LeMoine, Genevieve

ARCTIC

English

Genevieve LeMoine

Crossref

Fifty Years of Arctic Research: Anthropological Studies from Greenland to Siberia, edited by R. Gilberg and H.C. Gulløv

University of Calgary Journal Hosting

222 •  REVIEWSwere exchanged independently and intact through variousprocesses of diffusion. I believe that both processes under-lie his ultimate interpretation, which he illustrates in aseries of complex figures that show the distribution of theharpoon head types within Greenland and map at least fourpaths of these traditions into and around Greenland.This work is the author’s Ph.D. dissertation, and itexhibits some of the strengths and weaknesses character-istic of such documents. One of its real strengths is mas-sive scope; it tries to integrate diverse lines of complex andoften confusing evidence into a unified whole. However,this monograph occasionally displays an uneasy blend oftheory and description, also characteristic of dissertations.The above quotation concerning harpoon heads, as well asa more lengthy discussion in chapter 6, seem to representthe philosophy behind his interpretation rather than anexposition of the method used to identify the “paralleltraditions.” Certainly he does not explain how to determineindependently which of the several possible “meanings” isresponsible for the shape of any given harpoon head type.On the basis of my own interests and research, I findGulløv’s treatment of two topics unconvincing. Part of histhesis is that one of the “parallel traditions” derived fromcontact between people of the Thule and Dorset cultures.I have elsewhere argued that the preponderance of evi-dence, including harpoon head styles and radiocarbondates, does not provide convincing proof for such culturecontact (Park, 1993). There is no need to repeat thosearguments here, but I am no longer alone in questioning atleast some of the commonly cited evidence for Dorset-Thule contact (Kleivan, 1996).I am also concerned with Gulløv’s reliance on problem-atic radiocarbon dates, especially since chronology isimportant to many of his conclusions. Many of the excava-tions were carried out years ago, and therefore some of theradiocarbon dates reported here were also obtained quite awhile ago. However, I am unconvinced that dates run onturf (or “turf containing blubber from slag horizon,” p. 88)or on marine materials (including harp seal and guillemotbones, walrus ivory, and baleen) provide any useful chrono-logical information. Rather than listing all the objectionsto the use of such materials, especially those from migra-tory sea mammals, I will simply cite Tuck and McGhee’s(1983) excellent discussion on the topic. In addition todrawing heavily on such suspect radiocarbon dates, Gulløvelsewhere rejects at least one date run on wood because it“seems too early” (p. 450). He also reinterprets the impres-sively tight cluster of dates obtained by McCullough (1989)on Ruin Island phase sites. He claims that, rather thanreflecting a relatively brief phenomenon in the late 12th orearly 13th century, these dates indicate that Ruin Islandlasted from the 13th through the 15th century (p. 453).Despite such criticisms, this volume deserves a place onthe shelves of scholars interested in the prehistory andhistory of Greenland. The excellent illustrations includenumerous line drawings of representative artifacts (oftenwith multiple views or profiles). The occasional awkwardsentence makes one aware that this work has been trans-lated from Danish, but overall the writing is clear. Oneeditorial deficiency, however, is the absence of an index ina work of this size and complexity. Several importanttopics are dealt with in multiple locations within the work,a fact not readily evident in the table of contents.REFERENCESHODDER, I. 1986. Reading the past: Current approaches tointerpretation in archaeology. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress.KLEIVAN, I. 1996. Inuit oral tradition about Tunit in Greenland.In: Grønnow, B., ed. The Paleo-Eskimo cultures of Greenland:New perspectives in Greenlandic archaeology. Publication No.1. Copenhagen: Danish Polar Center. 215–235.McCULLOUGH, K.M. 1989. The Ruin Islanders: Early Thuleculture pioneers in the eastern High Arctic. Mercury SeriesPaper No. 141. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Civilization,Archaeological Survey of Canada.PARK, R.W. 1993. The Dorset-Thule succession in Arctic NorthAmerica: Assessing claims for culture contact. AmericanAntiquity 58(2):203–234.TUCK, J.A., and McGHEE, R. 1983. Sea mammal dates: Scienceor science fiction? Quarterly Review of Archaeology 4(2):9–10.Robert W. ParkDepartment of Anthropology & Classical StudiesUniversity of WaterlooWaterloo, Ontario, CanadaN2L 3G1FIFTY YEARS OF ARCTIC RESEARCH: ANTHROPO-LOGICAL STUDIES FROM GREENLAND TO SIBE-RIA. Edited by R. GILBERG and H.C. GULLØV.Copenhagen: The National Museum of Denmark, 1997.Ethnographical Series, Vol. 18. Department of Ethnog-raphy, The National Museum of Denmark. 344 p.,maps, b&w illus., indexes, bib. Softbound. DKK 350.00+ VAT.Fifty Years of Arctic Research presents papers by scholarsworking across the Arctic, gathered to mark the retirementof Jorgen Meldgaard from a career of more than 50 yearsin Arctic archaeology. The papers honor both the longtradition of Arctic research in the National Museum ofDenmark’s Department of Ethnography in general andMeldgaard’s remarkable contribution in particular. As isto be expected in such a volume, the papers vary widely inboth scope and content, reflecting the broad influence ofMeldgaard’s long career. Taken together, they depict adiscipline that has grown a great deal in 50 years but stillpresents some fundamental questions for researchers.Given the inspiration of this volume, it is not surprisingthat memoirs have a prominent place. The editors’REVIEWS • 223introduction begins by summarizing Meldgaard’s career,from his first appearance in the Department of Ethnogra-phy in 1945 until his retirement in 1997. Included in theintroduction, although not listed in the table of contents, aretwo birthday tributes, one from George Qulaut, Commis-sioner of the Nunavut Implementation Commission, and onefrom Greenlandic artist Jens Rosing. Similar brief notes,editorials, and picture essays are scattered throughout thetext. Old friends Klaus Ferdinand and Hans-Georg Bandi alsocontributed memoirs. Both shed light not only on Meldgaard’sresearch, but on him as a person as well.Other contributors (Schultz-Lorentzen, Kapel, HartHansen, and Møhl) chose to focus on the historical devel-opment of institutions in Denmark and Greenland, theirrelationships, and their activities over the years. As agroup these papers, based primarily on Danish sources,provide useful background to archaeological and museumresearch in Greenland, particularly for non-Danish re-searchers.Most of the papers are archeological or anthropologicalreports of one sort or another, nearly evenly dividedbetween Greenlandic and non-Greenlandic subjects. Theyrange over the whole of the New World Arctic and beyond,from Greenland to the Yamal Peninsula of Siberia. Thewhole temporal span of the human occupation of theEastern Arctic is also covered, although some periodsreceive more attention than others do.Considering the title and theme of this volume, it is notsurprising that many of the papers refer to seminal work byMeldgaard on a variety of subjects. What might be consid-ered surprising (especially to a specialist from one of themore intensively studied parts of the world) is the fact thatmany of the issues Meldgaard identified in Arctic prehis-tory have yet to be resolved. The most pressing problemsremain in the Paleo-Eskimo period, which—despite anincreasing volume of work in recent years (e.g., Grønnow1996)—is still poorly understood.The question that arises most often is the meaning of theterms Independence I and II, Saqqaq, and Pre-Dorset. Dothese represent distinct cultures, regional variants of oneculture, or neither? What are more important, their obvi-ous similarities or their evident differences? And what dothese differences mean? Appelt addresses this issue mostforcefully, making a case for Saqqaq as a culture distinctfrom other Paleo-Eskimo manifestations. Susan Rowley,working with a large amount of diverse material fromIgloolik, takes the opposite position, following Helmer(1994) in identifying all of these as part of the Pre-DorsetInitial Horizon. What is lacking here is any considerationof what either of these positions means in cultural terms.One difficulty in resolving this issue, of course, is the lackof large, stratified, early sites with good preservation in theCanadian Arctic to compare with those in Greenland.Grønnow, M. Meldgaard and Møbjerg all present mate-rial from such sites in Greenland, enriching our under-standing of the early inhabitants of Greenland and arousingthe envy of those of us working in less productive regions.By comparing their Saqqaq material with material fromfar-flung sites in other parts of the Arctic, Grønnow andMøbjerg seem to be supporting the idea that Saqqaqculture is a regional variation of a more general Pre-Dorset culture. Harp, in his description of early findson Belcher Islands, also seems to support this idea,although he does not address the question directly.Andreasen contributes to the debate by identifying Pre-Dorset and Dorset as useful general terms, reservingthe others for more specific mani festations. Describ-ing finds from the recent NEWland Project in NortheastGreenland, he makes a tentative case for two groupscoexisting for a time in parts of Northeast Greenland,one a regional variant of Peary Land Independence II,the other possibly an Early Dorset group moving in.Another major issue in Arctic prehistory is the questionof transitions and contact: the Pre-Dorset to Dorset transi-tion, the Dorset to Thule transition, and Norse-Thulecontact. The late Moreau Maxwell addressed the first ofthese, citing a variety of evidence to support the idea of atransitional culture between the Pre-Dorset and Dorset, tobe identified either as “Transition” or as “Groswater.”Susan Rowley applies data from Igloolik to this question,pointing out that new data show the transition to have beenless abrupt than Meldgaard initially thought. There is greatpotential here for enterprising researchers to take up thisquestion and begin to clarify this whole period.The Dorset period is less well represented here. Suther-land makes a convincing case for deconstructing the long-held belief of uniformity in Dorset art in favor of a morenuanced view of considerable diversity, based not only ontime and space, but also on context. Returning toMeldgaard’s idea that there is a “smell of the forest” aboutthe Dorset, Petersen makes a less convincing case, linkingGreenlandic myths (assumed to be relicts of early Dorsetmyths) with themes in Northwest Coast and early Borealforest mythology.Typically, the Dorset to Thule transition receives moreattention than the Dorset Culture itself. The three authors(Gulløv, McGhee, and Plumet) who address this issue allsuggest that Dorset people did indeed encounter earlyThule immigrants. In a direct critique of Park (1993), whoargued that the Dorset Culture had disappeared beforeThule peoples arrived in the Canadian Arctic, McGheemakes the strongest case, based on his work at BroomanPoint. Gulløv’s case, based on the symbolic meaning ofharpoon heads in times of hunting stress, will not convinceanyone looking for a “smoking gun,” but has the appeal ofan argument based on Inuit cultural values. In describingarchaeological research at Kangirsujuaq, Plumet reiter-ates his conviction that this is a rich area for an in-depthstudy of this issue.The question of Norse-Thule contact is addressed inArneborg’s summary of known instances of contact. Herdiscussion of social reasons why such contact should havehad limited impact on the cultures involved might profit-ably be applied to the Dorset/Thule debate (as is done in224 •  REVIEWSsome ways by McGhee). Berglund presents three pieces ofNorse carving from the Farm in the Sand site, focusing ontheir meaning in Norse society.Other times and parts of the Arctic are less well repre-sented here. Historic Inuit culture is addressed in fourpapers. Kaplan, studying early historic Inuit sites in Lab-rador, demonstrates the utility of combining data fromdiverse sources, including archaeological and anthropo-logical data, historic and archival sources, and climatechange studies, to understand changes in Inuit social or-ganization in the 18th century. Carpenter, Hansen, andRobert-Lamblin present descriptive papers, reporting on19th and early 20th century drawings from around     Igloolik,historic fishing jigs from Greenland, and mortality datafor late 19th to early 20th century Ammassalik people,respectively.Finally three authors (Laughlin, Müller-Beck, andFitzhugh) focus on the western Arctic. Fitzhugh revisitsthe long-forgotten question of a Western Siberian originfor Thule culture, describing recent work on the YamalPeninsula. Not surprisingly, the archaeological evidence,while interesting in its own right, does not support the ideathat Thule Culture was derived from this distant land.Müller-Beck discusses a chopping tool recently excavatedfrom a house at Ekven. He makes a good case for its beingused to shape whalebone roof supports, but is on much lessfirm ground when he goes on to assert that the spread ofThule Culture into the Eastern Arctic may have been anadoption of new technology rather than a migration.Laughlin provides both a memoir and a discussion of histheory of a single migration into the New World 19 000years ago. Unfortunately the limited presentation of datamakes it difficult to evaluate his cryptic arguments.I have classified a final group of papers as commentar-ies. They include de Laguna’s interesting speculations onthe fate of Krueger’s geological expedition of 1929,Kleivan’s discussion of political poetry and archaeologyin Greenland, Swinton’s thoughts on Inuit art and Inuitartists, and Carpenter’s notes on what he believes to beunder-appreciated early Arctic researchers (Rasmussen,Freuchen, Flaherty, Harrington, and Sivertz). Overall theseare thought-provoking papers. Carpenter’s comments inparticular are likely to raise objections among researchersin a variety of fields, while de Laguna’s speculations arefood for thought for anyone planning a long Arctic fieldseason.As is the case with many such compilations, this volumehas its share of minor editorial slips in the form of reversedfigures and typographical errors (my favorite of theseappears on page 88, where parka-wearing figures aredescribed as “fur-glad”). Considering the editors (andmany of the authors) are not native English speakers, suchminor errors are understandable. The editors have thought-fully provided us with references following each paper anda joint bibliography at the end, as well as indexes of placenames, personal names, and subjects. On the whole, this isa worthwhile publication. It will be of interest particularlyto researchers whose work focuses on Paleo-Eskimo prob-lems, particularly the Pre-Dorset period. It also providesvaluable information for those of us unfamiliar with thehistory of anthropological and archaeological institutionsin Greenland. Although it is not primarily intended forstudents, they will benefit from the historical perspectiveoffered by some of the papers and will also find it a richsource of problems for future research. Fifty Years ofArctic Research is, in short, a suitable commemoration ofa long and productive career.REFERENCESGRØNNOW , B, ed. 1996. The Paleo-Eskimo cultures of Greenland:New perspectives in Greenlandic archaeology. Publication No.1. Copenhagen: Danish Polar Center.HELMER, J. 1994. Resurrecting the spirit(s) of Taylor’s “CarlsbergCulture”: Cultural traditions and cultural horizons in easternArctic prehistory. In: Morrison, D., and Pilon, J.-L., eds. Threadsof Arctic prehistory: Papers in honor of William E. Taylor, Jr.Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper No.149. Ottawa: Canadian Museum of Civilization. 15 –34.PARK, R. 1993. The Dorset-Thule succession in Arctic NorthAmerica: Assessing claims for culture contact. AmericanAntiquity 58(2):203 – 234.Genevieve LeMoineCurator/RegistrarThe Peary-MacMillan Arctic Museum andArctic Studies CenterBowdoin College9500 College StationBrunswick, Maine, U.S.A.04011-8495THE IÑUPIAQ ESKIMO NATIONS OF NORTHWESTALASKA. By ERNEST S. BURCH, Jr. Fairbanks: Univer-sity of Alaska Press, 1998. 473 p., maps, charts, b&willus., bib., indexes. Hardbound, US$49.95; Softbound,US$31.95.The Iñupiaq Eskimo Nations of Northwest Alaska is thefirst of at least three volumes by Ernest S. Burch, Jr. onNorthwest Alaskan Iñupiaq culture, the result of more thanthree decades of research in that region. In this book,Burch presents data on the individual “Nations” that in-habited the region before the twentieth century.  Laterpublications will describe the internal workings of North-west Alaskan groups and their external relationships.  Burchsets forth two goals in producing this valuable addition toArctic anthropology. The first is to present a comprehen-sive view of the subsistence and settlement of 11 IñupiaqNations that inhabited Northwest Alaska before the end ofthe 19th century. The second is to use those data to supporthis cellular (read societal or tribal) model of Iñupiaq social

https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/arctic/article/download/64017/47952

Fifty Years of Arctic Research: Anthropological Studies from Greenland to Siberia, edited by R. Gilberg and H.C. Gulløv

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Crossref

University of Calgary Journal Hosting