplaces gives a spatial dimension to cultural knowledgeand power relations (Hood 1988).

Some of the best examples of this approachapplied to the study of hunter-gatherers come fromAustralia (for other examples see Bender 1 993; Hirschand O'Hanlon 1995; P.Jordan 2003; Tilley 1994; Uckoand Layton 1999). Morphy's (1995) discussion of theYolngu makes clear the relationship between land-scape, the ancestral past and social reproduction. Allparts of the Yolngu landscape are imbued with theactions of ancestral beings such that the landscapeconsists of ancestral tracks and mythological coordi-nates anchored to specific places. The ancestral pastbecomes part of subjective experience as the individ-ual moves through and experiences the totemicallycoded landscape. Kinship relations (moieties andclans) are mapped onto the landscape and thus inte-grated with the ancestral grid, and rituals relate

groups and places in relation to ancestral tracks. Thus,a set of long-term structures encoded in the landscapeconstitute a framework for active social structurationprocesses:

The ancestral past is continuously re-cre-ated by the sedimenting of past and presentexperiences and political outcomes on pre-existing loci...In reality places are continuallybeing reformed into new sets. New divisionsof the landscape are made as clans die outand new ones emerge...Thus the articulationof social groups with the landscape is alwayschanging, but the mythic screen that coversthe landscape makes the relationship appearunchanging...The acting out of individuallives ultimately produces the cumulativechanges which force the ancestral screen toadjust in order to mirror present circum-stances...The ancestral past, though changedand reproduced through present humanaction, is absorbed as a precedent for futureaction (Morphy 1995:204-205).The aforementioned perspectives provide impor-tant analogies for thinking about hunter-gathereraction in the landscape. Yet, as discussed previously,they present a rather one-sided cultural constructionistview that generally ignores resource extraction prac-tices or treats them as epiphenomenal to meaning. Theconsequence is an extremely idealist view of humanrelationships with the landscape in which Nature isviewed primarily as a source of raw materials for cul-tural acts of imagination (Ingold 1996:150). But thelandscape needs to be both good to think and a sourceof raw materials for cultural acts of survival.

If we take more seriously the mix of constraintsand opportunities afforded by the natural world anddifferent types of mobility systems, then we mightidentify some general patterns or at least some gener-al consequences for cultural construction of the land-scape. For example, there is surely a difference in land-scape construction practices between populations that

THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADOR

329

have been established in an area for many generationsand those which are initially colonizing an area. As inthe Yolgnu example, established populations operatewithin a pre-existing network of places and paths thatare implicated deeply in the reproduction of socialrelations and cultural memory. The landscape is along-term structure that is both the product and prece-dent of action. Colonizers enter new landscapes forwhich there is no pre-existing cognitive map, no pre-cise knowledge of resource distributions, no codednetwork of known places or paths to relate to. Theymust act without structural precedents, except insofaras they can extend analogies from previous experi-ences elsewhere. Consequently, besides engaging inflexible resource-searching and knowledge-gatheringpractices, colonists must actively construct a land-scape by building up an archive of experiences withplaces and paths. These differing implications forsocial action in landscapes have obvious relevance forthe Maritime Archaic/Pre-Dorset situation.

Another argument relevant to a critique of theconstructionist privileging of Culture is Ingold's(1 986:1 30ff.) discussion of the concepts of tenure andterritoriality, which stand in a dialectical relation thatillustrates what is involved in working with theNature/Culture dualism. Ingold (1986:131, 136-137)considers tenure to be the schema and practicesthrough which the landscape is appropriated, claimsare made on resources and individuals are constitutedas agents. Tenure binds groups into historical relation-ships with landscapes, which are reproduced as long-term structures. Hunter-gatherer tenure is a relation-ship with places and paths through the landscape— adispersed network— not a partitioning of space intotwo-dimensionally bounded patches, which is theusual thinking with "territoriality." For Ingold (1986:1 30-1 31, 136, 141-145, 156-157), territoriality \s x.h&schema and practices used in appropriating resourcesand for communicating about the locations of personsand resources. Although it does involve divisions ofthe landscape, it is not about maintaining exclusive

access to resources, but is a set of practices aimed atminimizing interference in resource extraction or thedisturbance of sacred sites. Unlike the structural conti-nuity of tenure over time, however, territoriality is sit-uationally contingent since different modes of territo-riality are implemented in response to changes in envi-ronmental (and social) contexts. To summarize:"...tenure engages nature in a system of social rela-tions, territoriality engages society in a system of nat-ural relations" (Ingold 1986:136).

Such a brief summary does not do complete jus-tice to Ingold's ideas, but in conjunction with the pre-vious discussion it outlines a framework that can beused to stimulate thinking regarding questions oflandscape and social boundaries in Labrador. Detailsof the archaeological context for Maritime Archaic/Pre-Dorset relations are presented in the next section,which is followed by an interpretative integration ofthe archaeological context with the threads cast out inthe theoretical sections.

BACK TO THE ARCHAEOLOGICALCONTEXT

We know that the Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorsetshared the north-central Labrador coast for severalhundred years and preliminary interpretations havepointed to spatial partitioning as one of the mecha-nisms by which that coexistence was sustained. Thepreceding theoretical discussion established frame-works for understanding that coexistence from differ-ent entry points to human use of the landscape. Now,the empirical aspects of Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorset settlement need to be considered in greaterdepth. The foraging characteristics of the two cul-tures are difficult to ascertain, since we completelylack archaeozoological material from Pre-Dorset sitesand that from the Maritime Archaic consists mostly ofcalcined bone fragments. Subsistence-settlementinferences are therefore drawn primarily from sitelocations, structural information and lithic assem-blage variation.

330

CHAPTER 1 4

229/ Distribution of Late Maritime Arclnaic and Pre-Dorset Settlement in the Nain Region. Original map © 2004 producedunder licence from Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, with permission of Natural Resources Canada.

Broad similarities in site location have led to bothcultures being characterized as having "interior-mar-itime" settlement systems, which involved spring to fallland-use ranging across the inner and outer coastalislands and inner bays for sea mammal hunting, fish-ing and caribou hunting, and winter occupation of theinner bays or near-interior based on caribou huntingand fishing (Cox 1978:102; Fitzhugh 1978:83-84). Asof yet, however, none of the inner bay sites known foreither culture provide convincing evidence for winteroccupation. The discussions of the Late MaritimeArchaic site Attu's Bight in Chapter 12 and the Pre-

Dorset site Attu's Point in Chapter 1 3, both inner baylocalities, highlighted the difficulties of drawing sea-sonal inferences. Nonetheless, the settlement data aresufficient to make the case that there was potential forresource competition between the two cultures. On theother hand, the settlement typology is static and insen-sitive to possible organizational changes over time. Aswill be discussed further below, Early/Middle MaritimeArchaic settlement patterns may have differed fromthose of the Late Maritime Archaic. For Pre-Dorset, thepaucity of radiocarbon dates makes it impossible totrack temporal shifts in the configuration of their set-

THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE-DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADOR

331

tiement patterns, although regional variations can beconsidered. The following pages outline the settlementpattern data on a region-by-region basis.

The Nain Region

Figure 229 depicts the distribution of Late MaritimeArchaic and Pre-Dorset sites in the Nain region.^ ^ Oneconcentration of Pre-Dorset sites is found in the outerisland area. Most of these outer coast sites are small,consisting of lithic scatters with and without traces ofdwelling structures. On Natsutuk Island, in the outerisland fringe, the September Harbour-1 site is a rela-tively large locality with repeated occupations,although few clear structures (Fitzhugh 1976a:136;Fitzhugh, personal communication). On Dog Island,Dog-Bight L-5, dated 3810±75 B.P., contains threeclosely spaced axial structures, but very few lithics(Cox 1978:99, 101; Fitzhugh 1976:130-133). Finally,one of the few late Pre-Dorset sites in the Nain regionis Nukasusutok-2 (Chapter 4), which consists of twosubstantially built axial structures, one of which isdated 3315±85 B.P. (3055±85 with ^^C/'^^C correc-tion; Cox 1978:99, 101; Fitzhugh 2002).

The other concentration of Pre-Dorset sites isfound along Port Manvers Run, the long passage westof South Aulatsivik Island. The Run can be used as aprotected "inside" travel route to avoid rougher outercoast waters. In spring and fall, migrating harp sealherds may be funnelled through the Run and duringthe winter strong tidal currents maintain a polynya atthe "Second Rattle" that can be used for open watersealing. Caribou of the Kingurutik and KiglapaitMountain herds may be accessed from the Run andsmall herds may move across the Run onto South

Aulatsivik Island during the winter. Three large Pre-Dorset sites with multiple localities indicative of fre-quent re-occupation are found on or near the Run. Atthe seaward end of the Run, Thalia Point contains sev-eral localities, one dated 3660±140 B.P., which aremarked by a high frequency of burins and burin spalls(Fitzhugh 1 976b:l 06-1 07). About one third of the waysouthward along the Run is Approach Point-2, locatedadjacent to the polynya. The site consists of at least adozen localities, some with ambiguous structuralremains, two of which have fairly substantial accumu-lations of tools. The location is favorable for springand fall sealing as well as winter open water sealing inthe polynya. Oddly enough, harpoon endblades arerare in the surface material; a considerable amount ofslate debitage is present (Smithsonian field notes,1980). The third site is Attu's Point on Webb Bay,slightly west of the entrance to Port Manvers Run. Asoutlined in Chapter 1 3, Attu's Point contains over 20small localities, including several dwelling structures,two of which are dated 3750±60 B.P. and 3790±70B.P.. The lithic assemblage is marked by a fairly highfrequency of endblades, abundant slate materials anda paucity of scrapers. Its location and assemblagecharacteristics suggest a focus on spring and fall sealhunting at a nearby narrow channel. Most of the othersites along the Run are small, with single or two orthree localities. Two of these. Port Manvers Run-1 andDouble Island Cove-1 (the latter with dates of 3640±70B.P. and 3320±70 B.P.), were described in Chapter 12.

To summarize, there are two frequently re-used"central places" on the outer coast, at SeptemberHarbour and Thalia Point. A third central place is foundat an inner bay location, Attu's Point, while a fourth,

'" The site distribution information is derived from the files of the Cultural Heritage Division, Government of Newfoundlandand Labrador. Several caveats must be noted regarding these data. (1) The distribution data are most reliable for the Nainand Sagiek Bay regions, since these areas have been subjected to the most intensive and long-term survey programs. (2)Generally speaking, the inner bay areas have not been surveyed as extensively as the outer coastal regions. (3) There areproblems in separating Late Maritime Archaic sites from Early and Middle period sites, since chronological information hasnot been entered systematically in the site files. Site selection was based on preliminary reports, personal experience, archae-ological oral history, and elevation above sea level.

332

CHAPTER 1 4

Aunospheht diu from Reimer el al i^fX^JjinxCal v3 HI Rroiik R.imvey l2fX)5), ^.iibr S >d ! 2 |iriih iisp|i-hrtiii|

Attu's Bight 408()±1()()BP

Attu's Bight 4080±90BP

Dog Bight L5 3810±75BPAttu's Point 379()±7()BPAttu's Point 3750±60BPQuest Cove-1 376()±9()BPThaHaPoint-2 366()±14()B^Double Is. Cove 364()±70BPDouble Is. Cove 332()±70BPNukasusutol<-2 3055±85BP

1 1 1 1 1 1 i

4000CalBC 3000CalBC 2000CalBC

Calibrated date

lOOOCalBC

230/ Calibrated radiocarbon date probability distributions for Late Maritime Archaicand Pre-Dorset sites in the Nain region. From OxCal 3.10.

Approach Point, lies in an intermediate position onPort IVIanvers Run. As a tentative proposal for a "local"settlement pattern within the Nain region, one mighttreat the Thalia Point, Port Manvers Run, Webb Bay areaas a north-south linear settlement system. The abun-dance of Pre-Dorset sites along this stretch suggeststhe Run was an important "highway" between the outercoast and the inner bay zone. Winter settlement mightbe suggested at the northern seaward end near ThaliaPoint, which is close to the sina, and at ApproachPoint, near the Second Rattle polynya. In spring, Pre-Dorset people may have shifted to the southern anchorof the system at Attu's Point, exploiting seals duringand after breakup, hunting caribou moving back to themainland from South Aulatsivik Island and replenish-ing wood supplies. Summer might see a shift back tothe outer coast, then another return to Webb Bay in thefall for wildfowl, seals, fish, caribou and wood sup-plies. The concentration of Pre-Dorset sites in theouter islands might be linked to a similar outercoast/inner bay movement, perhaps through the areasouth of South Aulatsivik Island and west towards Nain

Bay, but multi-season occupa-tion of the outer island region isalso a possibility.

Although Early and MiddleMaritime Archaic sites are abun-dant in the Nain region, Lateperiod Rattler's Bight Phasesites are extremely rare. Theonly substantial locality is theAttu's Bight site on Webb Baynear the entrance to PortManvers Run, only 1.8 km eastof the Pre-Dorset central placeat Attu's Point (Chapter 12).Although the Maritime Archaicsite is extensive, the low fre-quency of tools and paucity offeatures suggest it was used asa short term transit camp for movements north andsouth along Port Manvers Run. A small Rattlers Bightlocality is located on the outer coast at Ford Harbour(Paul Island), where there is also a trace of Pre-Dorsetactivity. The other late Maritime Archaic site relevant tothe discussion is located south of the Nain region,slightly inland up the Kogaluk River, which emptiesinto Voisey's Bay. This locality, Pukutakan Emish-shipu-2, has not been investigated in detail, butappears to be a camp on a portage route into the inte-rior (Labreche et al 1 997:1 35). This site suggests thatin addition to the documented Maritime Archaic move-ments south-north along the coast related to Ramahchert procurement there was also an east-west coast-interior axis. Recent research in the interior at LakeKamistastin indicates that Maritime Archaic activity inthe interior may have begun as early as 7000 B.P., withpossible traces of activity ca. 5000 B.P. (Loring 1999);this parallels finds from Lake Mushuau Nipi (IndianHouse Lake, Samson 1978)

Table 95 summarizes the radiocarbon dates forPre-Dorset and Maritime Archaic sites in the Nain

region and Figure 230 presents their calibrated BC

THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE-DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADOR

333

Table 95. Radiocarbon Dates for Pre-Dorset and Late Maritime Archaic Sites in the Main Region.

SITE (CULTURE)

DATE (B.P.)

LAB NO. 16 Calibrated BCOxCal 3.10

REFERENCE

Attu's Bight L-3/6 (MA)

4080±100

Beta-571 26

2860-2490

Chapter 1 2

Attu's Bight L-3/6 (MA)

4080±90

Beta-71477

2860-2490

Chapter 1 2

Attu's Point L-1 (PD)

3750±60''

Beta-7761 1

2280-2030

Chapter 1 3

Attu's Point L-5 (PD)

3790±70'

Beta-77612

2350-2050

Chapter 1 3

Structure 1 (PD)Double Island Cove L-1

3640±70

Beta-571 25

2140-1910

Chapter 1 2

Structure 2 (PD)Double Island Cove L-1

3320±70'

Beta-71476

1690-1 520

Chapter 1 2

Dog Bight L-5 (PD)

3810±75

SI-2521

2440-21 30

Fitzhugh 1 976a: 1 30-1 33;Cox 1978:99

Quest Cove-1 (PD)

3760+90

SI-4826

2340-2030

Clark and Fitzhugh1990:301

Thalia Point-2-Al 9 (PD)

3660±140

CSC-1264

2280-1 780

Fitzhugh 1976b:107;Cox 1978:99

Nukasusutok-2 (PD)

3055±85(F)

SI-2988

1430-1210

Cox 1978:99

* '-^C corrected

(F) burned fat sample, 3315±85 prior to

'■^C correction

probability distributions. At one sigma there is no over-lap between the Maritime Archaic dates from Attu'sBight and the Pre-Dorset sites. A closer look at thearchaeological contexts of the Attu's Bight and Attu'sPoint dates at least opens up the possibility of chrono-logical overlap, although it is important not to fall preyto wishful thinking. At L3/6 of the Attu's Bight MaritimeArchaic site there was a faint trace of an occupationlayer 20 cm above, and therefore possibly later than,the dated 4000 B.P. component, although deflation andredeposition processes in the sand matrix have to betaken into account. At the Pre-Dorset site Attu's Point,the two 3700 B.P. dates are both from structures on thelowest 10 m beach level, while additional features arefound up to and including the uppermost 12 m beach,suggesting that some of these features could be earli-er than the radiocarbon dated loci. Additionally, theuppermost 12 m beach of the Pre-Dorset site had sur-

face finds of a Late Maritime Archaic stemmed pointand a possible Maritime Archaic biface. Although theseimplements might hint at some form of cultural con-tacts, they could also be traces of an earlier MaritimeArchaic occupation or items Pre-Dorset people scav-enged from a nearby Maritime Archaic site. In anyevent, the stratigraphic factors suggest that chronolog-ical overlap between the two sites cannot be ruled out.If so, we would have two "central places" within a 1.8km distance of each other. Overall, however, the evi-dence for contemporaneity is thin.

Although the discussion of Pre-Dorset settlementpatterns assumed a year-round presence in the Mainregion, there is no reason to suggest that the sparseevidence for Late Maritime Archaic occupation shouldbe interpreted similarly. It is quite conceivable that theMaritime Archaic sites Attu's Bight and Ford Harbourmay represent only seasonal forays into the Main area

334

CHAPTER 14

231/ Distribution of Pre-Dorset sites in the OI<al< region. Original map © 2004 produced under licence from Her Majesty theQueen in Right of Canada, with permission of Natural Resources Canada.

from Maritime Archaic bases further south. Indeed, theoverall distribution of sites in Figure 229 is curious,with the density of Pre-Dorset locales dropping offmarkedly south of Ford Harbour. The pattern is sug-gestive of a boundary effect, with an area of limitedsettlement between the Pre-Dorset "core area" in thenorthern part of the Main district and a possible areaof Maritime Archaic dominance in Voisey's Bay andpoints south. Furthermore, given the currently limitedevidence for Maritime Archaic activity in the Main

region during the period 5000-4000 B.P., it is possiblethe region might have been abandoned by theMaritime Archaic as a year-round settlement area cen-turies prior to the Pre-Dorset colonization (see below).

The Okak Region

The Okak region has not been surveyed as intensivelyas the Main area, but the site distribution (Figure 231)shows a broadly similar pattern. Pre-Dorset sites arerare on the outermost islands, but are frequent on the

THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE-DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADOR

335

RAMAH BAY

^ SAGLEK BAY

• Pre-Dorset site

* Maritime Arcliaic siteH Ramah chert sources

0 10I I I

km

St. John's Harbour

,.5r- Nulliak Cove

Jerusalem Harbour

HEBRON FJORD

a

Harp Isthmus

Nuvotanaluk

^ NAPAKTOK BAY

eg

Cape Mugford

232/ Distribution of Late Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorset sites in the Hebron Fjord, Saglel< Bay and Ramah Bay regions.Original map © 2004 produced under licence from Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, with permission of NaturalResources Canada.

inner islands and well represented at inner Okak Bay(Cox 1976, 1978). Frequently re-occupied "centralplaces" are found on the inner islands atIglusuaktalialuk (Cox 1 977:1 30) and Nuasornak-2 (Cox1988, 2003). At Nuasornak there are up to 40 struc-tures that chronologically span most of the Pre-Dorsetto Groswater sequence. A small inner island Pre-Dorsetcomponent at Okak-6 was dated 3475±75 B.P. (Cox1977:223, 1978:99).

Another relatively large and repeatedly used local-ity is situated in the inner bay region at Sipukat Bay-1

(Cox 1976:229-237). In contrast to the outer coastsites, Sipukat Bay contained few triangular endbladesbut had a substantial slate component, includingadzes and celts; one of the adzes appears to be a re-worked Maritime Archaic gouge (Cox 1977:235). As atAttu's Point in the Main region, the frequency ofground slate tools suggest this inner bay location wasused to replenish wood supplies or butcher frozenmeat. The lack of endblades, however, contrastsstrongly with the Attu's Point assemblages. Overall,like the Nain region, there is a hint of functional differ-

336

CHAPTER 14

ences between inner bay and coastal localities. Alsosimilar to the Nain region is a possible pattern ofrepeatedly used central places at both coastal andinner bay locations, which may have been linked byseasonal settlement mobility. Another important vari-able in the geographical positioning and assemblagecontent of Pre-Dorset sites in the Okak area is the pres-ence of their preferred chert sources in the CapeMugford area at the northern edge of the Okak region(Cramly 1978; Lazenby 1980).

Like the Nain region, there is evidence for Earlyand Middle Maritime Archaic sites at Okak (Cox 1 977;Fitzhugh 1978), but few signs of Late MaritimeArchaic activity. There are no definitive sites, but adiagnostic Maritime Archaic incised sandstone plum-met was found on an upper beach terrace at the Pre-Dorset site Nuasornak-2, an occurrence that Cox(1988:3) interprets as evidence for culture contact.Otherwise, Pre-Dorset material is superimposed uponMaritime Archaic material at the inner island Okak-2site (Cox 1977:184-195; Fitzhugh 1978:77), but theMaritime Archaic component is dated 4765±85 B.P.and 4905±80 B.P., a millennium earlier than the Pre-Dorset colonization. Consequently, as with the Nainregion, the Maritime Archaic may have abandonedyear round settlement of the Okak area prior to Pre-Dorset colonization.

The Hebron Fjord Region

Moving north of the tree line (Napaktok Bay) to theHebron region, we encounter a key area for the formu-lation of Fitzhugh's enclave model. But it is also anarea in which Smithsonian field surveys have mostlybeen limited to the outer fjord. Although the authorconducted a brief reconnaissance deep inside HebronFjord in 1997 (Hood 1998a), most of the mid-innerfjord area must be regarded as archaeologicallyunknown and the overall site distribution (Figure 232)as unrepresentative.

Be that as it may, Pre-Dorset and Maritime Archaicsettlement in the Hebron region is concentrated in two

central places. Harp Isthmus on the south side ofHebron Fjord has several Pre-Dorset localities, includ-ing over 30 visible structures (Fitzhugh 1984:23),while minor traces of Maritime Archaic occur nearby.North of Hebron, Nulliak Cove-1 is a repeatedly occu-pied Late Maritime Archaic site with the remains of 27longhouses and four burial mounds. The site isbelieved to have been used as a seasonal staging areafor expeditions to the Ramah chert sources furthernorth. Radiocarbon dates for Nulliak range from 4300-3500 B.P. (Fitzhugh 1981, 1984, 1985a). A Pre-Dorsetcomponent is also present. Localities of both culturesare found at Jerusalem Harbour, between Hebron andNulliak. The area between Jerusalem Harbour and HarpIsthmus lacks distinct sites of both cultures, althoughminor surface indications are present. It is possible,however, that traces of Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorset occupation are hidden under Inuit andMoravian settlement accumulations at the abandonedHebron mission, a circumstance that may create animpression of greater spatial partitioning than wasactually the case. Two small Pre-Dorset componentsare situated about 40 km inside Hebron fjord, not farfrom a tunnel valley and lake which lead deep into theinterior. One of these, Nuvotanaluk-1, contains one ortwo Pre-Dorset dwelling structures and associated lith-ic scatters located on the same beach ridge as, andonly 20 m distant from, a 90 m long Ramah chert flakescatter. The latter did not contain clearly diagnostictools, but a probable flake point fragment and someslate flakes, along with the linear configuration of thescatter, suggest a Late Maritime Archaic affiliation. Theother site, Siugakuluk-2, contained traces of a Pre-Dorset dwelling along with Early Pre-Dorset tools and adiagnostic Intermediate Indian Saunders Complexside-notched biface and a possible Intermediate Indianconvex based biface (Hood 1 998a).

As noted by Fitzhugh (1984), the concentration ofPre-Dorset and Maritime Archaic settlement in twoouter coast "enclaves" at Harp Isthmus and NulliakCove, separated by about 25 km, gives the impression

THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE-DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADOR

337

of micro-territoriality within the overall distributions ofthe two cultures. The range of radiocarbon dates fromNulliak suggest the site was used prior to the Pre-Dorset colonization as well as during most of the peri-od of Early Pre-Dorset occupation of northernLabrador. Thus, Nulliak was a well-established placethat Pre-Dorset newcomers would have to relate to. Onthe other hand, the existence of sites with remainsfrom both cultures, such as at Jerusalem Harbour andNuvotanaluk, raises questions about the territorialmodel. Both cultures were inclined to use at least someof the same sites and probably for the same purposes.Even if these sites were radiocarbon dated, however,contemporaneity or lack thereof could not be estab-lished given the range of error inherent in current dat-ing techniques.

It is important to point out that in the Hebron areathe Late Maritime Archaic people were operating neartheir ecological limit and at the extreme northern endof their social network. Although they were able tomake effective use of the area north of the tree line,they apparently did so as seasonal visitors rather thanas year-round residents. This limitation has importantconsequences for their relations with the Pre-Dorsetpeople who, we assume, eventually became year-roundinhabitants of the region.

Sagiek Bay to Ramah Bay

Moving further north, Sagiek Bay is probably the bestsurveyed portion of northern Labrador besides theMain region, thanks to several years of survey by Tuck(1975), Smithsonian researchers (Fitzhugh 1980) andThomson (1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1986,1989). Sagiek contains many Pre-Dorset localities butonly a few definite Late Maritime Archaic sites (Figure232). Nonetheless, there is at least a hint of territorialenclaves here as well. A major concentration of Pre-Dorset activity at St. John's Harbour on the south sideof Sagiek may represent a central place similar to HarpIsthmus at Hebron. One locality has seven dwellingstructures while a larger site nearby extends for 300 m

along a terrace. A couple of Maritime Archaic stemmedpoint fragments were also collected from these locali-ties (Thomson 1 982:1 6, 1 986:1 9). On the north side ofSagiek Bay, Sagiek Site A (Tuck 1975:76-81) containsthe remains of a Maritime Archaic longhouse feature(Fitzhugh 1985b:50). At Rose Island Site Q, a LateMaritime Archaic component dated 3890±110 B.P. isstratigraphically overlain by a Pre-Dorset componentdated 3830±115 B.P. (Tuck 1 975:54, 57). BothMaritime Archaic components were presumably smallstaging camps for trips to or from Ramah Bay.

Between Sagiek and Ramah Bay there are sporadicPre-Dorset sites, but no definitive Late MaritimeArchaic sites. There must be Maritime Archaic quarry-ing activity in Ramah Bay, but it is difficult to demon-strate directly given the lack of diagnostic tools in thequarry debitage (Gramly 1978; Lazenby 1980).

PALEOENVIRONMENTALCONSIDERATIONS

Paleoenvironmental information from pollen analysis(Fitzhugh and Lamb 1985; Short 1978) is of insuffi-cient chronological resolution to provide a detailedcontext for the cultural boundary situation within the4000-3500 B.P. period. The treeline, which today liesat Napaktok Bay (Elliot and Short 1 979), seems to havebeen close to its present location during this time peri-od (Fitzhugh and Lamb 1985:363), but it was not acritical limiting factor for Indian settlement. The shrub-tundra of the Hebron-Sagiek district is a more relevantnorthern boundary for Maritime Archaic seasonal occu-pations (Fitzhugh 1985a:88; Fitzhugh and Lamb1 985:363). If a longer time span is considered, howev-er, there are changes in the pollen record in the 5000-4000 B.P. range that provide a context for discussingwhy Middle/Late Maritime Archaic activity seems limit-ed in the Nain and Okak regions.

Figure 233 presents alder (Alnus) and spruce(Picea) pollen percentages for the period 6000-2500B.P. from the Nain Pond core analyzed by Short(1 978:25-31); the raw data were acquired from the

338

CHAPTER 14

Nain Pond Pollen Core (Short 1978)

60,0

50,0

40,0

% 30,0

20.0

10,0

0,0

-AInusPicea

rp' ^ ^ <;f # foO? ^ ^

Calibrated BP

233/ Pollen percentages for alder (AInus) and spruce (Picea) in the Nain region from6800-2500 calBP. Period of Maritime Archaic/Pre-Dorset overlap marked in gray.Data from Short (1978) via the NOAA database.

GISP2 Bidecadal 6 0 Record (Logarithmic Smoothing)

-34,5

-34,6

-34,7

6^^0 -34.8

-34,9

-35

-35.1

irrntTnTMTniiiiiMrnmiriMiiiTiiirinirirrniMiMniiiirriiiniinnrrrrMiMiMMnTirrMiiriirinMriiniiiiinTiiTiriTitniimtrnrnninitHii'ttnn

OOOQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

■.- 1^ CO cn in

CMCvjcNjcMconrocococo-^

(X) r- o CNi

Ln N. CO

Lf) LD LD lO Lf) iD

Calibrated BP

(1978:28) original discussion ofthe dating of vegetationchanges in the core was largelybased on extrapolation fromother cores, particularly UbiikPond in the Okak region. TheB.P. dates in the NOAA database presumably were project-ed from estimated sedimentaccumulation rates, so giventhe potential for dating errorthe pollen profiles should beconsidered as depicting generaltime trends rather than precise-ly dated zones. Note that Figure233 uses calibrated B.P. dates;the NOAA uncalibrated dateswere converted to enable com-parison with the ice core datapresented below.

Short (1978:31) dated thetransition to spruce woodlandin the Nain area as occurringbetween 5700-4400 calB.P.,possibly with an earlier firststage of spruce colonization ofthe inner coastal zone and alater migration onto the interi-or plateau. Subsequent reduc-tion in spruce pollen combinedwith increases in alder, birchand clubmoss suggest a reduc-

234/ CISP2 ice core bidecadal oxygen isotope (6180) data from 5800-2500 calBP, withlogarithmic smoothing. Period of Maritime Archaic/Pre-Dorset overlap marked in gray.Stuiver et al. (1995), data from the NOAA database.

NOAA (National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration) internet paleoclimatology database.The core has eight radiocarbon dates, but there areserious problems with date reversals. Short's

tion of forest cover and anincrease in the shrub-tundracomponent, related to climaticcooling (Short 1978:31).Generally speaking, Figure 233suggests overall warming and expansion of spruceforest until ca. 3600 calB.P., followed by a coolingperiod with spruce forest reduction and an increasein the alder component. But looking more closely,

THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE-DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADOR

339

and taking the B.P. dates for granted, the core sug-gests a flip-flop sequence with a 5600-5400 calB.P.warming trend marked by a drop in alder and anincrease in spruce, followed by a 5400-4800 calB.P.cooling marked by an alder peak coupled with aspruce drop. The latter cooling corresponds with theperiod for which we have minimal evidence forMaritime Archaic presence in the Main and Okakregions; 5300-4600 calB.P. (4600-4100 uncalibratedB.P.).

Given the poor chronological resolution in thepollen data and their insensitivity to short-term climatechanges that might have strong impacts on humans, itis useful to marshall another proxy indicator of climatevariability: the oxygen isotope data from the CISP2 icecore from Greenland (Stuiver et al. 1995). Figure 234presents a logarithmic smoothing of bidecadalisotope data from 6000-2500 calB.P., as derived fromthe NOAA internet paleoclimatology database. From5300-4950 calB.P. there was a relatively warm period,followed by a cooling from 4950-4670 calB.P., withparticularly sharp cooling ca. 4790 calB.P. and 4670calB.P.. The pollen data are more or-less consistentwith the latter cooling, but are seemingly contrary tothe former warming period; poor dating resolution inthe pollen core may account for the anomaly. In anyevent, the cooling episode partly corresponds with thelack of Maritime Archaic settlement in the Main andOkak regions between 5300-4600 calB.P. (4600-4100uncalibrated B.P.). The ice core shows a warming trendfrom 4600-4370 calB.P., leading to a warm peak 4370-4150 calB.P.. This warm period spans most of theRattlers Bight Phase (4500-3700 calB.P.; 4100-3500uncalibrated B.P.). A cooling episode follows from4150-3810 calB.P., corresponding with the Early Pre-Dorset occupation. After an overall warmer but vari-able trend from 3810-3330 calB.P., there is a shift tosomewhat cooler conditions after 3200 calB.P..

While it is difficult to project how these climaticcycles would affect important variables such as the dis-tribution of sea ice and game resources, the point is

that the time period discussed in this chapter wasmarked by significant variations in climate.Consequently, the lack of Late Maritime Archaic settle-ment in the Nain and Okak regions may not have beenthe result of competitive exclusion relations with Pre-Dorset, but instead a consequence of the MaritimeArchaic having withdrawn from year-round habitationof these regions during the preceding centuriesbecause of climate-related environmental factors. If so,Pre-Dorset might have colonized an open habitat,thereby blocking a Maritime Archaic resettlement ofthe Nain and Okak regions.

A NOTE ON OTHER CULTURALVARIABLES

Although the focus in this chapter is on the interrela-tionship between the Late Maritime Archaic and EarlyPre-Dorset in northern Labrador, cultural dynamics incentral and southern Labrador should also be consid-ered. During the centuries preceding the Rattlers BightPhase a southern Labrador Maritime Archaic variant—the Black Island Complex— intruded into the HamiltonInlet region. Fitzhugh (1975;125) chooses to date theComplex to ca. 4200 B.P., but most of the radiocarbondates span a period of 4900-4100 B.P. (Fitzhugh1 975;123). The apparent shifts in the geographicaldistribution of the northern Labrador Maritime Archaicin the period 5000-4000 B.P. therefore need to be seenrelative to the cultural intrusion on the central coast,not simply as a response to environmental change.

A related issue is the sudden disappearance of thenorthern Maritime Archaic as a recognizable archaeo-logical entity ca. 3500 B.P. (the latest radiocarbon dateis from a burial mound at Nulliak Cove-1; Fitzhugh1981) and its replacement in central and northernLabrador by the so-called Intermediate Indian com-plexes (Fitzhugh 1 972; Nagle 1 978). The earliest datesfor the Intermediate Indian Saunders Complex are ca.3500 B.P. (Nagle 1978;142). In central and northernLabrador, 3500 B.P. is viewed as a time of cultural dis-continuity between the Maritime Archaic and

340

CHAPTER 14

Intermediate Indians, with changes in tool typology,lithic raw materials and settlement patterns. TheIntermediate Indian complexes exhibit less intensiveuse of the outer coast and a greater orientationtowards the inner coast and interior, as indicated bysite locations and the use of interior cherts. In south-ern Labrador, however, the southern branch LateMaritime Archaic may have developed in situ into theIntermediate Indian complexes (Madden 1976).

The economic and social demands placed on thenorthern Maritime Archaic by their interaction with Pre-Dorset, in conjunction with cultural intrusions alongtheir southern boundary, may have contracted theirspatial distribution and severely affected their abilityto reproduce their cultural system. Already operatingnear their ecological limits and in a potential competi-tive situation with Pre-Dorset, their maintenance of along-distance procurement system for Ramah chertmay have led to organizational over-extension, result-ing in cultural collapse. The question is whether thatcollapse was marked by local extinction or simply areduction in social "complexity" and rapid re-organiza-tion into a more interior-oriented cultural system thathas remained archaeologically invisible because of thelack of research in the interior.

Brief mention should also be made of later Pre-Dorset relationships with Intermediate Indians duringthe period 3500-3000 B.P., although the empiricalbasis for the discussion is considerably weaker. Thereare relatively few radiocarbon dates for Late Pre-Dorsetin Labrador and the limited typological changes intools make it difficult to recognize change until ca.3200 B.P., when facial grinding of burins and notchingof endblades and burins became common (Cox 1978,1988). A few Pre-Dorset sites in the Nain and Okakregions can be slotted into the 3500-3000 B.P. spaneither by radiocarbon dates or typology. In the Nainregion there is Double Island Cove-1, Structure 2(Chapter 12), and Nukasusutok-2 (Cox 1978:99;Fitzhugh 2002). At Okak there is Nuasornak-2,Structures 1, 3 and 4 (Cox 1988), Okak-4 (Cox

1977:204-206, 1978:104), Okak-6 (Cox 1977:217-224) and Green lsland-6 (Cox 1 977:125). The overallimpression, though, is of lower site density than inEarly Pre-Dorset. Too few sites are known to evaluatewhether Late Pre-Dorset settlement patterns wereessentially the same as Early Pre-Dorset. There are fewPre-Dorset sites south of Nain, the southernmost beingrecorded at Cape Aillik, near Makkovik on the centralcoast (Fitzhugh 1981:8). The Cow Head site on thewest coast of Newfoundland (Tuck 1978) contains asmall amount of Late Pre-Dorset material stylisticallysimilar to that from Okak-4 in northern Labrador, pre-sumed to date ca. 3000 B.P.. The Cow Head materialindicates Late Pre-Dorset people made a rapid colo-nization foray through central and southern Labradorabout that time.

Intermediate Indian Saunders Complex sitesoccur along the central coast and as far north asHebron Fjord (Nagle 1978; Hood 1998). Althoughthere are relatively few localities, they are more fre-quent in the Nain and Okak regions than both LateMaritime Archaic and Late Pre-Dorset sites. SaundersComplex sites north of Davis Inlet contain mostlyMugford chert (Nagle 1978:139), which was derivedfrom sources on the northern edge of the Okakregion. Both settlement distribution and raw materialusage therefore indicate that Intermediate Indiangroups moved rather extensively along the north-cen-tral coast of Labrador. Although the data are scanty, itis likely there was some spatial overlap with Late Pre-Dorset and that social boundary questions are alsorelevant in this time period.

NAVIGATION 1:AN ECOLOGICAL NARRATIVE

The Pre-Dorset colonization of the northernmost tip ofLabrador occurred into an open habitat, but once theymoved south of Ramah Bay they entered a region thatwas used seasonally by the Maritime Archaic. South ofthe tree-line, Pre-Dorset encountered regions that inearlier periods were the center of year-round Maritime

THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE-DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADOR

341

Archaic occupation, but which were only sparsely pop-ulated or seasonally exploited by the Indians at thetime of cultural contact. The southern limit of EarlyPre-Dorset settlement in the Nain area suggests furthersouthward colonization was blocked by permanentMaritime Archaic settlement in the Voisey's Bay/DavisInlet region.

Although the two cultures had broadly similar set-tlement patterns, they probably had different organi-zational strategies for resource procurement andmobility. The resident Maritime Archaic populationshad built up detailed knowledge of the Labrador coastand its resources and had regular mobility patternsalong with a repertoire of tested alternatives to copewith variations in resource availability. Their increasingtechnological and social dependence on Ramah chertduring the fifth millennium B.P. was sustained by a rawmaterial procurement system involving long-distanceforays on the part of large multi-family groups. In con-trast, Pre-Dorset colonizers would have been in moreof a "search" mode, moving through a series of newenvironments on a "familiarization tour," learningabout resource distributions and natural conditions.Pre-Dorset might extend by analogy their knowledgeof other areas to Labrador, but their frequent discov-ery of anomalies would necessitate a flexible foragingand organizational repertoire.

The general similarities in the two cultures' sub-sistence-settlement strategies (niche overlap) imply asignificant potential for interference competition on atleast a seasonal basis. The settlement pattern dataindicate that the Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorset usedat least some of the same resource patches, some-times from the same site. The differing organizationalstrategies of the two cultures, however, might result indifferent rankings of site preference. Maritime Archaiclarge group expeditions would require aggregationsites to be located near places where high resourcereturn rates could sustain multi-family longhousegroups, such as good spring/fall harp sealing stationsor predictable caribou hunting locales. Although Pre-

Dorset might be drawn to the same high-return loca-tions, their smaller group sizes, exploratory foragingrepertoire and less culturally-anchored relationshipwith space would allow them more flexibility in choos-ing alternative locations if they discovered their top-ranked locale was already in use by the MaritimeArchaic. In contrast, shifting to lower-ranked localeswas not an easy option for large Maritime Archaicgroups that found Pre-Dorset people ensconced in tra-ditional Maritime Archaic sites, although the largeIndian groups might have encouraged Pre-Dorset inter-lopers to reconsider their camping options.

These place selection dynamics may have shiftedover time. Early in the Pre-Dorset colonization process,when they lacked knowledge of resource distributions,their settlement strategies may have involved "refug-ing" at less optimal resource locales or "floating"through the interstices of Maritime Archaic settlement.This might be considered as asymmetric competitionwith Maritime Archaic dominance relegating Pre-Dorset to secondary locations. But as Pre-Dorsetgained knowledge of resource distributions they mighthave been able to block Maritime Archaic use of opti-mal locations in areas where the Maritime Archaic wereonly seasonal visitors. Thus the likelihood of interfer-ence competition might have increased over time. IfMaritime Archaic settlement was often highly patch-selective, then even modest activity by Pre-Dorsetgroups at key locations could leave the MaritimeArchaic vulnerable to interference effects, while thesmaller scale and more organizationally flexible Pre-Dorset groups may have been less vulnerable.

Potential competitive relations could be mitigatedeither by some form of spatial partitioning or non-over-lapping temporal scheduling of resource use.Fitzhugh's (1984) model suggested territorial behavioron the part of both cultures, organized at both themacro- and micro-scales. Evaluation of the archaeolog-ical and paleoenvironmental data, however, suggeststhat tendencies towards macro-territoriality may beonly a partial or indirect consequence of a competitive

342

CHAPTER 14

situation. The southern boundary of Pre-Dorset activitymight be a historic artifact of IVlaritime Archaic aban-donment of year-round settlement in the Nain and Okal<areas during the fifth millennium B.P., which providedPre-Dorset with a relatively open habitat to colonize.Once that colony was established, the southern bound-ary with the Maritime Archaic was maintained by exclu-sion while interference competition was a seasonal phe-nomenon in the Nain to Ramah Bay regions. But giventhe very limited presence of IVlaritime Archaic in theNain and Okak regions the potential for competitionwould have been greater in the more northerly areas.

Micro-territoriality was probably the primaryresource partitioning strategy for reducing interfer-ence competition. Temporal scheduling seems lesslikely since both cultures' subsistence procurementfocused on similar resource peaks, such as the harpseal migrations, which had relatively limited time win-dows that would require spatial partitioning of accessrather than temporally sequential access. Thestrongest evidence for micro-territoriality comes fromthe Hebron region, with its marked concentrations ofPre-Dorset localities at Harp Isthmus and MaritimeArchaic activity at Nulliak Cove. Some sites in both theouter and inner portions of the Hebron region containtraces of both cultures, but contemporary versussequential use cannot be established given the limitsof existing dating techniques. In Sagiek Bay there isalso a hint of similar micro-territorial concentrations.

A somewhat different spatial pattern is found inthe Nain region. Here there are many small Pre-Dorsetsettlements, but also three or four localities that mightbe considered as repeatedly used central places,though not on the scale of Harp Isthmus or St. John'sHarbour. The only significant Late Maritime Archaicsite in the region is Attu's Bight, which lies only 1.8 kmfrom the Attu's Point Pre-Dorset central place.Radiocarbon dates for the two sites do not supportcontemporaneity, but circumstantial evidence fromstratigraphy and shoreline sequences maintain theremote possibility of temporal overlap. The Attu's

Bight Maritime Archaic site was most likely a seasonaltransit camp used by groups moving north-south alongthe coast using the protected inner passage of PortManvers Run as a travel route. Interestingly, the Runalso contains one of the major concentrations of Pre-Dorset sites in the Nain region and may have chan-neled Pre-Dorset settlement movements between theouter coast at Thalia Point and the inner bay region atWebb Bay. Consequently, Late Maritime Archaicgroups, perhaps based south of the Nain region nearVoisey's Bay, "floated" through the interstices of a Pre-Dorset "territory," either on their way to and fromRamah Bay or on brief seasonal foraging trips to a spe-cific place on Webb Bay.

The geographical proximity of the Attu's Point andAttu's Bight sites has several possible interpretations,depending on the likelihood of contemporaneity. Ifcontemporary, proximity could indicate only mildavoidance behavior or even quasi-mutualism in a low-competition situation in which both cultures exploitedvirtually the same resource patch. Or, proximity mightbe the result of non-simultaneous but broadly-contem-porary occupation resulting from temporal schedulingof occupation in different seasons (e.g.. MaritimeArchaic in the spring, Pre-Dorset in the fall). If the sitesare non-contemporary, and the 4000 B.P. dates fromthe Maritime Archaic locality mark its terminal use-phase, the proximity of the two sites might indicatePre-Dorset usurpation of a previous Maritime Archaicresource patch and central place. None of these possi-bilities can be evaluated thoroughly given the current-ly thin dating situation, but the non-contemporaneousalternative bears some weight.

The foregoing discussion framed the social bound-ary problem in somewhat static terms. The Pre-Dorsetcolonization of Labrador was treated largely as a singleculture-historical event, implicitly as an en masseappropriation of a geographical macro-region over ashort period of time. In most accounts of Arctic prehis-tory, once the culture-historical unit is present in a geo-graphical region colonization is treated as a fait accom-

THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADOR

343

pli and there is little further concern with the dynamicsof the process. Similarly, once the culture contact situ-ation is established, social boundary maintenancecomes into play and macro- and micro-territories areformed and maintained. But both colonization andboundary relations can be understood as more com-plex and discontinuous spatial and temporal process-es. Pre-Dorset movement into and within Labradorcould be seen as consisting of multiple colonizationevents on small geographical scales and as not neces-sarily involving contemporary occupation of contigu-ous regions or a neat sequential filling of regions fromnorth to south. Colonization events could includeunstable "cycling" movements involving repeated re-colonization episodes in particular regions. Thesecycles could represent either failed colonizationattempts or deliberate short term strategies to avoidMaritime Archaic populations. Likewise, MaritimeArchaic settlement strategies were treated as largelythe same over the period in question, but they couldhave involved cycles of greater and lesser activity in thevarious regions, responding to shifts in Pre-Dorsetactions. These short-term cycles might be largelyunrecognizable archaeologically, but they would resultin periodic "re-shuffling" of previous spatial relations.Consequently, the Maritime Archaic/Pre-Dorset bound-ary relationship might have been one of highly contin-gent spatial and social relations, marked by continualre-negotiation rather than static equilibrium.

NAVIGATION 2:A SOCIAL AND IDEOLOGICALLANDSCAPE NARRATIVE

The preceding narrative used the ecological relationsof energy extraction and settlement strategies as anentry point into the boundary problematique. An alter-native narrative takes the entry point of landscape as acultural construct, an arena for action structured bysocial relationships and ideological meanings. Its start-ing block is the distinction between the MaritimeArchaic as an established population and the Pre-

Dorset as colonizers, a contrast previously expressedin ecological terms but also one with important phe-nomenological implications. There are probably impor-tant differences in landscape practices between popu-lations that have been established in an area for manygenerations and those that have newly arrived.

The ca. 4000 year Maritime Archaic presence innorthern Labrador was surely marked by the develop-ment of a culturally-defined landscape that intertwinedsocial practices with places and paths. Some of theseplaces were repeatedly used habitation sites that cameto bear traces of a "built environment" in the form ofpit-houses, longhouses, burial mounds, cemeteries,caches, slab pavements, etc. These physical traces,perhaps especially the graves, connected culturalmemory with place, providing a link with past genera-tions and precedents for contemporary action. In otherwords, they constituted part of long-term culturalstructures. Elsewhere it was argued that spatiallyanchored practices combined with a high degree ofseasonal mobility were important for structuringMaritime Archaic social relations; investment in placesustained "complexity" processes that otherwise tendto be associated with more sedentary systems (Hood1995:99).

Other significant places consisted of unmodifiedportions of the natural environment that containedmeanings derived from cultural tradition and ongoingexperience. It seems likely that the Ramah chert quar-ries had meaning beyond simply being a source of lith-ic material. Located as they were at the extreme north-ern periphery of the Maritime Archaic world, necessi-tating long and potentially risky procurement expedi-tions, the process of acquiring the material and theplaces experienced along the paths to and from thesources may have been associated with an elaborateset of symbolic meanings and practices. Furthermore,given that Ramah chert became the exclusive lithic rawmaterial for the Late Maritime Archaic, was circulatedthousands of kilometers to the south and was associ-ated with mortuary rituals, it is likely that the material

344

CHAPTER 14

had a symbolic loading that permeated a wide range ofsocial practices (cf., Loring 2002).

This social and ideological landscape was not stat-ic, but was slowly transformed physically over time asa result of land uplift and topographic changes as wellas being transformed conceptually and practically dur-ing the course of shifts in demography and social rela-tions. Nonetheless, we might posit a set of long-termstructures entwining both landscape and social prac-tices, structures that provided precedents, guidelinesand legitimation for social action.

In contrast to Maritime Archaic engagement withlong-term landscape structures, the Pre-Dorset colo-nizers experienced movement though what was forthem terra incognita. They entered new landscapes forwhich they had no pre-existing cognitive maps, noknowledge of resource distributions, no coded net-work of known places or paths to relate to. They hadto act without structural precedents, except insofar asthey could extend analogies from previous experienceelsewhere. Flexible resource-searching practices wouldenhance subsistence-related knowledge, but in sodoing the Pre-Dorset were also engaged in construct-ing a culturally meaningful landscape by building upan archive of experiences with places and paths. In thisprocess, Pre-Dorset's consistent use of Mugford chertswould provide a spatial anchor for the process of land-scape construction and perhaps a diacritical materialculture contrast with the long-established MaritimeArchaic use of Ramah chert (Fitzhugh 1984:22). Also,although the establishment of central places for settle-ment may have been premised first and foremost onresource availability, repeated occupation of certainplaces would provide additional reference points forconstruction of a network of places and paths in thelandscape.

Pre-Dorset activity in an established MaritimeArchaic landscape would not only interfere withMaritime Archaic resource extraction, but might hinderor prevent the enactment of important MaritimeArchaic social practices that were linked to specific

places. As discussed previously, even modest interfer-ence effects from Pre-Dorset could have threatenedMaritime Archaic social reproduction, since the lattermay already have been operating near their organiza-tional limit in northern Labrador. But the settlementpattern data suggest the operation of spatial partition-ing mechanisms for mitigating interference effects inthe regions of seasonal overlap between the two cul-tures. In the first narrative these mechanisms werereferred to as "territoriality" in its traditional sense ofgeographically defined packages, but here that termwill be nuanced by returning to Ingold's (1986) discus-sion of the dialectical relationship between tenure andterritoriality.

An alternative reading of the micro-territorialitysuggested for northern Labrador is that it was not struc-tured as control of broad blocks of contiguous space somuch as by the tenure of specific places along specificcultural paths. This seems most clear in the case of theMaritime Archaic, with sites like Nulliak Cove being usedrepeatedly over several centuries, resulting in the accu-mulation of visible features in the landscape, includingancestral burials. These places were repositories of cul-tural memories and important prompts for the enact-ment of cultural practices, some of which were crucialfor sustaining the temporary corporate units of co-resi-dential longhouses (Hood 1995:95). In other words, theplaces were dispersed nodes in a network that boundMaritime Archaic groups into a historical relationshipwith their landscapes. Maritime Archaic claims to tenureover these places, perhaps involving intensified ritual-ization, may have become more crucial when the sea-sonally-used landscapes in northern Labrador were col-onized by year-round Pre-Dorset inhabitants. Tenure ofplace might also clarify the proximity of the MaritimeArchaic Attu's Bight and Pre-Dorset Attu's Point sites inthe Nain area (assuming they were at least partly con-temporary), in that tenure of these two places could bemaintained by their respective cultures without implyingcontrol over a surrounding two-dimensional geographi-cal package. But contemporary tenure of place would

THE STRUCTURATION OF MARITIME ARCHAIC/PRE-DORSETSOCIAL BOUNDARIES IN LABRADOR

345

also necessitate a negotiated appropriation of resourcesto minimize mutual interference, the process Ingold(1 986) termed "territoriality." This could also be an alter-native reading of the central place patterns at Hebronand Saglek.

While Maritime Archaic landscape use might haveprioritized the assertion of tenure over well-establishedplaces and ensuring passage along the paths betweenthese places— reproducing a system of existing rela-tions— Early Pre-Dorset's landscape use was likelymarked by a more flexible "place-making" mode.Without long-term historical linkages to a network ofplaces and paths, and with a social organization consist-ing of small, easily dispersed family units, Early Pre-Dorset could more easily establish new places and hadthe option of moving to less resource-optimal locationsif faced with direct competition for places with the larg-er Maritime Archaic residential groups. Consequently,Early Pre-Dorset boundary maintenance strategies couldbe more negotiable than those of the Maritime Archaic.Such strategies resemble Ingold's (1986) "territoriality":resource appropriation strategies aimed at minimizinginterference in extraction processes and which are situ-ationally contingent, responding to changes in the natu-ral and social environments. Once a regular network ofPre-Dorset places became established (on a generationaltime scale), territorial resource appropriation practiceswould be supplemented by social relations of tenurebased on the assertion of historical connections with thelandscape. These shifts over time in the way resourceswere appropriated, and how they were enfolded in socialrelations, were fundamental to the dynamics of land-scape construction in both cultures.

CONCLUSION

This chapter had two goals. The first was to discussthe culture-historical problem of Maritime Archaic/Pre-Dorset social boundaries within the context of two dif-ferent theoretical entry points. It is debatable whetherthe problem has been advanced much beyond the pre-liminary model proposed by Fitzhugh (1984), but it ishoped that a slightly fuller and updated view of the set-tlement pattern data has been provided and that thealternative interpretative frameworks will encouragefurther assessment of the problem from multiple per-spectives. The second goal was to use the culture-his-torical problem to reflect on the dilemma of working inthe tension area between different archaeological "par-adigms" or ontologies. The two theoretical entry pointswere formulated as independent interpretative frameswithout any explicit effort to build bridges betweenthem. Although there are clearly domains of overlapwhere ecological variables and social strategies slidetogether, there is no point-to-point congruence thatwould permit the development of a coherent "thirdway" narrative or conceptual edifice. The needed lan-guage simply does not exist, at least not yet. But using"landscape" as a common platform for discussion mayfurther the possibility of a social practice ecology thathas been hinted at in recent attempts to rehabilitatethe role of Nature in the theoretical landscape (e.g.,Crumley 1994; Descola and Palsson 1996; Ingold2000; Scoones 1 999).

346

CHAPTER 1 4

Concludine Remarks

This volume binds together a variety of individual sitestudies. As noted in the Introduction, the objective wasnot to formulate a synthetic culture-history for the Mainregion because a large amount of archaeological mate-rial remains to be presented by other researchers.Instead, the goal was to provide a series of analysesand commentaries that would make the most out of thematerial available while being informed by current con-cerns in archaeological theory and method. The differ-ent sections or chapters were to some extent conceivedas separate essays, although the social structuration ofspace was an underlying theme that wove its way in andout. Consequently, the resulting product is not a well-integrated unity but a quilt of different colored pieces,some of which are stitched in more tightly than others.The chapters that highlighted theory and method weredesigned to contrast major contemporary archaeologi-cal perspectives in order to illuminate different parts ofthe conceptual landscape. No synthesis was attemptedsince the tensions between these perspectives resistresolution in a unified text. Addressing these tensionswill undoubtedly vex some of us for the next archaeo-logical generation or two. In any event, the conclusionsdrawn from the studies presented herein were modestin scope and need to be pursued further with a largerset of comparative data.

Given the nature of the archaeological data utilizedhere, the primary focus was on problems of site struc-ture as seen through studies of spatial patterning. Themajor effort was directed towards the Early/MiddleMaritime Archaic site Nukasusutok-5, while other analy-ses were conducted at the Dorset site Nukasusutok-1 2

and the Pre-Dorset sites Attu's Point and Port ManversRun-1. These analyses were guided by the methodolog-ical strategies outlined in Chapter 3, one for MaritimeArchaic sites, another for Paleoeskimo localities. Thestrategies attempted to play off model-based interpre-tation— involving assumptions about longhouses, axialfeatures and indoor/outdoor hearth patterns— againstmodel-independent pattern recognition techniquessuch as /(-means cluster analysis. Some form of "mid-dle-range theory" was considered to be essential forjustifying behavioral inferences, irrespective of whetherthe interpretative goal was functional analysis or theexploration of social practice and meaning. So how didthis approach succeed in the site studies?

At Nukasusutok-5, the longhouse and inside/out-side hearth models provided useful frameworks forinvestigating the spatial patterning, suggesting the pres-ence of "behavioral modules" or rectangular structures atArea 2A, possibly an outside hearth with a concentricfire-cracked rock distribution at Area 2B, and part ofanother behavioral module or rectangular structure atArea 2C. The model-independent quantitative methodsdid not reveal much patterning that would contradict oramplify the model-based interpretations. Overall,although it was possible to generate useful insights intovarious micro-level behaviors, it proved difficult to linkthese together into unambiguous meso/macro-levelinterpretations beyond suggesting the presence of"behavioral modules." The conclusions regarding actionsand practices remain distant from a sense of the peopleand society that produced them, ending up with the"faceless blobs" lamented byTringham (1991).

CONCLUDING REMARKS

347

The ambiguous result is a consequence of two fac-tors. First, the formation history of the site involved anuncertain number of re-occupations that might have gen-erated palimpsest effects and aeolian processes mighthave complicated the spatial structure. Second, we donot know enough about variations in Maritime Archaicdwelling features and site structure. The "longhousemodel" primes us to look for linear hearth and debitagedistributions and rectangular structures (e.g., Aillik,Nulliak Cove), but the model has not been elaborated insufficient detail to capture the full range of spatialdynamics. Furthermore, there are other Maritime Archaicfeatures on the landscape that have not received muchattention, but which may be dwelling related. In sum, asystematic comparative study of Maritime Archaicdwelling features and site structure patterns is needed toprovide firm reference points for future analyses.

Spatial analysis of the Paleoeskimo sites was insome cases facilitated by the presence of well-preservedaxial structures (e.g., Attu's Point L-7, Nukasusutok-1 2)and in other cases hindered by obvious disturbance.Cluster analysis was sometimes helpful in distinguishingtool groupings that otherwise would be visually ambigu-ous, but the small tool sample sizes posed difficulties forunderstanding activity patterning. The tool distributionsdid not indicate much spatial patterning attributable toactivity specialization or gender. The Attu's Point Pre-Dorset site exhibited tendencies toward the spatial sepa-ration of Mugford chert and slate reduction, suggestingdeliberately structured social practices. Refitting studiesare needed to better understand how the deposition andcirculation of raw materials relates to individual actionswithin and outside of dwellings. One of the Dorset axialstructures at Nukasusutok-12 displayed a degree ofbehavioral symmetry in the use of hearths at each end ofthe feature. Given the relatively large size of the feature,two co-residential domestic units might be inferred.

The regional level of spatial structuration was alsoaddressed in several chapters, although in somewhatdifferent ways. The Early/Middle Maritime Archaic settle-ment patterns contemporary with Nukasusutok-5 were

not treated systematically. Instead, Nukasusutok-5 wasused to illustrate some of the methodological problemsinherent in inter-site comparison. Nukasusutok-5 pro-vides a good example of the multi-occupation complex-ity that might be expected on the highly attractive raisedtombolo beaches of northern Labrador. Imagine a simi-lar occupation history at a dozen other Early/MiddleMaritime Archaic sites and it is not hard to grasp why itwas difficult to sort out the chronology of the NaksakComplex, These site formation conditions require thatinter-assemblage comparisons conducted either for thepurposes of chronology building or settlement patternstudies must pay attention to the nature of the unitsbeing compared. It is not only a question of avoidingchronologically mixed samples; we also must ensurethat we compare meaningful "behavioral modules"rather than eclectic samples of poorly contextualizedmaterials. But Nukasustok-5 also shows how difficult itmay be to isolate and understand a context.

The discussions of Pre-Dorset settlement patternsin the Main area (Chapters 1 3 and 1 4) were hamperedby a lack of comparable collections and quantitativedata, so inferences regarding site seasonality and func-tion were impressionistic. A combination of geograph-ical location, dwelling remains and lithic assemblagecontent was used to suggest that Attu's Point was aspring/fall site used within a coast/inner bay annualround. The linear hearths encountered at Port ManversRun-1 and the pit structure at Double Island Cove-1exemplify the need to document a wider range of Pre-Dorset features in order to capture variations in sitestructure and function. Interpretation of the lithicassemblages associated with individual Pre-Dorset fea-tures must be situated within the regional system oftechnological organization. The curation and reductionstaging practices inferred from the Attu's Point lithicmaterials were only local segments of a geographical-ly dispersed decision chain in which people respondedto a changing array of seasonal, situational and socialvariables, as well as raw material availability. In con-trast to the Pre-Dorset context, the treatment of Dorset

348

CHAPTER 1 5

settlement patterns in Chapter 10 was facilitated bybetter information on Dorset feature types with differ-ent seasonal implications (semi-subterranean houses,tent dwellings) and quantitative data from severalDorset lithic assemblages in the Main area. TheNukasusutok-12 Ramah chert materials could there-fore be positioned within the overall system of Dorsettechnological organization.

In contrast to the rather faceless, primarily behav-ioral, interpretation of pre-contact site structure, the1 8*^^-1 9^'^ century Inuit material outlined in Chapter 1 1opened up the realm of people and agency. The ethno-historic sources provided a baseline for interpretingthe social strategies used by Inuit men and women todeal with changing economic and social relations dur-ing a critical juncture of the Contact Period. TheNukasusutok-8 communal house settlement could berelated to real people documented in written sources,although the archaeological record of the site itself issadly deficient. Some of the site inhabitants were well-known "big-men" involved in the baleen trade withEuropeans, and the quantity of European goods foundin two of the graves on Nukasusutok Island may implysuch individuals. However, the graves also indicatedthat the Contact Period was not just a story of b\g-mantraders, since considerable quantities of Europeangoods in two female graves suggested that womenalso attained distinctive social identities.

Contact Period settlement patterns in the Mainarea were outlined in terms of seasonal and functionalvariability. But the settlement history of Nukasusutok-8 also points to changes in the meaning of place thatoccurred during the late 1 8^'^ and early 1 9*^^ centuriesafter the establishment of the Moravian mission.During this time, the Nukasusutok settlement wastransformed from being one of several winter commu-nities in an Inuit landscape to being an isolated "hea-then" outpost that symbolized resistance toChristianity and Moravian-controlled life at the missionvillage of Nain. The case study illustrates the potentialfor Contact Period archaeology to explore the struc-

turation of space in all its dimensions: economic,social and ideological.

Explicitly theoretical interpretation was brought tobear on Late Maritime Archaic and Pre-Dorset socialboundary relations in Chapter 14 because that subjectprovides good raw material for illustrating the tensionsbetween processual and post-processual understand-ings of adaptation and landscape. These archaeologiesoften appear trapped on either side of theNature/Culture dualism, with one failing to see beyondbehaviors optimized relative to energy acquisition andthe other entirely ignoring the food quest in prefer-ence for interpretation of human actors' experience ofa symbolically meaningful landscape. As things standtoday, we lack a theoretical language to bridge thesedifferences, but the term "landscape" can serve as aplatform for dialogue between estranged archaeolo-gies. The discussion presented in Chapter 14 present-ed alternative entry points to the Maritime Archaic andPre-Dorset boundary situation based on evolutionaryecology and a structuration approach. Each narrativewas a partial reading that activated different conceptsrelevant to human practices in the landscape.Empirically, the material culture provided rather equiv-ocal information on contact and interaction betweenthe two cultures, but the site distribution data suggest-ed some degree of spatial partitioning of the land-scape. Understanding this interaction must take intoaccount both potential competition for resources andcultural differences between the landscape relationspracticed by an established population with anentrenched network of significant places, and thosepracticed by a colonizing population that lacked along-term historical relationship with the land.

There are surely many blind spots in this work,some the result of thin or missing data, othersundoubtedly self-inflicted. Attentive readers hopefullywill discern these deficits and treat them as challengesto improve the empirical, methodological and theoret-ical dimensions of archaeology in the Nain region andelsewhere in Labrador.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

349

350

References Cited

Anderson, H. A., M. L. Berrow, V. C. Farmer,A. Hepburn, J. D. Russell, and A. D. Walker

1982 A Reassessment of Podzol Formation Processes.Journal of Soil Science 33:1 25-1 36.

Andrefsky, William

1 998 Lithics. Macroscopic Approaches to Analysis.

Cambridge University Press.Anschuetz, Kurt F., Richard H. Wilshusen, and Cherie

L. Scheick

2001 An Archaeology of Landscapes: Perspectivesand Directions. Journal of Archaeological Research9:1 57-21 1.

Appelt, Martin, Hans Christian Gullov, and Hans Kapel

1 998 The Gateway to Greenland. Report on the FieldSeason 1 996. In Man, Culture and Environment inAncient Greenland, edited by Jette Arneborg andHans Christian Gullov, pp. 1 36-153. Danish PolarCenter Publication No. 4. Danish National IVluseumand Danish Polar Center, Copenhagen.Appelt, Martin, and Hans Christian Gullov (editors)1 999 Late Dorset in High Arctic Greenland. DanishPolar Center Publication No. 7. Danish NationalMuseum and Danish Polar Center, Copenhagen.Aronson, Jerrold L, Rom Harre, and Eileen Cornell Way1 995 Realism Rescued. How Scientific Progress is

Possible. Open Court, Chicago and Lasalle.Audouze, Fran^oise

1987 Des modeles et des faits: les modeles de A.Leroi-Gourhan et de L. Binford confrontes aux resul-tats recents. Bulletin del la Societe PrehistoriqueFran<;aise 84(1 0-1 2):343-352.

Auger, Reginald

1 991 Labrador Inuit and Europeans in the Strait ofBelle Isle: From the Written Sources to the Archaeo-logical Evidence. Collection Nordicana No.55, Cen-tre d'etudes nordiques, Universite Laval, Quebec .

Bamforth, Douglas B.

1991 Technological Organization and Hunter-Gath-erer Land Use: A California Example. AmericanAntiquity 56:216-2 34.

Barsalou, Lawrence W.

1983 Ad Hoc Categories. Memory & Cognition1 1(3):21 1-227.

Barth, Fredrik

1969 Introduction. In Ethnic Groups and Bound-aries, edited by Fredrik Barth, pp. 9-38. Little,Brown and Company, Boston.

Bell, Trevor

1 997 Application of Sea Level History and Geomor-phology to Historic Resources Mapping in theVoisey's Bay Region, Labrador. Appendix A InVoisey's Bay 1996 Environmental Baseline Techni-cal Data Report Historic Resources, byYves Labreche, Fred Schwarz and Bryan Hood.Voisey's Bay Nickel Company, St. John's.

Bender, Barbara (editor)

1993 Landscape: Politics and Perspectives. Berg,

Oxford.Bernstein, Richard J.

1983 Beyond Objectivism and Relativism:Science, Hermeneutics, and Praxis. University ofPennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Binford, Lewis R.

1978a Dimensional Analysis of Site Structure:Learning from an Eskimo Hunting Stand. AmericanAntiquity 43:330-361.

1978b Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology. AcademicPress, New York.

1979 Organization and Formation Processes,Looking at Curated Technologies. Journal ofAnthropological Research 35:255-273.

1 980 Willow Smoke and Dog's Tails: Hunter-GathererSettlement Systems and Archaeological SiteFormation. American Antiquity 45:4-20.

1981 Bones: Ancient Men and Modern Myths.Academic Press, New York.

1982 Objectivity-Explanation-Archaeology, 1981. InTheory and Explanation in Archaeology, edited byColin Renfrew, Michael J. Rowlands and Barbara A.Segraves, pp. 1 25-1 38. Academic Press, New York.

1 983 In Pursuit of the Past: Decoding the Archaeo-logical Record. Thames and Hudson, New York.

1987 Researching Ambiguity: Frames of Referenceand Site Structure. In Method and Theory for Activi-ty Area Research, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 449-512. Columbia University Press, New York.

1991 When the Going Gets Tough, the Tough GetGoing: Nunamiut Local Groups, Camping Patternsand Economic Organisation. In EthnoarchaeologicalApproaches to Mobile Campsites. Hunter-Gathererand Pastoralist Case Studies, edited by C. S.Gamble and W. A. Boismier, pp. 25-1 38. Interna-tional Monographs in Prehistory, Ethnoarchaeologi-cal Series 1, Ann Arbor.

REFERENCES CITED

351

Bird, Junius B.

1945 Archaeology of the Hopedale Area,Labrador. Anthropological Papers of the Ameri-can Museum of Natural History, Volume 39:Part 2.

Blanl<holm, Hans Peter

1991 Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Theory and

Practice. Aarhus University Press.Boles, Bruce, Gerald J. Chaput, and Frank R. Phillips

1980 Offshore Labrador Biological Studies 1979:Seals. A Study and Review of the Distribution andEcology of Pinnipeds in Labrador. Atlantic Biolog-ical Services, St. John's.

Bourdieu, Pierre

1970 La maison Kabyle ou le monde renverse. InEchanges et communications, tome II, edited byJean Pouillon and Pierre Maranda, pp. 739-758.Mouton, The Hague.

Brain, Jeffrey P.

1979 Tunica Treasure. Papers of the PeabodyMuseum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Volume71, Cambridge.

Brice-Bennett, Carol

1977 Land Use in the Main and Hopedale Regions.In Our Footprints are Everywhere, edited by CarolBrice-Bennett, pp. 97-203. Labrador Inuit Associ-ation, Main.

1981 Two Opinions: The Inuit and Moravian Mis-sionaries in Labrador. Unpublished M.A. Thesis,Department of Anthropology, Memorial Universi-ty of Newfoundland, St. John's.

Briggs, Jean L.

1 974 Eskimo Women: Makers of Men. In Many Sis-ters: Women in Cross-Cultural Perspective, editedby Carolyn J. Matthiasson, pp. 261 -304. The FreePress, New York.

Bronk-Ramsey, Christopher

2005 OxCal Program v3.10. Oxford Radiocarbon

Accelerator Unit.Cabak, Melanie

1991 Inuit Women as Catalysts of Change: AnArchaeological Study of 19^^ Century NorthernLabrador. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Departmentof Anthropology, University of South Carolina,Columbia.

Cabak, Melanie, and Stephen Loring

2000 "A Set of Very Fair Cups and Saucers":Stamped Ceramics as an Example of Inuit Incorpo-ration. International Journal of Historical Archaeol-ogy 4:1-34.

Callahan, Errett

1 987 An Evaluation of the Lithic Technology inMiddle Sweden During the Mesolithic and Neolithic.AUN 8, Societas Archaeologica Upsaliensis,Uppsala.

Callahan, Errett, Lars Forsberg, KJel Knutsson, andChristina Lindgren

1992 Frakturbilder. Kulturhistoriska kommentarertill det saregna sonderfallet vid bearbetning avkvarts. TOR 24:27-63.

Canada Soil Survey Committee, Subcommittee onSoil Classification

1978 The Canadian System of Soil Classification.Canadian Department of Agriculture Publication1 646. Supply and Services Canada, Ottawa.

Carothers, John H., and Fabian M.Jaksic

1984 Time as a Niche Difference: the Role of Inter-ference Competition. 0/A:os 42:403-406.

Carr, Christopher

1984 The Nature of Organization of IntrasiteArchaeological Records and Spatial AnalyticApproaches to their Investigation. Advances inArchaeological Method and Theory 7:103-222.

1 987 Dissecting Intrasite Artifact Palimpsests UsingFourier Methods. In Method and Theory for ActivityArea Research, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 236-291.Columbia University Press, New York.

1991 Left in the Dust: Contextual Information inModel-Focused Archaeology. In The Interpretationof Archaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by EllenM. Kroll and T. Douglas Price, pp. 221-256. PlenumPress, New York.

Carsten, Janet, and Stephen Hugh-Jones1995 Introduction: About the House— Levi-Straussand Beyond. In About the House. Levi-Strauss andBeyond, edited by Janet Carsten and Stephen Hugh-Jones, pp. 1 -46. Cambridge University Press.Chi, Michelene T. H.

1992 Conceptual Change Within and Across Onto-logical Categories: Examples from Learning andDiscovery in Science. In Cognitive Models of Science,edited by Ronald N. Ciere, pp. 129-186. MinnesotaStudies in the Philosophy of Science Volume 15,University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis.

Clark, Peter U., and William W. Fitzhugh

1990 Late Deglaciation of the Central LabradorCoast and Its Implications for the Age of GlacialLakes Naskaupi and McLean and for Prehistory.Quaternary Research 34:296-305.

1992 Postglacial Relative Sea Level History of theLabrador Coast and Interpretation of the Archaeo-logical Record. In Paleoshorelines and Prehistory:An Investigation of Method, edited by Lucille LewisJohnson, pp. 1 89-21 3. CRC Press, Boca Raton.

Cox, Steven L.

1 976 Prehistoric Settlement and Culture Change atOkak, Labrador. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Harvard University,Cambridge.

1978 Palaeo-Eskimo Occupations of the NorthLabrador Coast. Arctic Anthropology 1 5(2):96-l 1 8.

1988 Pre-Dorset Occupations of Okak Bay,Labrador. The Northern Raven 7(3): 1-3.

n.d. A Pre-Dorset Sequence from NuasornakIsland, Okak Bay, Labrador. Manuscript on file,Archaeology Section, Culture Heritage Division,St. John's.

2003 Palaeoeskimo Structures in the Okak Regionof Labrador. Etudes/lnuit/Studies 27(1-2):41 7-433.

352

REFERENCES CITED

Cox, Steven L, and Arthur Spiess

1980 Dorset Settlement and Subsistence in

Northern Labrador. Arctic 33:659-669.Crumley, Carol L. (editor)

1 994 Historical Ecology. Cultural Knowledge andChanging Landscapes. School of AmericanResearch Press, Santa Fe.

Cziesia, Erwin

1 990 Siedlungsdynamik auf steinzeitlichen Fund-pldtzen. Metodische Aspekte zur Analyse latenterStrukturen. Studies in Modern Archaeology Volume2. Holos, Bonn.

Cziesia, E., S. Eickhoff, N. Arts, and D. Winter(editors)

1 990 The Big Puzzle. International Symposium onRefitting Stone Artifacts. Studies in Modern Archae-ology I. Holos, Bonn.

Damkjar, Eric

2000 A Survey of Late Dorset Longhouses. In Identi-ties and Cultural Contacts in the Arctic, edited byMartin Appelt, Joel Berglund and Hans ChristianGull0v, pp. 170-180. Danish National Museum andDanish Polar Center, Copenhagen.

Davidson, Donald A.

1987 Podzols: Changing Ideas on their Formation.

Geography 72:1 22-1 28.Davies, H. M.

1974 Geology of Nukasorsuktokh Island. In TheMain Anorthosite Project, Labrador: Field Report1973, edited by S. A. Morse, pp. 81-95. Contribu-tion No.13, Geology Department, University ofMassachusetts, Amherst.

Dekin, Albert A.

1976 Elliptical Analysis: An Heuristic Techniquefor the Analysis of Artifact Clusters. In EasternArctic Prehistory: Paleoeskimo Problems, editedby Moreau S. Maxwell, pp. 79-88. Memoirs of theSociety for American Archaeology No. 31.Descola, Philippe, and Gisli Palsson (editors)1 996 Nature and Society. Anthropological Perspec-tives. Routledge, London.Desrosiers, Pierre M., and Noura Rahmani2003 Analyse spatiale et architecture du sitedorsetien ChCk-63 (Kuujjuarapik, Nunavik).Etudes/lnuit/Studies 27(1 -2):1 31 -1 53.Dobres, Marcia-Anne

2000 Technology and Social Agency. Blackwell,Oxford.

Dyson-Hudson, Rada, and Eric A. Smith

1978 Human Territoriality: An Ecological Reassess-ment. American Anthropologist 80:21 -41.Edwards, Paul N.

1994 Hyper Text and Hypertension: Post-Structuralist Critical Theory, Social Studies of Sci-ence and Software. Social Studies of Science24:229-278.

Ellen, Roy

1996 Introduction. In Redefining Nature. Ecology,Culture and Domestication, edited by Roy Ellenand Katsuyoshi Fukui, pp. 1-36. Berg, Oxford.

Elliott, Deborah L., and Susan K. Short

1979 The Northern Limit of Trees in Labrador: ADiscussion. Arctic 32:201-206.

Enloe, James G., Francine David, and Timothy S. Hare1 994 Patterns of Faunal Processing at Section 27 ofPincevent: The Use of Spatial Analysis and Ethnoar-chaeological Data in the Interpretation of Archaeo-logical Site Structure. Journal of AnthropologicalArchaeology 13:105-1 24.Environment Canada

2002 Canadian Climate Normals 1 961 -1 990: Hope-dale. Http://www.msc-smc.ec.gc.ca/ climate/cli-mate_normals_l 990/show_normals_e.cfm

Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner

2002 The Way We Think. Conceptual Blending andthe Mind's Hidden Complexities. Basic Books, NewYork.

Fitzhugh, William W.

1 972 Environmental Archeology and Cultural Sys-tems in Hamilton Inlet, Labrador. A Survey of theCentral Labrador Coast from 3000 BC to the Pre-sent. Smithsonian Contributions to AnthropologyNumber 16, Washington D.C.

1973 Smithsonian Archaeological Investigations onthe Central Labrador Coast in 1973: A PreliminaryReport. Canadian Archaeological Association Bul-letin 5:78-89.

1975 A Maritime Archaic Sequence from HamiltonInlet, Labrador. Arctic Anthropology 1 2(2):1 1 7-1 38.

1 976a Preliminary Culture History of Nain, Labrador:Smithsonian Fieldwork, 1975. Journal of FieldArchaeology 3:1 23-1 42.

1976b Paleoeskimo Occupations of the LabradorCoast. In Eastern Arctic Prehistory PaleoeskimoProblems, edited by Moreau S. Maxwell, pp. 103-1 1 8. Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeol-ogy No. 31.

1977a Population Movement and Culture Change onthe Central Labrador Coast. In Amerinds and TheirPaleoenvironments in Northeastern North America,edited by Walter S. Newman and Bert Salwen, pp.481-497. Annals of the New York Academy of Sci-ences 288.

1977b Indian and Eskimo/lnuit Settlement History inLabrador: An Archaeological View. In Our Foot-prints are Everywhere, edited by Carol Brice-Ben-nett, pp. 1-42. Labrador Inuit Association, Nain.

1978a Maritime Archaic Cultures of the Central andNorthern Labrador Coast. Arctic Anthropology1 5(2):61-95.

1 978b Winter Cove-4 and the Point Revenge Occupa-tion of the Central Labrador Coast. Arctic Anthro-pology 1 5(2): 146-1 74.

1980 Preliminary Report on the Torngat Archaeo-logical Project. Arctic 33:585-606.

1981a Boulder Pits to Longhouses: Settlement andCommunity Pattern Development in the LabradorMaritime Archaic. Paper Presented to the AnnualMeeting of the Canadian Archaeological Associa-tion, Vancouver.

REFERENCES CITED

353

1981b Smithsonian Archaeological Surveys, Centraland Northern Labrador, 1980. In Archaeology inNewfoundland & Labrador 1980, edited by JaneSproull Thomson and Bernard Ransom, pp. 26-47.Historic Resources Division, Department of Culture,Recreation and Youth, Government ofNewfoundland and Labrador, St. John's.

1984 Residence Pattern Development in theLabrador Maritime Archaic: Longhouse Models and1983 Surveys. In Archaeology In Newfoundland& Labrador, 1983, edited by Jane Sproull Thomsonand Callum Thomson, pp. 6-47. Historic ResourcesDivision, Government of Newfoundland andLabrador, St. John's.

1985a The Nulliak Pendants and Their Relation toSpiritual Traditions in Northeast Prehistory. ArcticAnthropology 22(2):87-l 09.

1 985b Early Maritime Archaic Settlement Studies andCentral Coast Surveys. In Archaeology in New-foundland & Labrador, 1984, edited by Jane SproullThomson and Callum Thomson, pp. 48-78. HistoricResources Division, Government of Newfoundlandand Labrador, St. John's.

1986 Maritime Archaic Field Studies in CentralLabrador and Notes on Northwest Corners. InArchaeology in Newfoundland & Labrador, 1985,edited by Jane Sproull Thomson and Callum Thom-son, pp. 54-65. Historic Resources Division, Gov-ernment of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's.

1 987 Archaeological Ethnicity and the Prehistory ofLabrador. In Ethnicity and Culture, edited byReginald Auger, Margaret F. Class, Scott MacEach-ern and Peter H. McCartney, pp. 141-153. Proceed-ings of the Eighteenth Annual Conference of theArchaeological Association of the University ofCalgary, Calgary.

1994 Staffe Island 1 and the Northern LabradorDorset-Thule Succession. In Threads of ArcticPrehistory: Papers in Honour of William E. Taylor,jr., edited by David Morrison and Jean-Luc Pilon,pp. 239-268. Archaeological Survey of Canada Mer-cury Series Paper 149, Canadian Museum of Civi-lization, Ottawa.

1997 Biogeographical Archaeology in the EasternNorth American Arctic. Human Ecology 25:385-4 18.

2002 Nukasusutok-2 and the Paleoeskimo Transi-tion in Labrador. In Honoring our Elders. A Historyof Eastern Arctic Archaeology, edited by William W.Fitzhugh, Stephen Loring and Daniel Odess,pp. 133-1 62. Contributions to Circumpolar Anthro-pology 2, National Museum of NaturalHistory, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.

2006 Settlement, Social and Ceremonial Change in theLabrador Maritime Archaic. The Archaic of the FarNortheast, edited by David Sanger and M.A.P.Renouf. Pp. 47-82. Orono: University of Maine Press.

Fitzhugh, William W., and H. F. Lamb

1985 Vegetation History and Culture Change inLabrador Prehistory. Arctic and Alpine Research1 7:357-370.

Flenniken, J. Jeffrey

1981 Replicative Systems Analysis: A ModelApplied to the Vein Quartz Artifacts from the HokoRiver Site. Washington State University Laboratoryof An thropology, Reports of Investigations No.59. Hoko River Archaeological Project Contribu-tion No. 2.

Fox, Manasse

1979 Nukagek Unatannigik (The Brother's War).

Them Days 4:14.Galison, Peter

1 996 Computer Simulations and the Trading Zone. InThe Disunity of Science. Boundaries, Contexts, andPower, edited by Peter Galison and David J. Stump,pp. 118-1 57. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Gamble, Clive

1 999 The Paleolithic Societies of Europe. CambridgeUniversity Press.

Gargett, Rob, and Brian Hayden

1 991 Site Structure, Kinship, and Sharing in Aborig-inal Australia: Implications for Archaeology. In TheInterpretation of Archaeological Spatial Patterning,edited by Ellen M. Kroll and T. Douglas Price, pp.1 1 -32. Plenum Press, New York.

Cero, Joan M.

1991 Genderlithics: Women's Roles in Stone ToolProduction. In Engendering Archaeology. Womenand Prehistory, edited by Joan M. Gero and Mar-garet W. Conkey, pp. 1 63-1 93. Blackwell, Oxford.

Giddens, Anthony

1979 Central Problems in Social Theory. Action,Structure and Contradiction in Social Analysis.University of California Press, Berkeley.

1 984 The Constitution of Society. University of Cali-fornia Press, Berkeley.

Giere, Ronald N.

1 994 The Cognitive Structure of Scientific Theories.

Philosophy of Science 61:276-296.Giffen, Naomi Musmaker

1 930 The Roles of Men and Women in EskimoCulture. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Golovnev, Andrei V., and Gail Osherenko

1 999 Siberian Survival. The Nenets and Their Story.Cornell University Press, Ithaca.

Gordon, Bryan C.

1 996 People of Sunlight, People of Starlight. Bar-renland Archaeology in the Northwest Territoriesof Canada. Archaeological Survey of Canada Mer-cury Series Paper 154, Canadian Museum of Civi-lization, Ottawa.

Gordon, Diana

1 980 Reflections on Refuse: A Contemporary Exam-ple from James Bay, Quebec. Canadian Journal ofArchaeology 4:83-98.

Gramly, Richard Michael

1978 Lithic Source Areas in Northern Labrador.

Arctic Anthropology 1 5(2):36-47.Creenacre, Michael J.

1993 Correspondence Analysis in Practice. Acade-mic Press, London.

354

REFERENCES CITED

Grigor'ev, Gennadii Pavlovich

1967 A New Reconstruction of the Above-CroundDwelling of Kostenki. Current Anthropology8:344-349.

1 993 The Kostenki-Avdeevo Archaeological Cultureand the Willendorf-Pavlov-Kostenki-AvdeevoCultural Unity. In From Kostenki to Clovis. UpperPaleolithic—Paleo-lndicin Adaptations, edited byOlga Soffer and N. D. Praslov, pp. 51-65. PlenumPress, New York.

Gronnow, Bjarne

1994 Qeqertasussuk— The Archaeology of aFrozen Saqqaq Site in Disko Bugt, West Greenland.In Threads of Arctic Prehistory: Papers in Honourof William E. Taylor, Jr., edited by David Morrisonand Jean-Luc Pilon, pp. 197-238. ArchaeologicalSurvey of Canada Mercury Series Paper 1 49, Cana-dian Museum of Civilization, Ottawa.

Gronnow, Bjarne, and Jens Fog Jensen

2003 The Northermost Ruins of the Globe. EigilKnuth's Archaeological Investigations in PearyLand and Adjacent Areas of High Arctic Green-land. Meddelelser om Cr0nland, Man & Society 29.

Gronnow, Bjarne, and Morten Meldgaard

1991 De forste vestgr0nlaendere. TidsskriftetCr0ji/(3n£/ 39(4-7): 103-1 44.

Guemple, Lee

1986 Men and Women, Husbands and Wives: TheRole of Gender in Traditional Inuit Society.Etudes/lnuit/Studies 1 0(1 -2):9-24.

Gullov, Hans Christian

1 983 Fortidsminner i Nuuk kommune— inuit-kul-turens bopladser. Kalaallit Nunaata katersugaasiviaand Nationalmuseet, Nuuk.

1997 From Middle Ages to Colonial Times. Med-delelser om Cronland, Man and Society 23.

Gullsv, Hans Christian, and Hans Kapel

1988 De palaeoskimoiske kulturer i Nuuk Kom-mune. In Palceoeskimoisk Forskning i Gronland,edited by Tinna Mobjerg, Bjarne Gronnow andHelge Schultz-Lorentzen, pp. 39-58. Aarhus Univer-sitetsforlag, Aarhus.

Harp, Elmer Jr.

1 963 Evidence of Boreal Archaic Culture in South-ern Labrador and Newfoundland. National Museumof Canada, Bulletin No. 193, Ottawa.

1976 Dorset Settlement Patterns in Newfoundlandand Southeastern Hudson Bay. In Eastern ArcticPrehistory: Paleoeskimo Problems, edited by More-au S. Maxwell, pp. 119-138. Memoirs of the Societyfor American Archaeology No. 31.

Harre, Rom

2002 Cognitive Science. A Philosophical Introduc-tion. Sage Publications, London.Harre, Rom, and Michael Krausz1996 Varieties of Relativism. Blackwell, Oxford.Hawkes, E. W.

1916 The Labrador Eskimo. Geological Survey ofCanada Memoir 91, Anthropological Series No. 14,Department of Mines, Ottawa.

Haakanson, Sven David, Jr.

2000 Ethnoarchaeology of the Yamal Nenets: Utiliz-ing Emic and Etic Evidence in the Interpretation ofArchaeological Residues. Unpublished Ph.D. Disser-tation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard Uni-versity, Cambridge.

Hayden, Brian

1980 Confusion in the Bipolar World: Bashed Peb-bles and Splintered Pieces. Lithic Technology 9:2-7.

Hayden, Brian, Nora Franco, and Jim Spafford1996 Evaluating Lithic Strategies and Design Crite-ria. In Stone Tools. Theoretical Insights into HumanPrehistory, edited by George Odell, pp. 9-45.Plenum Press, New York.Henriksen, Georg

1 973 Hunters in the Barrens. The Naskapi on theEdge of the White Man's World. Institute of Socialand Economic Research, Memorial University ofNewfoundland, St. John's.

Hietala, Harold J.

1 984 Intrasite Spatial Analysis in Archaeology.

Cambridge University Press.Hiller, James

1971 Early Patrons of the Labrador Eskimos: TheMoravian Mission in Labrador, 1764-1805. InPatrons and Brokers m the Eastern Arctic, edited byRobert Paine, pp. 74-97. Institute of Social and Eco-nomic Research, Memorial University of Newfound-land, St. John's.

Hirsch, Eric and Michael O'Hanlon (editors)

1995 The Anthropology of Landscape: BetweenSpace and Place. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

Hodder, Ian

1 982 Symbols in Action. Cambridge University Press.1987 The Meaning of Discard: Ash and Domestic

Space in Baringo. In Method and Theory for Activity

Area Research, edited by Susan Kent, pp. 424-448.

Columbia University Press, New York.1990 The Domestication of Europe. Basil Blackwell,

Oxford.

1 999 The Archaeological Process. An Introduction.Blackwell, Oxford.

2001 Introduction: A Review of ContemporaryTheoretical Debates in Archaeology. In Archaeolog-ical Theory Today, edited by Ian Hodder, pp. 1-1 3.Polity Press, Cambridge.

Hodder, Ian, and Clive Orton

1976 Spatial Analysis in Archaeology. Cambridge

University Press.Hood, Bryan C.

1981 The Maritime Archaic Occupation of Nuka-susutok Island, Nain, Labrador. Unpublished M.A.Thesis, Department of Anthropology, Trent Univer-sity, Peterborough.

1986 Nukasusutok-1 2: Early/Middle Dorset AxialStructures From the Nain Region, Labrador.In Palaeo-Eskimo Cultures in Newfoundland,Labrador and Ungava, pp. 49-64. Reports inArchaeology No.l, Memorial University of New-foundland, St. John's.

REFERENCES CITED

355

1988 Sacred Pictures, Sacred Rocks: Ideologicaland Social Space in the North Norwegian StoneAge. Norwegian Archaeological Review 21(2):65-84.

1993 The Maritime Archaic Indians of Labrador:Investigating Prehistoric Social Organization.Newfoundland Studies 9:1 63-1 84.

1995 Circumpoiar Comparison Revisited: Hunter-Gatherer Complexity in the North NorwegianStone Age and the Labrador Maritime Archaic.Arctic Anthropology 32(2):75-l 05.

1998a Archaeological Surveys Between the Nainand Hebron Regions, Northern Labrador, 1997.Report Submitted to the Cultural Heritage Divi-sion, Department of Tourism and Culture, St.John's, http://nfmuseum.com/9721 Ho.htm.

1998b Theory on Ice: the Discourse of EasternCanadian Arctic Paleo-Eskimo Archaeology. ActaBoreaha 1 5(2):3-58.

2000 Pre-Dorset/Maritime Archaic Social Bound-aries in Labrador. In Identities and Cultural Con-tacts in the Arctic, edited by Martin Appelt, JoelBerglund and Hans Christian Cull0v, pp. 1 20-1 28.Danish National Museum and Danish Polar Cen-ter, Copenhagen.

Hood, Bryan C, and Gary Baikie

1998 Mineral Resource Development, Archaeolo-gy and Aboriginal Rights in Northern Labrador.Etudes/lnuit/Studies 22(2):7-29.

House, John H., and David L. Ballenger

1976 An Archaeological Survey of the Interstate77 Route in the South Carolina Piedmont. Instituteof Archaeology and Anthropology, University ofSouth Carolina, Columbia.

Ingold, Tim

1986 The Appropriation of Nature. University ofIowa Press, Iowa City.

1993 The Temporality of the Landscape. WorldArchaeology 2S{2):] 52-1 74.

1 996 Hunting and Gathering as Ways of Perceivingthe Environment. In Redefining Nature. Ecology,Culture and Domestication, edited by Roy Ellenand Katsuyoshi Fukui, pp. 1 1 7-1 55. Berg, Oxford.

2000 The Perception of the Environment: Essayson Livelihood, Dwelling and Skill. Routledge, Lon-don.

Jackson, M. L.

1 958 Soil Chemical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Engle-

wood Cliffs.Jensen, Jens Fog

1994 Den to-delte bolig- en rumlig analyse af etmidtergangsildsted og dets oldsagsinventar.Gr0nlandsk kultur og samfunds forskning 94:66-87. Ilisimatusarfik/Atuakkiorfik, Nuuk.

1996 Paleo-Eskimo Sites and Finds in SkjoldungenDistrict, South East Greenland. In The Paleo-EskimoCultures of Greenland, edited by Bjarne Gronnow,pp. 1 43-1 69. Danish Polar Center, Copenhagen.

Johnson, J. Peter Jr.

1969 Late Glacial Origin of the Sandbanks, WebbBay, Labrador. Canadian Geographer 1 3(2):99-1 12.

1985 Geomorphic Evidence and the Upper MarineLimit in Northern Labrador. In Our GeographicMosaic: Research Essays in Honour of G. C. Merrill,edited by D. B. Knight, pp. 70-91. Carleton Univer-sity Press, Ottawa.

Jordan,Peter

2003 Material Culture and Sacred Landscape. TheAnthropology of the Siberian Khanty. AltamiraPress, Walnut Creek.

Jordan, Richard H.

1974 Preliminary Report on Archaeological Investi-gations of the Labrador Eskimo in Hamilton Inlet in1 973. Man in the Northeast 8:77-89.

1977 Inuit Occupation of the Central LabradorCoast Since 1600 AD. In Our Footprints are Every-where, edited by Carol Brice-Bennett, pp. 43-48.Labrador Inuit Association, Nain.

1978 Archaeological Investigations of the HamiltonInlet Labrador Eskimo: Social and EconomicResponses to European Contact. Arctic Anthropolo-gy 1 5(2):1 75-1 85.

1 980 Preliminary Results from Archaeological Inves-tigations on Avayalik Island, Extreme NorthernLabrador. Arctic 33:607-627.Jordan, Richard H., and Susan A. Kaplan1 980 An Archaeological View of the Inuit/EuropeanContact Period in Central Labrador.Etudes/lnuit/Studies 4(1 -2):35-45.Julien, Michele, Claudine Karlin, and Pierre Bodu1987 Pincevent: Ou en est le modele theoriqueaujourd'hui? Bulletin de la Societe PrehistoriqueFrangaise 84(10-12): 335-342.Kaplan, Susan A.

1 983 Economic and Social Change in Labrador Neo-Eskimo Culture. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,Department of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr College,Bryn Mawr.

1985 European Goods and Socio-Economic Changein Early Labrador Inuit Society. In Cultures in Con-tact. The European Impact on Native Cultural Insti-tutions in Eastern North America, A.D. 1000-1800,edited by William W. Fitzhugh, pp. 45-69. Smithson-ian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Karklins, Karlis

1992 Trade Ornament Usage Among the NativePeoples of Canada. A Source Book. Studies inArchaeology, Architecture and History, NationalHistoric Sites, Canadian Parks Service, EnvironmentCanada, Ottawa.

Karlin, C, and M. Julien

1 994 Prehistoric Technology: A Cognitive Science? InThe Ancient Mind. Elements of a Cognitive Archaeol-ogy, edited by Colin Renfrew and Ezra B. W. Zubrow,pp. 1 52-1 64. Cambridge University Press.

356

REFERENCES CITED

Keddy, Paul A.

1989 Competition. Chapman and Hall, London.Keene, Arthur S.

1983 Biology, Behavior and Borrowing: A CriticalExamination of Optimal Foraging Theory in Archae-ology. In Archaeological Hammers and Theories,edited by James A. Moore and Arthur S. Keene, pp.1 37-1 55. Academic Press, New York.

Kelly, Robert L.

1988 The Three Sides of a Biface. AmericanAntiquity 53;71 7-734.

1 995 The Foraging Spectrum. Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. Smithsonian Institution Press,Washington D.C.

Kennedy, John C.

1995 People of the Bays and Headlands. Anthropo-logical History and the Fate of Communities in theUnknown Labrador. University of Toronto Press,Toronto.

Kidd, Kenneth E., and Martha Ann Kidd

1 970 A Classification System for Glass Beads for theUse of Field Archaeologists. Canadian HistoricSites, Occasional Papers in Archaeology andHistory 1:45-89.

Kintigh, Keith W., and Albert Ammerman

1982 Heuristic Approaches to Spatial Analysis inArchaeology. American Antiquity 47:31 -63.

Klein, Richard G.

1 969 l^an and Culture in the Late Pleistocene. A

Case Study. Chandler, San Francisco.Knuth, Eigil

1967a Archaeology of the Musk Ox Way. Contribu-tions du Centre d'Etudes Arctiques et Finno-Scandi-naves No. 5. Paris.

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

1968 The Independence II Bone Artifacts and theDorset-evidence in North Greenland. Folk 1 0:61 -80.

1983 The Northernmost Ruins of the Globe. Folk25:5-21.

Knutsson, Kjel

1998 Convention and Lithic Analysis. In Third FlintAlternatives Conference at Uppsala, edited by LenaHolm and Kjel Knutsson, pp. 71-93. OccasionalPapers in Archaeology 1 6, Department of Archaeol-ogy and Ancient History, Uppsala University.

Koetje, Todd A.

1 987 Spatial Patterns in Magdalenian Open AirSites from the Isle Valley, Southwestern France.B.A.R. International Series 346, Oxford.

1994 Intrasite Spatial Structure in the EuropeanUpper Paleolithic: Evidence and Patterning from theSW of France. Journal of Anthropological Archaeol-ogy ] S:] 6]-] 69.

Kramer, Finn Erik

1 996 Akia and Nipisat I: Two Saqqaq Sites in Sisim-iut District, West Greenland. In The Paleo-EskimoCultures of Greenland. New Perspectives in Green-landic Archaeology, edited by Bjarne Gronnow, pp.65-96. Danish Polar Center, Copenhagen.

Kuhn, Thomas S.

2000 The Road Since Structure. PhilosophicalEssays 1970-1993. Edited by James Conant andJohn Haugeland. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.

Kuijt, Ian, William C. Prentiss, and David L. Pokotylo

1995 Bipolar Reduction: An Experimental Study ofDebitage Variability. Lithic Technology 20:116-127.

Labreche, Yves, Fred Schwarz, and Bryan Hood

1997 Voisey's Bay 1996 Environmental BaselineTechnical Data Report: Historic Resources. Voisey'sBay Nickel Company, St. John's.

Lacelles, Bruce, Roland Bol, and David Jenkins

2000 The Role of 1 4C Datmg in Ironpan Formation.The Holocene 1 0:281-285.

Landes, Ruth

1 968 Ojibwa Religion and the Midewiwin. University

of Wisconsin Press, Madison.Latour, Bruno

1993 We Have Never Been Modern. Translated by

Catherine Porter. Pearson Education, Harlow.Lazenby, M. E. Colleen

1980 Prehistoric Sources of Chert in NorthernLabrador: Field Work and Preliminary Analyses.Arctic 33:628-645.

1 984 Ramah Chert Use Patterns in the MaritimeArchaic Period in Labrador. Unpublished M.A. The-sis, Department of Anthropology, Bryn Mawr Col-lege, Bryn Mawr.

Leacock, Eleanor B., and Nan A. Rothschild (editors)

1 994 Labrador Winter. The Ethnographic journalsof William Duncan Strong, 1927-1928. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington D.C.

LeBlanc, Raymond

1992 Wedges, Pieces Esquillees, Bipolar Cores andOther Things: An Alternative to Shott's View of BipolarIndustries. North American Archaeologist 1 3(1 ):1 -1 4.

LeBlanc, Sylvie, and Murielle Nagy (editors)

2003 Architecture paleoesquimaude/PaleoeskimoArchitecture. Etudes/lnuit/Studies 27(1-2).

LeMoine, Genevieve, James Helmer, and BjarneGronnow

2003 Late Dorset Architecture on Little CornwallisIsland, Nunavut. Etudes/lnuit/Studies 27(] -2):2SS-280.

Leroi-Gourhan, Andre, and Michel Brezillion

1972 Fouilles de Pincevent. Essai d'analyse ethno-graphique d'un habitat Magdalenien. Vile supple-ment a Gallia Prehistoire. CNRS, Paris.

Levi-Strauss, Claude

1963 Structural Anthropology. Basic Books,

New York.Loring, Stephen G.

1983 An Archaeological Survey of the Inner BayRegion Between Nain and Davis Inlet, Labrador: AReport of 1982 Fieldwork. In Archaeology in New-foundland & Labrador 1982, edited by Jane SproullThomson and Galium Thomson, pp. 32-56. HistoricResources Division, Government of Newfoundlandand Labrador, St. John's.

REFERENCES CITED

357

1985 Archaeological Investigations into theNature of the Late Prehistoric Indian Population inLabrador: A Report on the 1984 Field Season. InArchaeology in Newfound land & Labrador 1984,edited by Jane Sproull Thomson and GaliumThomson, pp. 1 22-1 53. Historic Resources Divi-sion, Government of Newfoundland and Labrador,St. John's.

1989 Tikkoatokak (HdCI-1): A Late Prehistoric Indi-an Site Near Nain. In Archaeology in Newfoundland& Labrador 1986, edited by Galium Thomson andJane Sproull Thomson, pp. 32-56. HistoricResources Division, Government of Newfoundlandand Labrador, St. John's.

1 992 Princes and Princesses of Ragged Fame: InnuArchaeology and Ethnohistory in Labrador. Unpub-lished Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthro-pology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst.

1998 The Archaeology of Eskimo Hutte (lkDb-2):Inuit Sovereignty in the Torngat. Etudes/lnuit/Stud-les 22(2):53-76.

2001 Archaeology with the Innu at Kamistastin.Arctic Studies Center Newsletter 9;1 0-1 1.

2002 "And They Took Away the Stones fromRamah": Lithic Raw Material Sourcing and EasternArctic Archaeology. In Honoring Our Elders: A His-tory of Eastern Arctic Archaeology, edited byWilliam W. Fitzhugh, Stephen Loring and DanielOdess, pp.163-185. Gontributions to GircumpolarAnthropology 2, National Museum of Natural His-tory, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.G.

Loring, Stephen, and Steven L. Cox

1986 The Postville Pentacostal Groswater Site,Kaipokok Bay, Labrador. In Palaeo-Eskimo Culturesin Newfoundland, Labrador and Ungava, pp. 65-93. Reports in Archaeology No.l, Memorial Univer-sity of Newfoundland, St. John's.

Lothrop, Jonathan, and Richard Michael Cramly1982 Piece Esquillee from the Vail Site. Archaeolo-gy of Eastern North America 10.1-22.Luedtke, Barbara E.

1999 Cunflints in the Northeast. NortheastAnthropology 57:27-43.

Lysaght, A.M.

1 971 Joseph Banks in Newfoundland and Labrador,1776. His Diary, Manuscripts and Collections.Faber and Faber, London.

MacDonald, George F.

1 968 Debert. A Palaeo-lndian Site in Central NovaScotia. Anthropology Papers No.l 6, National Muse-ums of Ganada, Ottawa.

Madden, Marcie

1976 A Late Archaic Sequence in SouthernLabrador. Unpublished M.A. Thesis, Department ofAnthropology, Memorial University of Newfound-land, St. John's.

Martijn, Charles A., and Norman Clermont (eds.)

1 980 Les Inuit du Quebec -Labrador meridional. TheInuit of Southern Quebec -Labrador.Etudes/lnuit/Studies 4(1 -2).

Masterman, Margaret

1 970 The Nature of a Paradigm. In Criticism and theGrowth of Knowledge, edited by Imre Lakatos andAlan Musgrave, pp. 59-89. Cambridge UniversityPress.

Maxwell, Moreau S.

1985 Prehistory of the Eastern Arctic. Academic

Press, Orlando.McChee, Robert

1971 An Archaeological Survey of Western VictoriaIsland, N.W.T., Ganada. National Museum of Cana-da Bulletin 232:1 58-1 91.

1979 The Palaeoeskimo Occupations at PortRefuge, High Arctic Canada. Archaeological Surveyof Ganada Paper No. 92, National Museums ofGanada, Ottawa.

1996 Ancient People of the Arctic. UBG Press,Vancouver.

McGhee, Robert, and James A. Tuck

1975 An Archaic Sequence from the Strait of BelleIsle, Labrador. Archaeological Survey of GanadaMercury Series Paper No. 34, National Museums ofGanada, Ottawa.

Meyer, J., and E. Montague

1 993 Soapstone Reconnaissance Survey in the OkakArea, Northern Labrador. Newfoundland Depart-ment of Mines and Energy, Geological SurveyBranch, Current Research Report 93-1:357-36l.

1994 Soapstone in the Hopedale Area. Newfound-land Department of Mines and Energy, GeologicalSurvey Branch, Current Research Report 94-1:273-278.

1995 Dimension Stone in Labrador. NewfoundlandDepartment of Mines and Energy, Geological SurveyBranch, Current Research Report 95-1:1 53-1 58.

Mikalsen, Tor

2001 Teltliv i Gronlands steinalder. Romlig analyseav steinartefakter pa Saqqaqboplasser. Unpub-lished Hovedfag Thesis, Institute for Archaeology,University of Troms0.

Moore, T. R.

1 976 Sesquioxide-Gemented Soil Horizons in North-ern Quebec: Their Distribution, Properties and Gen-esis. Canadian Journal of Soil Science 56:333-344.

Morlan, Richard E.

2001 -2005 Canadian Archaeological Association

Radiocarbon Database (CARD). Http://www.canadi-anarchaeology.ca/radiocarbon/card/card.htm.

Morphy, Howard

1995 Landscape and the Reproduction of theAncestral Past. In The Anthropology of Landscape.Perspectives on Place and Space, edited by EricHirsch and Michael O'Hanlon, pp. 184-209.Clarendon Press, Oxford.

358

REFERENCES CITED

Morse, Stearns A.

1971 Operational Report. In The Nain AnorthositeProject, Labrador: Field Report 1971, edited byStearns A. IVlorse, pp. 73-100. Contribution No. 9,Geology Department, University of Massachusetts,Amherst.

Mobjerg, Tinna

1998 The Saqqaq Culture in the Sisimiut Municipal-ity Elucidated by the Two Sites Nipisat and Asummi-ut. In Man, Culture and Environment in AncientGreenland, edited by Jette Arneborg and HansChristian Gullov, pp. 98-118. Danish Polar CenterPublication No. 4. Danish National Museum andDanish Polar Center, Copenhagen.

1 999 New Adaptive Strategies In the Saqqaq Cultureof Greenland, c. 1600-1400 BC. World Archaeology30:452-465.

Nagle, Christopher L.

1 978 Indian Occupations of the Intermediate Periodon the Central Labrador Coast: A Preliminary Syn-thesis. Arctic Anthropology 1 5{2):1 1 9-145.

1984 Lithic Raw Materials Procurement andExchange in Dorset Culture Along the LabradorCoast. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Departmentof Anthropology, Brandeis University, Waltham.

1986 Flaked Stone Procurement and Distributionin Dorset Culture Sites Along the Labrador Coast. InPalaeo-Eskimo Culture in Newfoundland, Labradorand Ungava, pp. 95-110. Reports in ArchaeologyNo.l, Memorial University of Newfoundland,St. John's.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration(NOAA)

2003 WDC for Paleoclimatology. Http://www.ngdc.

noaa.gov/paleo/data.html.Nelson, Margaret C.

1991 The Study of Technological Organization.

Archaeological Method and Theory 3: 5 7-100.Nersessian, Nancy J., and Hanne Andersen1997 Conceptual Change and Incommensurability:

A Cognitive-Historical View. Danish Yearbook of

Philosophy 32:1 11-151.O'Connell, James F.

1 987 Alyawara Site Structure and Its Archaeological

implications. American Antiquity 52:74-1 08Odell, George H.

1996 Economizing Behavior and the Concept of"Curation." In Stone Tools. Theoretical Insights intoHuman Prehistory, edited by George H. Odell, pp.51-80. Plenum Press, New York.

Odgaard, Ulla

2001 lldstedet som livscentrum. Aspekter af ark-tiske ildsteders funktion og ideologi. UnpublishedPh.D. dissertation, Institute for Prehistoric Archae-ology, Medieval Archaeology, Ethnography andSocial Anthropology, Aarhus University.

2003 Hearth and Home of the Palaeo-Eskimos.Etudes/lnuit/Studies 27(1 -2):349-374.

Olsen, BJornar

1998 Saqqaq Housing and Settlement in SouthernDisko Bay, West Greenland. Acta Borealia1 5(2):81-1 28.

Parry, William J., and Robert L. Kelly

1 987 Expedient Core Technology and Sedentism. InThe Organization of Core Technology, edited by JayK.Johnson and Carol A. Morrow, pp. 285-304. West-view Press, Boulder.

Pearson, Michael Parker, and Colin Richards

1994 Ordering the World: Perceptions of Architec-ture, Space and Time. In Architecture and Order.Approaches to Social Space, edited by MichaelParker Pearson and Colin Richards, pp. 1 37.Routledge, London.

Penney, Gerald

1997 Historic Resources Overview Assessment ofOne Diamond Drill Site for NDT Ventures. Manu-script on File, Archaeology Section, Cultural Her-itage Division, St. John's.

Periodical Accounts (P.A.)

1790-1811 Periodical Accounts Relating to the

Missions of the Church of the United Brethren,Established Among the Heathen. Volumes 1-5.London.

Perles, Catherine

1992 In Search of Lithic Strategies. A CognitiveApproach to Prehistoric Chipped Stone Assem-blages. In Representations in Archaeology, edit-ed by Jean-Claude Gardin and Christopher S.Peebles, pp. 223-247. Indiana University Press,Bloomington and Indianapolis.

Plumet, Patrick

1 985 Archeologiede I'Ungava: le site de la Pointeaux Belougas (Qilalugarsiuvik) et les maisonstongues Dorsetiennes. Collection Paleo-QuebecNo. 18, Laboratoire d'archeologie de I'Universitedu Quebec a Montreal, Montreal.

1989 Le foyer dans I'Arctique. Actes du colloguede Nemours 1987, Memoires du Musee de prehis-toire d'lle de France 2:31 3-325.

Preucel, Robert W., and Ian Hodder

1 996 Communicating Present Pasts. In Contempo-rary Archaeology in Theory. A Reader, edited byRobert W. Preucel and Ian Hodder, p. 3-20. Black-well, Oxford.

Raab, L. Mark, Robert F. Cande, and David W.Stable

1979 Debitage Graphs and Archaic SettlementPatterns in the Arkansas Ozarks. Mid-ContmentalJournal of Archaeology 4:1 67-182.

Ramsden, Peter, and Maribeth Murray

1995 Identifying Seasonality in Pre-Dorset Struc-tures in Back Bay, Prince of Wales Island, NWT.Arctic Anthropology 32(2):1 06-1 1 7.

Renfrew, Colin

1989 Comments on Archaeology into the 1990s.Norwegian Archaeological Review 22(1 ):33-41.

REFERENCES CITED

359

Renouf, M. A. P.

1 977 A Late Paleo-lndian and Early Archaic Sequencein Southern Labrador. Man in the Northeast1 3:35-44.

1993 Palaeoesl<imo Seal Hunters at Port au Choix,Northwestern Newfoundland. Newfoundland Studies9:1 85-21 2.

Richling, Barnett

1993 Labrador's "Communal House Phase" Recon-sidered. Arctic Anthropology 30(1 ):67-78.

Rowley, Graham, and Susan Rowley

1997 Igloolik Island Before and After JorgenMeldgaard. In Fifty Years of Arctic Research.Anthropological Studies from Greenland to Siberia,edited by R. Cilberg and H. C. Cullov, pp. 269-276.Publications of the National Museum of Denmark,Ethnographical Series Vol. 18, Copenhagen.

Ryan, B.

1 990 Geological Map of the Nain Plutonic Suite andSurrounding Rocks (Nain-Nutak, NTS 14Sw). New-foundland Department of Mines and Energy, Geo-logical Survey Branch, Map 90-44, Scale 1:500000.

Ryan, B., R. J. Wardle, C. F. Cower, and G. A. G. Nunn

1995 Nickel-Copper-Sulphide Mineralization inLabrador: The Voisey Bay Discovery and Its Explo-ration Implications. Newfoundland Department ofMines and Energy, Geological Survey Branch,Current Research Report 95-1 1 77-204.

Sahlins, Marshall D.

1963 Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-Man, Chief: PoliticalTypes in Melanesia and Polynesia. ComparativeStudies in Society and History 5:285-303.

Samson, Gilles

1978 Preliminary Cultural Sequence and Palaeo-Environmental Reconstruction of the Indian HouseLake Region, Nouveau-Quebec. Arctic Anthropology1 5(2):1 86-205.

Savelle, James M.

1 984 Cultural and Natural Formation Processes of aHistoric Inuit Snow Dwelling Site, Somerset Island,Arctic Canada. American Antiquity 49:S08-524.

Sayer, Andrew R.

1 992 Method in Social Science: A Realist Approach.

Second Edition. Routledge, London.2000 Realism and Social Science. Sage, London.Schiffer, Michael B.

1 972 Archaeological Context and Systemic Context.

American Antiquity 37:1 56-1 65.1987 Formation Processes of the Archaeological

Record. University of New Mexico Press, Albuquerque.2000 Social Theory in Archaeology: Building

Bridges. In Social Theory in Archaeology, edited

by Michael B. Schiffer, pp. 1-13, University of

Utah Press, Salt Lake City.Schlanger, Nathan

1994 Mindful Technology: Unleashing the chaineoperatoire for an Archaeology of Mind. In TheAncient Mind. Elements of Cognitive Archaeology,edited by Colin Renfrew and Ezra B. W. Zubrow, pp.143-151. Cambridge University Press.

Schledermann, Peter

1976 Thule Communal Houses in Labrador. Arctic29:27-37.

1 990 Crossroads to Greenland. Komatik Series No. 2,

The Arctic Institute of North America, Calgary.Schoener, T. W.

1974 The Compression Hypothesis and TemporalResource Partitioning. Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences USA 71:41 69-41 72.

Scoones, I.

1999 New Ecology and the Social Sciences: WhatProspects for a Fruitful Engagement? Annual Reviewof Anthropology 28:479-507.

Seguin, Jocelyne

1 995 La Structuration de I'espace des sites d'habi-tation et des ateliers de taille. Archeologiques9:33-46.

Short, Susan K.

1978 Palynology: A Holocene EnvironmentalPerspective for Archaeology in Labrador-Ungava.Arctic Anthropology 1 5(2):9-35.

Shott, Michael J.

1989 Bipolar Industries; Ethnographic Evidence andArchaeological Implications. North AmericanArchaeologist 1 0:1 -24.

Simek, Jan F.

1 984 A K-Means Approach to the Analysis of SpatialStructure in Upper Paleolithic Habitation Sites. BARInternational Series 205, Oxford.

Spencer, Robert F.

1959 The North Alaskan Eskimo. A Study in Ecologyand Society. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin171, Washington.

Speth, John D., and Gregory A. Johnson

1 976 Problems in the Use of Correlation for Investi-gation of Tool Kits and Activity Areas. In CulturalChange and Continuity, edited by Charles Cleland,pp. 35-75. Academic Press, New York.

Spielmann, Katherine Ann

1 986 Interdependence Among Egalitarian Societies.

Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 5:279-31 2.Spiess, Arthur

1978 Zooarchaeological Evidence Bearing on theNain Area Middle Dorset Subsistence-SettlementCycle. Arctic Anthropology 1 5(2):48-60.

Stapert, Dick

1989 The Ring and Sector Method: Intrasite SpatialAnalysis of Stone Age Sites, with Special Referenceto Pincevent. Palaeohistoria 31:1-5 7.

Stapert, Dick, and Lykke Johansen

1 996 Ring & Sector Analysis, and Site 'IT' on Green-land. Palaeohistoria 37/38:29-69.

StatSoft, Inc.

2002 Electronic Statistics Textbook. StatSoft, Tulsa.

http://www.statsoft.com/textbook/stathome.html.Steinbring, Jack H.

1 981 Saulteaux of Lake Winnipeg. In Handbook ofNorth American Indians. Volume 6. Subarctic,edited by June Helm, pp. 244-255. SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington D.C.

360

REFERENCES CITED

Stevenson, Marc G.

1991 Beyond the Formation of Hearth-AssociatedArtifact Assemblages. In The Interpretation ofArchaeological Spatial Patterning, edited by EllenM. Kroll and T. Douglas Price, pp. 269-299. PlenumPress, New York.

Steward, Julian H.

1 95 5 Theory of Culture Change. The Methodologyof Multilinear Evolution. University of Illinois Press,Urbana.

Stewart, T. Dale

1939 Anthropometric Observation on the Eskimosand Indians of Labrador. Field Museum of NaturalHistory Anthropology Series 31(1):1-163.

Stopp, Marianne P.

1997 Long-Term Coastal Occupancy Between CapeCharles and Trunmore Bay, Labrador. Arctic50(2):1 19-1 37.

2002 Reconsidering Inuit Presence in SouthernLabrador. Etudes/lnuit/Studies 26(2):71-1 06.

Strong, William Duncan

1930 A Stone Culture from Northern Labrador andIts Relation to the Eskimo-Like Cultures of theNortheast. American Anthropologist 32:1 26-1 44.

Stuiver, Minze, Pieter. M. Crootes, and Thomas F.Braziunas

1995 The CISP2 ^^0 Climate Record of the Past16,500 Years and the Role of the Sun, Ocean andVolcanoes. Quaternary Research 44:341 -354.

Sutherland, Patricia

2003 Variability and Change in Palaeo-EskimoArchitecture: A View from the Canadian High Arctic.Etudes/lnuit/Studies 27(1 -2): 1 91 -21 2.

Sutton, Douglas, Bryan Hood, and William Fitzhugh1981 In Quest of Dorset Subsistence Strategies:1980 Excavations at Okak-1 and No-Name Island,Labrador. In Archaeology in Newfoundland &Labrador 1980, edited by Jane Sproull Thomsonand Bernard Ransom, pp. 48-57. Historic ResourcesDivision, Government of Newfoundland andLabrador, St. John's.Tanner, Adrian

1979 Bringing Home Animals. Religious Ideologyand Mode of Production of the Mistassini CreeHunters. Institute of Social and Economic Research,Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's.

Tanner, Vaino

1 944 Outlines of the Geography, Life and Customsof Newfoundland-Labrador. Acta CeographicaFenniae 8 (1, parts 1,2). Helsinki.

Taylor, J. Garth

1 966 Field Notes. Site Survey in the Nain-Okak Area,Northern Labrador. Manuscript No. 713, Archaeo-logical Survey of Canada Archives.

1969 William Turner's Journeys to the CaribouCountry with the Labrador Eskimos in 1780.Ethnohistory 1 6(2): 1 41 -1 64.

1 974 Labrador Eskimo Settlements of the Early Con-tact Period. Publications in Ethnology No. 9, Nation-al Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

1 976 The Inuit Middleman in the Labrador BaleenTrade. Unpublished Manuscript.

1979a Tuglavina. In Dictionary of Canadian Biogra-phy, Volume 4, edited by F. C. Halpenny, p. 740.University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

1979b Indian-lnuit Relations in Eastern Labrador,1 600-1 976. Arctic Anthropology 1 6:49-58.

1983 The Two Worlds of Mikak. Part I. The Beaver,Outfit 314:3:4-1 3.

1 984 The Two Worlds of Mikak. Part II. The Beaver,Outfit 314:4:18-25.

1985 The Arctic Whale Cult in Labrador.Etudes/lnuit/Studies 9(2):1 21-1 32.

1 988 Labrador Inuit Whale Use During the Early Con-tact Period. Arctic Anthropology 2S{]y.] 20-1 30.

1989 Shamanic Sex Roles in Traditional LabradorInuit Society. In Shamanism: Past and Present, edit-ed by M. Hoppal, O.J. von Sadovszky, pp. 297-306.ISTOR Books, Budapest—Los Angeles/Fullerton.

1990 The Labrador Inuit Kashim (CeremonialHouse) Complex. Arctic Anthropology 27(2):51 -67.

Thagard, Paul

1 992 Conceptual Revolutions. Princeton University

Press, Princeton.Thomson, J. Galium

1981 Preliminary Archaeological Findings FromShuldham Island, Labrador, 1980. In Archaeologyin Newfoundland & Labrador 1980, edited by JaneSproull Thomson and Bernard Ransom, pp. 5-25.Historic Resources Division, Government of New-foundland and Labrador, St. John's.

1982 Archaeological Findings from Sagiek Bay,1 981. In Archaeology in Newfoundland <S Labrador1981, edited by Jane Sproull Thomson and BernardRansom, pp. 5-31. Historic Resources Division,Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, St.John's.

1983 Maritime Archaic Longhouses and Other Sur-vey Results from Outer Sagiek Bay, NorthernLabrador, August 1982. In Archaeology in New-foundland & Labrador 1982, edited by Jane SproullThomson and Bernard Ransom, pp. 3-31. HistoricResources Division, Government of Newfoundlandand Labrador, St. John's.

1984 Maritime Archaic Occupation of Big Island,Sagiek Bay: A Preliminary Report. In Archaeology inNewfoundland & Labrador 1983, edited by JaneSproull Thomson and Bernard Ransom, pp. 48-54.Historic Resources Division, Government of New-foundland and Labrador, St. John's.

1985 Caribou Trail Archaeology: 1985 Investiga-tion of Sagiek Bay and Inner Sagiek Fjord. InArchaeology in Newfoundland & Labrador 1985,edited by Jane Sproull Thomson and Bernard Ran-som, pp. 9-53. Historic Resources Division, Gov-ernment of Newfoundland and Labrador, St.John's.

1989 The Caribou Trail Continues: A Survey ofWhite Point, Between Sagiek and Hebron. InArchaeology in Newfoundland & Labrador 1986,

REFERENCES CITED

361

edited by Jane Sproull Thomson and Bernard Ran-som, pp. 27-51. Historic Resources Division, Gov-ernment of Newfoundland and Labrador, St. John's.Tilley, Christopher

1 994 A Phenomenology of Landscape. Berg, Oxford.1999 Metaphor and Material Culture. Biacl<well,

Oxford.Tringham, Ruth E.

1 991 Households with Faces: The Challenge of Cen-der in Prehistoric Architectural Remains. In Engen-dering Archaeology. Women and Prehistory, editedby Joan M. Gero and Margaret W. Conkey, pp. 93-131. Blackwell, Oxford.

Trudel, Francois

1980 Les relations entre les frangais et les Inuit auLabrador meridional, 1 660-1 760. ffw<^e5///iw/f/Studies A (1-2): 1 35-145.

Tuck, James A.

1971 An Archaic Cemetery at Port au Choix,Newfoundland. American Antiquity 36:343-358.

1 975 Prehistory of Sagiek Bay, Labrador: Archaicand Palaeo-Eskimo Occupations. ArchaeologicalSurvey of Canada Mercury Series Paper No. 32,National Museums of Canada, Ottawa.

1 976 Ancient People of Port au Choix. The Excava-tion of an Archaic Indian Cemetery in Newfound-land. Institute of Social And Economic Research,Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's.

Tuck, James A., and Robert McChee

1975 Archaic Cultures in the Strait of Belle IsleRegion, Labrador. Arctic Anthropology 1 2(2):76-91.

Turner, Lucien M.

1 894 Ethnology of the Ungava District, Hudson BayTerritory. Eleventh Report of the Bureau of Ethnolo-gy, Smithsonian Institution, 1 889-1 890:1 59-350.

Ucko, Peter J., and Robert Layton (editors)

1 999 The Archaeology and Anthropology of Land-scape. Shaping Your Landscape. Routledge, London.

VanStone, James W.

1 985 Material Culture of the Davis Inlet and BarrenGround Naskapi: The William Duncan StrongCollection. Fieldiana Anthropology, New Series No. 7.

Wandsnider, LuAnn

1996 Describing and Comparing ArchaeologicalSpatial Structures. Journal of ArchaeologicalMethod and Theory 3:31 9-384.

Way, Jacob Edson III

1 978 An Osteological Analysis of a Late Thule/EarlyHistoric Labrador Eskimo Population. UnpublishedPh.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,University of Toronto.

Wenner, Carl-Gosta

1947 Pollen Diagrams from Labrador. Ceografiska

Annaler 29:] 37-373.Wheeler, E. P.

1 953 List of Labrador Eskimo Place Names. Nation-al Museum of Canada Bulletin No. 131, Ottawa.

Whitelaw, Todd M.

1991 Some Dimensions of Variability in the SocialOrganisation of Community Space Among For-agers. In Ethnoarchaeological Approaches to MobileCampsites. Hunter-Gatherer and Pastoralist CaseStudies, edited by C. S. Gamble and W. A. Boismier,pp. 1 39-1 88. International Monographs in Prehisto-ry, Ethnoarchaeological Series 1, Ann Arbor.

1994 Order Without Architecture: Functional, Socialand Symbolic Dimensions in Hunter-Gatherer Set-tlement Organization. In Architecture & Order.Approaches to Social Space, edited by Michael Park-er Pearson and Colin Richards, pp. 217-243. Rout-ledge, London.

Whiteley, William H.

1979 Mikak. In Dictionary of Canadian Biography,Volume 4, edited by F. G. Halpenny, pp. 536-537.University of Toronto Press, Toronto.

Wiens, J. A.

1977 On Competition and Variable Environments.

American Scientist 65:590-597.Woollett, James M.

1999 Living in the Narrows: Subsistence Economyand Culture Change in Labrador Inuit Society Duringthe Contact Period. World Archaeology 3Q):370-3?,7.

Wyatt, A. C. N.

1 934 Surveying Cruises of H.M.S Challenger off theCoast of Labrador in 1 932 and 1 933. Geographicaljournal 84:33-53.

Wylie, Alison

1 989 Archaeological Cables and Tacking: The Impli-cations of Practice for Bernstein's 'Options BeyondObjectivism and Relativism'. Philosophy of SocialScience 1 9:1 -1 8.

2000 Questions of Evidence, Legitimacy, and the(Dis)Union of Science. American Antiquity 6'h:227-237.

Yates, Timothy

1989 Habitus and Social Space: Some SuggestionsAbout Meaning in the Saami (Lapp) Tent ca. 1 700-1 900. In The Meanings of Things. Material Cultureand Symbolic Expression, edited by Ian Hodder,pp. 249-262. Unwin Hyman, London.

Yellen, John E.

1 977 Archaeological Approaches to the Present:Models for Reconstructing the Past. AcademicPress, New York.

Yodzis, Peter

1 978 Competition for Space and the Structure ofEcological Communities. Lecture Notes inBiomathematics 25. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.Zimmerly, David William

1 975 Cain's Land Revisited. Culture Change in Cen-tral Labrador I 775-1972. Institute of Social andEconomic Research, Memorial University of New-foundland, St. John's.

362

REFERENCES CITED

Index

a

Aillik, 7, 8, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 119, 341, 348

Anaktalak Bay, 4, 1 6

Anaktalik Brook, 1 8

Anshuetz, Kurt, 323

Apkajunna, 222

Arctic Small Tool Tradition, 9

Attu's Point, 2, 16, 224, 245, 252, 253, 260, 270,271, 273-318, 320, 331, 332, 333, 334, 336,343, 345, 347, 348

Aumarak, 222

Australian hunter-gather cultures, 323, 329

b

Ballybrack Mound, 2, 7Ballybrack-10, 7, 16Barren Ground Innu, 3Basque contact, 11, 214

Binford, Lewis R., 24-25, 32, 34, 35, 38, 42-44

Bird, Junius B., 3, 240, 241

Black Island Complex, 6, 7, 322, 340

Black Island Cove, 26

Bradore, Quebec, 214

Brinex Complex, 6, 8

Button Islands, 4

Byron Bay, 216

f"

Cabot, W. B., iv

Cape Charles region, 11

Cape Mugford, 8, 9, 1 78, 1 83, 320, 337

Cartwright, George, 214

Charles Complex, 6, 8

Chateau Bay, 214

Comfort Cove, 51

Conrad, Geoff, iv, 3

Courtemanche, Sieur de, 214

Cow Head, 341

Cox, Steven, 3

Cree, 34, 40-41

d

Daniel Rattle Complex, 6, 8, 9David Michelin Complex, 6David site, 36, 37, 38Davis Inlet Innu, 3Davis Inlet, 4

Disko Bay, West Greenland, 45, 46Dog Bight L-3, 205, 206, 207, 209, 332Dog Island, 187, 210, 332

Dorset cultures, iv, 3-5, 9,10, 44, 45, 47, 53, 189-21 2, 333, 337-338, 340, 341, 348-349

Early Dorset, 10, 45, 54, 59, 189, 205, 209-310

Early/Middle Dorset, 2, 53-54, 189-21 1

Late Dorset, 4, 9-1 1, 36-38, 47, 113,1 89, 200, 209-211, 239

Late Pre-Dorset, 8, 9, 53-55, 57, 259, 332, 341Middle Dorset, 9, 10, 59, 205, 209-212Pre-Dorset, iv, vi, 2, 3-4, 9-10, 49, 224, 245, 252,

253, 260, 270, 271, 273-318, 320, 331, 332,

333, 334, 336, 343, 345, 347, 348Dutch contact, 214

p

Early Contact Period Thule (see Thule)

Early Dorset (see Dorset)

Early/Middle Dorset (see Dorset)

Early/Middle Maritime Archaic (see Maritime Archaic)

Ellesmere Island, 36

English contact, 11,21 4, 216, 220, 223, 232, 236,

237, 242"Eskimo," iv, 3, 5, 215Eskimo Island, 32

f

Field Museum of Natural History, 21 3

'Tirst Rattle," 1 9

Fitzhugh, William, 3, 1 76, 320

Fornel, Louis, 214

Fort York, 214

Eraser River, 13,18

Freestone Harbour, 1 5

French contact, 11,214, 228, 240-141

French Paleolithic, 24

George River, iv

Greenland, 17, 36, 38, 44-48, 232, 314, 318, 320,340

Groswater Phase, 6, 9-10

h

Hamilton Inlet, iv, 3-7, 8, 9-1 0, 1 1, 1 6, 28, 35, 1 1 9,

1 76, 214, 21 6, 217, 223, 229, 232, 322, 340Harmony Run, 1 5

INDEX

363

Harp Isthmus, 321, 337, 338, 33Harp, Elmer, 3

Hebron Fjord, 4, 7, 8, 27, 321, 336, 337, 341Hopedale, 3, 9, 1 1, 1 4, 21 3, 21 4, 21 7, 21 8, 22 3,

227, 240Hubbard, Mina, ivHumby's Island, 1 5, 1 9, 21 1, 21 2

Iglosiatik Island, 4, 1 5Iglusuaktallaluk, 210, 336Ikkarlussuup, 45Immllikulik Island, 31 8

Indian House Lake (Hutte de la Sauvage), iv, 4, 333Ingold, Tim, 323-324, 327, 330, 345, 346Innu, iv, 1, 4, 5, 9, 13, 26, 27, 32, 40, 214Barren Ground, 3Davis Inlet, 3Labrador, 40Pre-Contact Indian, 5Pre-lnnu, 319

Intermediate Indian Saunders Complex, 8-9, 1 5, 337,340-341

Inuit, iv, V, 1-5, 9-1 1, 1 5, 1 7-1 9, 44, 51, 53, 54, 58,

21 1, 21 3-244, 340, 349Inuit/Paleoeskimo, 5Inuit/Pre-lnuit Sequence, 9-10, 319Labrador, 53, 21 1Post-Contact, 21 3-244

James Bay, Quebec, 34Jerusalem Harbour, 337, 338Johnson, Peter, iv, 20Jordan, Richard, 3,215Jordan-Kaplan model, 21 5

If

Kaipokok Bay, 1 0

Kaplan, Susan, 4, 21 1, 21 5

Kiglapait Mountains, iv, 13, 18, 19

Kigluana, 221, 222

Killinek, iv, 4, 1 3

Kingurutik Lake, 1 8

Kogaluk River, 1 3, 333

Kostenki, 37-38

I

L'Anse Amour, 5, 7

Labrador (general), iv-vi, 1-12, 319-346Late Maritime Archaic (see Maritime Archaic)Late Dorset (see Dorset)Late Pre-Dorset (see Dorset)Little Lake Component, 6Loring, Stephen C, 4, 34

Makkovik, 4, 7, 8, 27, 1 1 9, 341

Maritime Archaic cultures, v, 2-8, 9, 15,6,1 7, 23-44,

49, 50, 53-1 86Early, 3, 5, 16, 1 75

Early/Middle, 2, 5, 7, 1 5, 44, 61 -1 86

Late, 7-9, 27, 34, 1 50, 175, 245-271, 273, 308, 320-

321, 331-338, 340, 341, 349Marsal (French trader), 214McChee, Robert, 3Meldgaard, Morten, vii, 22Middle Dorset (see Dorset)Mikak, 216-220, 241, 242Millik, 221Mistassini Cree, 40Moravians, iv, 11, 1, 216-219Morse, Stearns (Tony), ivMount Pickle Harbour-1, 53, 54, 58, 59Mount Thoresby, 1 3

Nachvak Fiord, 1 5Nachvak, 10, 15, 217, 218Nain (general), iv, 1 -22Nain Pond, 16, 338

Naksak Complex, 6, 7, 54, 57-58, 1 75-1 76, 1 83, 348Napartok Bay, 4,13,15Naskapi (Innu), iv, 3, 13Nenets culture, 40-41Neo-Eskimo, 21 5

Newfoundland, vi, 8, 1 0, 1 7, 1 96, 202, 332, 341"No-Name Island," 1 5, 21 1Northwest River Phase, 6Nuasornak, 4, 336, 337, 341

Nukasusutok Island, v, vi, 1- 3, 13-1 5, 1 8-19, 52-244,349

Nukasusutok-1, 53-56, 57Nukasusutok-2, 53-57, 259, 332, 334Nukasusutok-3, 54Nukasusutok-4, 54-56

Nukasusutok-5, 2, 5, 16, 22, 49-51, 53, 54, 56, 60,

61-186, 347-348Nukasusutok-6, 54, 55, 57

Nukasusutok-7, 53, 54, 213, 220, 224, 230, 239Nukasusutok-8, 53, 43, 21 1, 21 3, 220, 223, 225-229,

231, 240-243, 349Nukasusutok-9, 53, 54, 57Nukasusutok-1 0, 54, 57, 58Nukasusutok-1 1, 54, 58

Nukasusutok-1 2, 53, 54, 1 88, 189-211, 347-349

Nukasusutok-1 3, 54, 55, 58

Nukasusutok-1 4, 54, 55, 58

Nulliak Cove, 7, 8, 27, 28, 30-31, 270, 320, 321,

337, 340, 343, 345, 348Nuvotanaluk, 337, 338

OJibway, 40

Okak Bay, 8, 1 5, 1 76, 209, 336,

Okak region, 3, 7, 9, 10, 1 3, 1 5-19, 20, 26, 210,

218, 222, 316, 317, 320, 335, 340, 343Okak-2, 7, 26, 28, 1 76, 337Okak-3, 47, 210Okak-4, 341Okak-6, 336, 341"Old Stone Culture," 3

364

INDEX

p

Paleoeskimo, v, 1, 2, 3 5, 8, 9, 23, 26, 36, 41, 44-49,

52, 314-31 5, 347, 348Pattiguk, 221Paul Island, 1 5, 230, 333Peabody Museum, Phillips Academy, 21 3Pearyland Independence, 47Pierce, C. S., 325Pincevent, France, 24Point Revenge Complex, 6, 9, 35, 239Port au Choix, Newfoundland, 3, 8, 1 51Port Manvers Run, iv, 2, 244, 245-272, 273, 295, 348Portuguese contact, 11, 214Postville, 10Pre-Dorset (see Dorset)

q

Qeqertassusuk, Greenland, 320Quebec Cree, 40

r

Ramah Bay, 7, 1 5, 31, 1 80, 320,336, 338, 341, 343Rasmussen, Knud, 48

Rattlers Bight Phase, 3, 6, 7, 8, 26, 28, 30, 31, 68,1 51, 1 76, 261, 262, 265, 270-271, 320, 321,335, 340

Rawson-MacMillan Subarctic Expedition, 3, 213, 225

Red Islands, 1 5

Richling, Barnett, 215-216

Rigolet, 214

Road Component, 6

Rose Island Site Q, 240, 241, 319, 338

Russian Upper Paleolithic, 37, 38

Sagiek Bay, 3, 4, 9, 10, 30, 183, 240, 241, 317, 319,

320, 332, 336, 338, 343Sami culture, 39, 48

Sandy Cove Complex, 6, 7, 63, 1 1 9, 1 75, 1 76, 262,268

Saqqaq culture, 45, 31 5Sattugana, 220, 221

Saunders Complex, 6, 8, 9, 337, 340, 341

"Second Rattle," 1 5, 20, 255, 332, 333

Seguin, Jocelyne, 34-35

September Harbour-1 site, 332

Seven Islands Bay, 1 0

Sikfigak, 217

Sikkuliak, 221

Sipukat Bay, 317, 336

Siugakuluk-2, 337

Skjoldungen District, Greenland, 46

Smithsonian Torngat Archaeological Project, 4

Snyder Bay, 51

Soapstone Tickle, 1 5

South Aulatsivik Island, 1 3, 1 5, 1 6, 1 9, 20, 245, 260,

31 8, 332, 333Spanish contact, 11, 214Steward, Julian H., 5Strait of Belle Isle, 3, 5, 1 3, 214

Strathcona Run, 1 5

Strong, William Duncan, v, 2, 3, 21 3, 239Strong Grave Collection, 239Sutton, Doug, vii, 22

Tabor Island, 1 5Tasisuak Lake, 1 8Tasiuyak Bay, 1 9Taylor, Helga, 220Taylor, J. Garth, 3, 53, 225

Thalia Point, iv, 1 9, 20, 245, 270, 272, 332, 333,

334, 343Thomson, Galium, 4Thule culture, 4, 9, 1 1, 38, 21 1, 21 3Early Contact Thule, 1 1Thule/lnuit sites, 1 1Tikkoatokak Bay, 1 5Tilley, Christopher, 323Torngat Archaeological Project, 27Torngat Mountain Region, 10Tuck, James, 3, 31 9Tuglavina, 216-220, 241, 242

V

Village Bay, iv

Voisey's Bay, 4, 13, 16, 20, 222, 333, 335, 342, 343

Wallace, Dillon, iv

Webb Bay, 1, 2, 1 3, 1 9-20, 245-271, 273-31 7, 332,

33, 343Wells, Peter, ivWheeler, E. P., ivWindy Tickle, 9

Yolngu culture, 329

INDEX

365

OTHER TITLES IN THE SERIES

Contributions to CircumpolarAnthropology)

Vol. 1: Gateways Exploring the Legacy of the Jesup North Pacific Expedition,] 897-]902. Edited byIgor Krupnik and William W. Fitzhugh. Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, DC. 2001. xvi+335 pp.

Vol. 2; Honoring Our Elders: A History of Eastern Arctic Anthropology. Edited by William W. Fitzhugh,Stephen Loring, and Daniel Odess. Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, DC. 2002. xvi + 319 pp.

Vol. 3: Al<uzilleput Igaqullghet/Our Words Put to Paper: Sourcebook in St. Lawrence Island Yupik Heritageand History. Edited by Igor Krupnik, Willis Walunga, and Vera Metcalf. Compiled by Igor Krupnik and Lars Krutak.Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 2002. 464 pp.

Vol. 4; Constructing Cultures Then and Now: Celebrating Franz Boas and the Jesup North Pacific Expedition.Edited by Lauren Kendall and Igor Krupnik. Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, DC. 2003. xviii+364 pp.

Vol. 5: Taymyr: The Archaeology of Northernmost Eurasia. By Leonid P. Khiobystin. Edited byWilliam W. Fitzhugh and Vladimir V. Pitulko. Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History,Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC. 2005. xxvii+235 pp.

Vol. 6: Northern Ethnographic Landscapes: Perspectives from Circumpolar Nations. Edited by Igor Krupnik,Rachel Mason, and Tonia Horton. Arctic Studies Center, National Museum of Natural History, SmithsonianInstitution, Washington, DC. 2004. xvi+446 pp.

366

For information and ordering this or any other volume in the series

Contributions to Circumpolar Anthropologtj

please contact:

Arctic Studies CenterPO Box 3701 2

Anthropology Department, MRC 1 12National Museum of Natural HistoryWashington, DC 2001 3-701 2

(202) 633-1 887 phone(202) 357-2684 faxwww.mnh.si.edu/arctic

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION LIBRARIES

9088 01468 8287

Bryan Hood is professor of archaeology at the Institute for Archaeology, University of Tromso, Norway, witha focus on comparative arctic archaeology, as well as general theory and method. He has participated inarchaeological fieldwork in Labrador, northern Norway, Russia's Kola Peninsula, Greenland and Baffin Island.He has written on subjects ranging from the theoretical basis of eastern Arctic Paleoeskimo archaeology, tonorth Norwegian Stone Age rock art and lithic procurement, to the sociopolitics of resource development-related archaeology in Labrador. His current research includes a cognition theory approach to the early his-tory of North American arctic archaeology and anthropology, the early post-glacial colonization of northernNorway, the prehistory of the interior regions of north Norway, as well as house structures and society dur-ing the initial Early Metal Period of north Norway and the Kola Peninsula.

ISBN: 10: 0-9816142-0-5ISBN 13: 978-0-9816142-0-5

ISBN =17fl-D-1fllLmE-0-5

Smithsonian

National Museum of Natural History

5 3 49 5

9 I780981II614205