1 - ~~" T1'r ~ 'T" ~;--IA"QII~"".. ~"""... , '" ,.,T:CA

,.' w.~ :""~.,u-.,t!J

-'

---,...

..

~ ~lJNunamiutEthnoarchaeologyLewis R. BinfordOeparlmenl 01 AnthropologyUniversity 01 New MexicoAlbuquerque, !'Jew Mexico

ACADEMIC PRESS New York San Francisco LondonA 5ubsidiary of Harcourt Brace [ovanovch, Publishers

\ volume inSrudles in Arche%gyA compleu lLrI 01 tdes in Ihh urlelsppea,s al tite end of Ihis volllme.

@ 1iiliiiiU.--~-, O~ b;;'Qt:II>I~-~";. ,~~ , e~ U,:':''-~~;II :-.1.~ ...

"}'-.- ,", "

CoPnlGtrT e 1978. aY ACADEMIC PaESS, INe.ALL JJOHTS II.E$I!JI.VED.NO PAll.T O.. TtUS PUBLlCATION MAY BE REPRODUCEO OkTUNSNITTb 11'1 Al'iY ~M OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONICoa WBOIANICAL, lNCLlJDINO PHOTOCOPY. II.EC01l0INO. 011. ANYINPOI:WATION 5TOII.AGIl AND IU!T1lIEVAL '"TEM, WITlIOUTP!IlNIISION IN WIIUTINO PROM TUI! PUIlLlsnER.

ACADBMIC PR.ESS. lHC.111F1ftIII A,-.Ncw YIlfl."'" York 1001

Unlt,d KintdDm &lido,. Pflbtlslt. byACADEMIC PRESS. 'Ne. (LONOON) LTD.14/21 o.al ~Ofod. u.doft NWI 1DX

Libnry of Congress Call1OSinlln Publication Datl

8inford, t.ewa Roberll, Dale Nunamiul cthnoarchacology.

(Studies in archeology seried8ibliography: p.Indudes tndex.l. fskimos--Aluka--Economiecondilionl. 2. Eskimos

- Aliukll- -Food. 3. Eskimos- -Alaska- -Anlquilies.4 Aluka--Antiquities. 5. Animal remains (Archaeolo~)- -Alukl. l. Tltle.':99.nIJ56 )01.5'2'09798 77-7712R

I~DN O 12-100040--0

'1UH1l!.D IN mil UNrrl!O STATI!S o. AMElUCA

-.

rI

Thla book ,. dedlcated loALBERT C. SPAUIDINGProJ...,,' oJ AothropologUnlve""t]I o/California, Santa Barbara

Contents

Acknowledgmente. xlAbbrevlatlons. xiii

Introductlon 1

1 The Economlc Anatomy of 5heep and Carlbou. 15Meal Utl/lty. 15Comporlsons between 'he AnImal., 18Constroctfon of a Mear Utlllty l"dex orAriotomfcal Port. o/ Coribou and Sheep, 19Bone Marrow and the Constructlon o/ o Marrow Inda. 23Bone Grease and the Corutructfon of GrelJle Utilfty Indlces. 32Cultural Bla. veDU. ObJectltle Food Prriference 38

2 Some General ConslderaUona: Butcherlng. Kili Slte and Recordlns Procedun 41Butcherlng Procedure, 48Recorded Cose, o/ InltJal Fleld Butcherlng, 51Cach'ng ond Secondary Ffeld Butcherlng. 55Butchering Varlablllty, 59Summary o/ Butcherlng Data, 60Meosurlng Dlsmemberment, 64

I vil I

( vIII/ Cante_

..,......--

Contents ( Ix IColculatlng the Number o/ Indivlduals from Done Counu. 69Measurlng General Utlllty In Reall.tlc Terma. 72Looklng 01the Emplrlcal World. 75Sex and Age Doto. 85Summol'Y. 87

3 Meat Star.ge. 91Dry Storage. 91Butcherlng Procedure Jollowed for Drylng Carlbou Meot. 94Dry/ng Rocks. 97Constroctlon o/ the Drying Utfllty l"deJe, 101Sorne Emplrlcol Material Relatlve fa Dry Mear Stores, 111Evo/uotfng the Ut/llty of Mode/. ond Indlce.. 111ProceSl/ng Debrl. from Drylng Actlv/llee, 114Frozen Storage. 123

4 food Precelng and Con.umptlon. 135Consumer DC!!mand. 135Food Shorlng ond the Dfstrlbutlon 01Anatomlcal Pom fa Consumere:. 139Consumptlon and Food Process'ng, 144Partem, o/ ProceNfng Bones Jor Marrow. 152Manufacture o/ BORe Greax. 157Manufacture 0180ne Jufce ond Reloted Marrow-Proceu'ng In Summer Sltes. 163Summary. 165

5 Sprlns. 169Early Sprlng Mordtorlng and Encounter Huntfng. 169Mld.prlng or Mlgradon Huntlng, 171Lole Sprlng Hunllng. 178Sprlng Con.umptfon In the Contemporary Villoge ond In the Post, 191Mobl1lty. Sprlng Drylng Actlvlllend Re/oled Logistfc 223Glimp.es Into the Poat-Summer Storage under Moblle Condlllo,.. When Meat Waa Drled

lar Humon Con.sump"on. 235The Sprlng SV.tem. 245

. ~

6 Summer. 255ConllumptJon in the Contcmporary Villogc and In the Po.t. 257Summer Huntlng and Logl.tics. 265Summer Resldentlol Locallon. 01'he Recent Pa.t, 320Modellng the Summcr Re.identlol Sfte 327Summary. 342

7 Fan. 345Contemporary Foil Huntlng Strotegy, 346Consumptlon ond Storoge In Fall Re.ldentfal tocatlon 369Late Foil Sheep Huntlng ond the Use o}Sheep In Foil Resldentlal SUes, 406Summary, 416

8 Wlnler, 425Wlnter Resldentlol Locatlons. 428Modeling Faunol Contents o} Wlnter Stora. 435Consumer Demand and MNls RepreMnted In o Re.ldentlol Fauno' AasembJoge. 447

9 Conclusl6ns, 451Part 1: The Meanlnflful Anolysl. 01Auemb'oge Contenta, 452Part 1(: Toword 'he Meanlngful Anolyal. of Pattemlng In Aseemblage Characterlstlc

Locatlon. and Re.ponslvenen to General Sy.tem Chonge, 482

References. 499

Index.503

. ~

....,.....--I

I

Acknowledgments

There are no adequate words te expressrny gratitude to the people of AnaktuvukPass, Alaska, for thetr patience and kindattention to educating me in the ways ofNunamiut subsstence and survval. Through-out my entire experience amoog the Nuna-miut, Johnny Rulland was my constant com-panion and friendoTohim 1owea very specalthanks. He will alwajs occupy an equallyspedal place in my memory. Many of the peo-ple of Anaktuvuk Pass weJcomed me intotheir hornes, on their trtps, and in their camps;they were "informante." and they helpedwith the logistics for my research teams. Thefollowing people contributed time, guidance,information, encoumgement, and cornpanion-ship to me and rny crew membcrs: Bob Ah-gcok, jack Ahgook, Noah Ahgook, RhodaAhgook, Danny Hugo. Ellen Hugo, MartinaHugc. Zacharias Hugo, Arctic john. ElyjahKakinya, Anna Morry, Billy Mcrry, SusanMorry. David Mekiana, Rachel Mekana. jus-tice Mekiana, Raymond Paneack, Robert Pa-neack, Roosevelt Paneack, Siman Paneack,Suzie Paneack, jarre Rulland, Lazerus Rulland,Ruth Rulland, and Louisa Stein. 1owe a specialdebt to Cyrus Mekiana, who permitted me tosee the diary of his father (Horner Mekiana),and the rcords of his father's sto-c.

My crew members were dedicated andchccrful, In-queuy worklng undcr Vl'ry dl-

ficult conditions and certainly enjoying veryfew personal cornforts. Many of the resultareported stem dlrectly from the hard work ofthe following persons: Charles Amsden, Clin-ton Binford, Martha Binford, Cathy Carneron,Don Campbell, T. Weber Oretzer, Patty Mar-chiando, Milo McLoud, BiII Morgen. Iohn Or-fali, Caroline Reeves. [ean-Phllippe Rgaud,Mike Rotonda. Peggy Schneider, jack Snyder,Robn Torrence, Dan Witter, Allison witter,and Richard Wortman.

Yetother persons contributed to the successof our fieldwork in Alaska. Paul Shannahan,our bush pilot, was elways cheerful at theprospect of aplane full of bones, dogs, Es-kimos, students, or almost anything. He keptU9 in food and f1ewU5 out of sorne of the mostimprobable places one could Imagine.

Jim Crowder, a former trader te theNunamiut, gave me access to his trading rec-ords, provided many hours of fascinatingconversation about the old days, and put upwith very dirty anthropologists and studentsal his hotel in Fairbanks.

William E. Woodcock, A. L. Miller, and Ar-nold Weichert flew their small plane aH theway from Miles City, Montana, to take theexcellent aeriaI photographs that served as thebasis for most of the regional maps of theresearch area. They suffcred bad weather, (1I1-tUl\.' ShOl'k, and il flighl inhl \ tXIX (lny~m Ihi\(

Ixll

~[ xIIJ AclmouN'edgmentll

Abbreviations

The fcllowng are the abbreviations most commonly used in ths volume.ANATOMICAL PARTS

Distal tibiaTarsalsAstragalusCalcaneusMetatarsalProximal metatarsalDistal metatarsalPlrst phalangeSecond phalangeThird phalange

General utility indexInverse general utility indexModified general utility indexInverse modified generalutility indexConservative modfied generalutility lndexlnverse conversative modifiedgeneral utility indexMeat utility indexMarrow (utility) indexCrease (utility) indexWhHe-grease (utility) indexInverse whtte-grease (utillry}Index

OTTARASTCALMTPMTOMTPHAl1PHAl2PHAl3

INDEXES FOR MODELlNGGUIIGUIMGUIIMGUI

CMGUI

ICMGUI

MUIMIGIWGIWGI

Antier5kullMandibleAtlasAxi.Cefvcal vertebraeThoracc vertebraeLumbar vertebraePelvisSacrumRib.StemumScapulaHumerosProximal humerosDistal humerosRado-cubitusProximal radio-cubitusDistal radio-cubtusCarpalsMetacarpalProximal metacarpalDistal metacarpalFemurProximal femurDistal fe-murTibiaProximal tibia

ANT5KMANOATAXCERVmORLUMPElVSACR5TseHPHOHRCPRCOCCARPMCPMCOMCFPFOFTPT

3.8, and 6.18 were rendered by [ene Gulko.The typing was done by Lisa Edelhoff. Thesepeople made a substantial eontribution, andbecame nearmembers of the family during thepreparation of this book.

1 am particularly grateful lo the followingpersona for the use of their photographs:Wendell Dswalt (Figure 5.34), Robert Rausch(Figure 2.1), and John M. Campbell (Figure5.1).

Without the support of the Wenner-GrenFoundation for Anthropologieal Research(grant No. 2376), the National Scienee Poun-daen. end the Doris Duke Oral HistoryFoundation, this work could not have beenaeeomplished. Lita Osmundson of the Wen-ner-Gren Foundation was encoureging andsupportive ot the early phases of the work,particularly that done in 1969. Major finan-cing for the 1971 and 1972 work carne fromthe National Science Foundation. Funds formy work in 1970 and during the winter of1971 carne from the Doria Duke Foundation.To these agendes simple expresetcns 01gratitude are inadequate.

nene of us will ever forget. 1 truly epprecatetheir help, talent, and expertise.

john Qack) Campbell convlnced me thatAnaktuvuk was the place to work and Ihat 1could in fact accompUsh my reseerch goalsthere. He visited my camps severa! times andwas always a welcome source o informationand fun.

My friend [ohn E. Pfeiffer made the longtrek from Pennsylvania lo Anaktuvuk Passand shared caribou meat and long hours ofconversation. He helped me to see the goals ofmy work more c1early in the midst o trying loget planes in to feed the crewe, making certainthat bone bags did not get IOSI, and keepingcrew rnembers from gettlng sick after they fellinto an iey river.

Here in Albuquerque severa! students havecontributed significantly lo the analysis andorganization oE the data presented. [ack B.Rertram, Robert Hitchcock, Richard Taylor,and Robert Vierra have helped me a greatdeal. To them 1 am most gratefu1.

The lluetretcne were prepared by AlenOsbome and Emily Abbink, and Figures 3.5,

[ xlIII

---~

Introduction

Befcre 1 delve inlo the details of my workaOlong the Nunnmiut, Iwant.tJlo'iel.feAh.-tIwideas thjlt prompk>d.,J;bestudy. These are verybasic ideas, indeed-they focus on the ques-tion of precisely what archaeologists do.

Archaeologists attcmpt lo make systcmaticobscrvanons on the remains of past humanbchavior: Ihat is, thev investtgatc the ar-chaeological record. The archacological rec-ord, howcver, is contcmporary, and any ob-scrvations thal 1, as ,10 nrchaeologist, makethrough the excavatlon of an archaeologicalsite are contemporary observations. My inter-est is in (he past but rny observations are onthe present.

Tu pursue my interests 1 mus! accompllshtwo quite separare kinds uf acts: (o) I mus!prnjl'('( my HlIlh'll1l'"rMY obscrvatlons .1l'(U-ron-ly illtu t111' p.rst and (/1) I mustassgu mean-ing lo my observations. 1accomplish the firstthrough methods of dating. J may then exam-me these proicctod and ternporally arrangcdobscrvuons for forms of pattcming. Jf I find

variabilty in pnttemed configurations. l ha vesorne evdcnce for dynamics, changos thatoccurred in the pasto I know that somcthinghappened. that sorne dynarnics were upt.'ra-tve, but 1 do not know why thc changos oc-curred: neither do I know anything about thecharactcr nf the rhanges. 1'0 makco statcmcntabouI the charactcr uf changos I must firstQSSigll ml'atlillg to the conternporary fects othc archacological record.

Supposc 1observe that a meta' hlUI is prl's-ent in a particular archaeologlcal sttc. Exarn-ining additional sttes. I may note that metaltools are present in some but not all of 'hesites. Accurate dating tells me that all the siteswithout metal tools Me older than the sitoswith metal tools. I may nsscrt Ih.11 this pattemn-ccts lllt..' cvcuts of thc iuvcntiun uf 11H.'1.11lurgy. If I also discovcr 1l1l't.11 louls ;\1 .1(-chaeologlcal sltes in adjacent regions .11 timeperiods increasingly more recent as a functionof their distencc from the reglen initially ob-scrvcd. I may asscrt thet ths paucrn rcflccts

11 I

--~

[2]

the spread DE metallurgy to other places. Thedefinition DE such pattems in no way tells mewhy they existo My assertions are descriptionsof the world as known and do not provideenswers to the question o why the world isthe way it appears.

Let's take anotherexample. tf 1(a) observe aseries of smaU, molded objects in the form of ahuman Iemale, (b) assert that each object is amother goddess, (e) project into the past aseries o archaeological assernblages, sorne DEwhich yield mother goddesses, (d) recognize apatterned distribution both temporally andspatially, and (e)ask the qu~slion. "Why weremother goddesses invenled and incr~asinglydistributed over wider geographical areas?" Ihave already restricted rny thinking lo a par-ticular context involving religion, cults, ritualbehavior, and the like. 1 may then seck lounderstand Ihe distribution and lhe cuntext ofappearance of these Iittle fernale effigies interms of arguments about the role of religionin human life, the symbolic importance offemales and fertility, and so on. But suppose 1had a time machine and was able to determinethat thl? objects are not mother goddesses buttoys, or perhaps magieal devices used to di-vine the sex of children before birth. Underthese ascriptions of "meaning" I would bedirected to pursue very different lines othought in seeking an explanation for tht.' cf-figies' appearance and geographical sprcad. If1am to make aceurale statements abauI thepast or even to engage in relevanl forms ofthought I must have a relatively aecurateunderstanding of the context in which Iht'

Ifacts of the archaeological record carne intob.'ing.

The-reJevant put to a let 01slatic facts of thecontemporary ardteological record can--onJybe Ihe conditions that brought,the obwrvedlads into existenc:e. Much of the history ufarchacological work has becn characterized byehanging vicws as lo Ihe conditiuns produdn,;archacological faels. Far many years--andeven today in many places-the dynamicstanding behlnd an archaeological fact wasIhought lo be simply Ihe maker of Ihe arlUact.

. ~

IncroductJon

Thus. the archacologst might vlcw a recov-ered artifact and make judgments as to theskill of the maker, his artistic sense, and thedegree that he seemed to share certain artlsticvetues of the archaeologist's culture. Themeaning archaeological remains carried be-carne a statement on the character and qualityof the maker. If artifacls were crude by thearchaeologist's standards then the makerswere crude. If artfacts were "beaufu!" thenthe makers were advanced and had "advenced" aesthetc senses.

Gradually, this paradigm for giving mean~ing to the contemporary faels gave W1Y toother arguments. It was rt'aStmed that il per-son's overalJ intelligenn' or capacity for "hu-manness" is not necessarily directly transiat-ablc into accomplishments, and that many in-tdligent m,-'" can produce crude pmducls.Fi\cturs ulht'r than thust' inlrinsic Iu thl' d as aresult of excavation wilh other, similarly recovered remains, t'valuate the differences and

similftritit'~, ..nd arran~l' Ihem laxnnomicnl.

....

IntroductJon

This vicw propOSl'Sthat culture, the ideas or"idcational guides for living" hcld in thcminds of men, is simply projected into therproducts. The products can thus be vewed asaccurate reflections of mental templetes, soculture in turn can be seen as a model of pastdynamics nurmally discussed in the context ofartifact production. Few would disagree Ihalplanning Is characteristic of acts of fabricationand that fabrication plana are guded by sorneideas regarding the desired outcornes. This"fabrication model" comes nto questionwhl'n Wl'ask whether it is relevant to al! factsand palterns observable in the arch represented. TheaS~l'mblagt. is t'l)uated wilh lhe comll1unily.The expectation is that if we are dealing withthe (t'milins uf idcnlkill ur rclill,-'d gruups ufpt.'oplc Ihe cnmposition of Ihe assemblagesshould be similar since they share a commonbody of culture. 1 challenged this paradigm:

Thl' b..hilvil'rill m, ...lt1 n..("~ni"_l'S that bl..havit'r i~ llwtlyn,lInk~I,1 ,1\I,ll'l,lti"ll. 1"'1'1'1\, draw IIp..tn l n'J'l'rltlin.'tll rullur,l t>.\lk~T1~gehetwoon-~ ~.na-mics' ... nd 1'1'('5-ent stalie-data, 1 was issuing anothcr challenge lo the lhen prl'vailing view of Ihe past.Under the fabricalion model characlerislics ufthe archaeological record were linked directlyto differing mental lemplales, which in turnwere labulatl'd ilnd summ.lriud as a "Imillis!" uf t'nullleralt'd cullurl'. I wa!' sUAA,-'stingnot only that tht' archaeolu~icill (t'cord deriV\.'~(rom

---~

141

uf fl'cogni:r.ing baslc functlonnl componvnts.such as cnrburetore, distributurs, and voltageregulators, and then seek lo understand howthese units articulate with one another andnterect under differing conditions externa! lothe system lo which they are responsive.Ways of developing a realistic appreciation forthe characteristcs of a system of adeptationmust be sought, since the model of a" au-tomobile or other handy rnechancal systcm isapt lo mislead us if wc attcmpt to use it loapprcciate the organizational propertics of aflexible behavioral system. 5uch flexibility can

~ thought uf ",5 dcriving frum rcspunsiVl'mndific.ltillnS thruugh thl' uSt,' uf .,ltl'rnllivl..'stratq~ics and vari"bk' means to lCcomplishsimilar ends.

U"""",-,~-,,io)'lohl'mab(~."'w-..,~.", rastdynilmics wc miW"t 4'U1hdpatt _mueD, var-aboility in thc .,JlI:haculugical r..coro that is

dir~clJy reIerahle not lo differences -btttweensY~J~{Jl.s, but to difft'ri"g 51oft'so[/J-siNgle 5.'1$/cm.We might also imagine Ihat systt.'ms diHeringin overall or~ani7..ali()n could Wl'1\ share verysimililr stri'l!l'~ies uf ,ld.lplillitm. 5i1l'S I1MI .ll'-IU,llly n'pn'st'nl .1Il....IIl~tIUS silU;llitllMI st.lksmighl be groupl'd, under Ihl..' lfi'ldilionalmcthods of analysis, as similar systems, 5uchargumenls are plausible. but as with the basicchallenge to the fabrication model ilself therewas no empirical dl'monstration supportingthem.

While such "processual" Vil'WS of thl' na-ture of the link....gl' betWl'l..'n slalic ardl,ll'ohlgical facls ilnd past dynamics Wl'n.' being de-veloped, argued, and made available in the

-Iiterature, I was cngagcd in rl'search and con-troversy primarily with Franc;ois Bordes re-~arding the appropriate meaning lo be givl'nto certain archaeological facts rl.'gardingMoustl'rian material from buth EUropl' andIhe.' Ne.'ar East (sec 8inford 1')72; Binford and8inford 1966, 1969). Thesnum,'nl In111\' h'ldl roll.,psl' uf scit'nn'. In th.' I'YI"" "f Ihl'f""\'.'"lillll,,hsl nlll' prindplc "nly .-an hdp u~ 11' Sdl'1:1,1 sy ... h'nl ,1'" ti1\' fh"~I'11 on.' Irolll ,Im"tl); ,111 olhl'rp"ssit>ll' s)'sh'nl';. il is lhl' prindplt' nf sd.'rlin~ lhl'simpl.'st syslt'm-tll" sim,,.'M s!/slm, "f im,,/'-I ","illi-tl,m. whi."h ,,1 "'lIrs,' ml'"ns in pr,lrli' lhl' r!.lssk"l"sysl."" 1,1 Ih. .I'lY Jl'upp\'r Iq~q: l'tO---liJ I

During times when Ihe paradigm has be..'nlllll'stionl'd, wht'n Ilw ddinilional conVt.'ntions fur givin~ nll'ilning lo e.'xperit.'nCl' .1fl'unth'r i\U,Kk, lhl'r", is gre.11 confusion. Somes"'l'k 111 t'valual", "n4,.'W" (nnn'pts and ddinitions through Ihe melhods o( normalsl."l'nc,,'-lh,,' USI..'

---~

(61

invclved in hypothesis testing. 1 am no! In-volved in a direct way wth the problem ofexplanations. I am concerned with sharing aseries of concrete experiences sought in thehope of uncovering sorne of (he Iinks betweenan ongoing living syslem and the stattc ar-chaeologlcnl products n'sultin~ from thcdynamics \lf tho situntion.

On the other hand, Ihis is not a blind nppcalfor ernpiricisrn. Nor is u a contradlction uf myearlier arguments in favor of the use oflogico-deductive strategies in the importanttask of seeking verification for OUT ideas as tohow the world-works. Here, however, we faceIhe s,ri'ious problem of what the world is like.

In(seeking experienee, Ihe problem of re!e-vance...i!.nd relevant experience is crucial. Thepaths that led me to decide in favor of theE'xperiences rE'ported here st"i\S(Inally rl'gulatedpht'nomt'n,l, l.'nvironmt'nlal conJilions, l'lhni: 24 t l.

. ~

InUvdUdlort

Thls "nssumcd" view lIUl'StiUOI'd t1ll' rcle-vanee of the previously discussed Iabrtcationmodel and Ihe linked additive or enumera-tive vew of en edaptation. We were suggest-ing that the dynamlrs out of which the prop-erties of an asscmblagc were derived werediU.,Tt.'Ot from thc dynamics lradition

--

__~L-

181

.tfd;.w >~~cA,rH.L. - !t ~! fy,.. . ~'''-

191

b.

a.

c.

()

E.

considered in a grouping sepratefrom bovids and horses.

There is much greater variabll-ity betwccn dffcrent occupa~uons in thc anatomical pnrtsof dccr

---

~l- boe-, e-/";j ..u-rdu -~~~ r/~.~~/-~~

....

",1/,)",. ah..~ I~): dL,~ 9--....... ,,1.-, '-jN' ,\._d.,L.-.." f'

-~-~---,....-

1121 ln,rodudlon lntrodudlon 113 J

Figu~ 1.1. Map nI North Alaska shpwing location (Jf res('.lrch .lrt'a. (Data nn rari!:ltlu mnVl'ml'nt frllm Ih'mming1971.)

eT ...

c I..V, ""..Po.., , c o... 10\....,

csribou migration routcs.) lhe contcmporerycornmunty is composcd llf two amalgam.lll'dbands. the Tulugakmiut ano tbe KiJlikmiut,plus two ettached families uf thc Ulumiut, alocal band that brokc up in 1942.

During the month of August 1969, thl' vil-Iege of Anaktuvuk was cornposcd uf 126 per-mnnent restdents and 4 vistnng Eskirnos. Thepopulation was scgmcntcd inlo 21 housc-holds, 17 o which werc composcd uf nuclearfamilics (a husband and wife and their (lff-spring only). Two houscholds werl' (tlmposedo exlended amilil's-Ihc nuclear family plusa widowed parl'nt uf thl' husbilnd. lhl' rc-maining 2 households were comp(lsl'd of un-married adults wilh their offspring in one caseand adult unmarril'd bruthl'rs in the olhl'r.

Thl' Nunanliul h.1\I1' bl'l'n studil'd rn'

14" nv '00 ..,.....

~.,..

o ... .0 ..., ,",o 'so lItO loo

Ivl ...." O~ toJO.TIo( .......... IiC,....OHOW....q 6TVOV Ac.c .( D'6Ttl.'.UT'ON

o ... c......,.. o Hit .......6e ..

Ihl'SI' probloms .Ul' sulved. and how su eh so-lutlons nrv rnonifcst arcbaoologtcnlly in fauna!rcmalns. it would be with thc Nunarnlut.

My aims al thl' time uf initialing eldworkwerc simple: to Iearn as much as possibleabout 0111 aspects of the procurement, procese-inA, ond consumptton strateges of thcNunnmiut Eskimo and in turn relate thesebchavior-, dircctly In thctr fauna! conse-qUlnCt's. I hopcd toaccomplish ths for most j(not all uf tbe Iocations usod by thc Esktmothroughout a full seasunal cycle of Ihcirsubsisll'nCl'-sctlh'ml'nl rllund.

TIll' Nunilmiut arl' inland Eskimo, currl'ntlylocalizt'd in a Sl'dl'nlary community al Anak-tuvuk Pass, al Ihe drainage divide of the8r(loks RanJ;e. (Sl'e Figure 1.1 for tht' locationuf I\n.,ktuvuk '\1SS ,lnd ls rl'lltionship hl lhl'

e".. , .......c:T' c.a. ""co ....

VIlIllJ r . ... ~ "o-f11111llJ '.~...,,~ "'~"."'.'L.J .'"' .

PMI!', thcreby provtdtng a meaningful n-Icr-ence dirnension for our tnxonomy uf bonos.Such an assignmenl uf utility seemed Irnpos-sible to work oul for stcne tocls. How couldwe develop a procedure for giving utilityvalues lo stone 10015 relative to different po-tentia1 uses? Using fauna we could not oulyemploy a culture-free laxonomy for tabulanngrelatlve frequencies of fauna! elernents in dif-Ierent sites, but we could develop a refcrenccdimensin of food valu tor the taxonorny. Wecould display pattcms of assemblagc vari-ability agaiost scales of resource ulility S abasis fur l'valuating the degrt'e to which thepatlerning reflectcd consistent slralegics rcla-Uve lo the use of the animals. Palterning infaunal frequencies mighl then be reasonablyvicwed .15 r('sultin~ from variable slratl'~il'S inllll' ll~l' IIf ftllld StlllRl'S.

Although Ihl' advantages evident in working with fauna were exciting, it WlS recog-nized Ihal following up these advilntagcs inwhalever detail would not direclly solve Iheproblem ofrelevance. What was ncedt.'d was aset of concrete descriplions uf the dynamics ofbehaviur resulting in sttltic pallt.'rning in !hearchaeological rt.'cord. The 51atic pattt.'rninghad then lo be relaled to the bchavioraldynamics so th.'1 we might ('valuatl' whethl'rdifferenccs in culture werc or werc not'A)an-f('st in Ihe patterning. II was dcemed dl'sir-.1b!l' to Sl'l'k an 0pP(lrlunity lo t1bSl'rVl' slIl'hdyn.111ll"s wilh rt'!'ollt'l"f 111 t1w ~I'lwsis 01 f.HlIMI.\ssl'11lb1,lgl'S. If Wt'l'll1dd l'Iudd.lll' !Iw mlllh'lsuf dynamics standing bchind faunal v,uability Wl' might Ihen use such underslilndngas a rl'f('rcnce dimcnsion fm evaluating variability in stone tools.

To achieve these ends I chtlSe lo conduclelhmlRraphic work amunR thl' Nunamiul E!O-kimu (lf Ihl' 'nlrI Bmtlks I~.llt~l in Al.lska.Thc.'Sl' pl'Urolt'MI' hUllll'ts, Tl'porh'd lt11lt' nVt'rHO% dl'Ill'lldt'l1l fur Ilwir Sllbsi!'oll'lll"l' UIl .1Sill};h' !'II'I'('iI's, 1~'ItI...:ill'" "I/""h/ll~ 1'1' l.tl'il'lllt. IIIheTl' W.1S any placl'in Ihe world whl'rl" l'(IUldlearo about the problems presenled by astrong dependence on hunted f()od, how

dynamics of Iheir envlronment. and thecharncter of the adaptive lnterection betwecnpersona and their environmcnl. 1Iis necessaryto expertence directly the proccss of adapte-tion and in turn the archaeological products ofthis process. Relevance s achieved when wecan examine variability in tbe archecologtcalproducts and huid culture a ccnstant. In thissttuaton, we could direcy evaluate the utilityof the fabrication rnodel of behavior as theassumed link between the dynamics o be-hevlor and the static facts remainng for us tonbservc.

Such cxperience can never be oblaincd fmmemprical work with archaeological r{'maios.We mus! Iherefore proceed alaog the researchpath forged quite eloqucntly by OUT sisler dis-cipline J;l'(llngy in ils .1dnption Hf the proposili(ln uf unHllrmil.lr.ll\i~lIl. Is Ihl' fOrllltlliun (Ifarchaeological remains as a by-product ofadaplive bchavior a process Ihat is operativein the contemporary world? Can wt' dirl'cllyexperience this process relative to a dom.1in offacts that are observable in the archaeologkalremaios from the past? If S0, we may experi-encl' this crucial Iinkage of bl'hilvioraldynamics and statics. If we find our assump-tion$ abou! Ihe nature of thi$ linkage to beinadetluatc, we are perfeclly juslified in rl'ject-ing the5l' assumplions, $ince their generaladequacy must be demonstrable if they are tobl' USl'd univl'rsally lo ~iVl' ml'aning to tlll'.lrLh,wolll~il,,1 n'furd.

My nmt'!usion was thitl litro fmnlfltftm~Ct'SSl'S (lf archaf'ol()gi:al,~&~re'~fommon to both eonrellipOf,,'j iLild f el d d.Many of Ihe animal species prcscnl in assemblage$ are still exli'lInt, and lhe processes oft'xploitation and use operative in Ihe pasl arestill opc.'rlivc.' luday.

Thl' sludy (If f.1un.1 nfflr ....1nulhl'r .llivill\-l41gl': Sinn' Wc.' ran assuml' thlll"lr1i('r pupula-(jII/lS tl!'ot'd ,llllllltlls prim,uily ,IS fHlld Wt' 1',111l'V,llu.lh' 1ht' IOlld 111 ilitY01 V,lriutl s ,ltl.llolllil,11p"rls by sludying represl'nlalivt.,s llf I11Ulll'rnspecies. This would permit Ihe objeclive as-signmenl of "ulility" values to anatomicai

---~

( 141

viously and a considerable lterature covcrtngvartous aspccts uf thelr society and pattems ofadaptntion is availablc (Binford 1975, 1976;Binford and Chasko 1976; Campbcll 1968,1970; Gubser 1965; Ingsted 1951; PospisiI1964;Rausch 1951). Other researchers have sum-marized vericus aspects of Nunamiut Iife orconducted short-term lnterviews with sorne othe more femous "old meo" al Anaktuvuk(Burch 1972; Soleck 1950; Spencer1959; theseare [ust a few).

'narodudlon

This book reporta thc results of the study ofthc econcmic anatomy of shecp and caribou,and my expertcnccs wHh HU' Nunamiut Eskimo. Throughont I have descnbed lh\.'aunalmaterials collected from the stes o knownbehavoral contexts among the Nunarniut.These assemblages have then been referred toanatorrucal ecales of valu developed throughthe study of animals. as a means to the evala-tion of tbe Eskimos' behavior and thelr adap-tive strategies.

,...

1The Economic Anatomy of Sheep andCaribou

Tho Nuuamiut 'fifc-stylc i~ dcpendentprirnarily on caribou .10.:1 secondarily 00sheep. In order to study the archaeologicalremains of these animals, 1 had to have arneasure of the utility of the various parts.What follows ts al' account of the butcheringand analysis uf representative animals and thel.'stablishing, uf ulility ndices for varousen.uomicol parts.

MF.AT UTlLlTY (Ihe DI.lr.butlon of UlIableM'INde M en the Skeletal Al'atomy ofCartbou end Sheep)

The firsl stop Is to cxplain how 1deterrninedthe relative distribution of muscle to bone inthe analomy of sheep and caribou. Theanatornical data presented on live body pro-pmlions wcrc obtainl,d throu~h the study oftllll' l.Hil'll,lll .md Iwo dOllwslil' ~hl'l'P' Tlwl-,uil:'ll.lll, ,1 prinll' (appn1ximatl'ly :l- tu 5-Yt'

TA.8LE 1. I

Gro...nd Dry Bonra. n..17.27 1,7,,,",,20 2,7K'J.flll ':IIMl 2HH.~ 357,00Lumbolr verltbral: 3152':1 1471.29 1,':140,(11I

.. "" 205,3,5 2.14.(k1l''''vi. + ~.\num 1,141UIII 1./'2.1,55 J,175.211 1;12.34 31'1,KO hH.211KiI's \..'"IUIIJ I,'N,"i,K-I .1.f>!'t7,40 121,'IlI

.173114 1,107,(.1SI I,MI31 ~.5(l '15.10 174.':IClR,lJio-cuhilu!' 214,15 324.':12 ':I1Il.54 45.311 NS5U lUIIMt'I'-lCarpal Il(,.tll 1:\5.tll:l 37'.22 J2.1O 5150 1\1(,.22I'h.ll"nfW!' 71.04 1Iw:,,41 1-17.111 lf'2U :VUtl S4.11U

Tol.11 I,JI4.27 1.'>"I6.ll:'\ 5,4':l'l.M 17':/.1>11 341l.htl 6112,1.1.. Rmrl.,;

I"'","r '1I'l';.7~ 1 17,1211 ~.:\.I227 7.' 17 121 e.1 :'ll~ '1(1lihi.l 1 t"rs"l~ 2~2 ,,t, ,1'1""11. l. ';.l:'.lMI ~ih.'H. II-IINI 2,'2,111Mt'!,.I.lrMl 1IO.hl 1'1''-1''1 7.'>4.11 51.~1l ';'I.N 17l 11Ih,\l.,n.;'''' 55."S "'.7'1 147.5H 1f>.::W .JS.4U 54.UO

Tol.11 IAl>4711 2.222.64 7,775.90 1':17,143 J3Vl'l 52.1I

--fe.."k~ ("",l">M.!it1 1,IKItI.'Il'I

L\lJl~S .md wi.,.ll'il'''' :l/.2,AA 1,.115.-14 2,Osn.H2I k.lrl lllU4 .117,~2 (,n2~IIr.>lI1 '/0.;2 17Il,1 ti:!

1..1.,1 Ion' Wt'i);hl :!\KKr"lU 41.'II.I'ql'; Iltl,llr. h';ltd.,1 in ptlullds 57.11\ ....,., 24.1.-111

Welght. for BOl1ele.. P.". and S.-mm." Welght.lor 5heep .nd C.rlbou (gram_1

MI!Gt Utlll"

" Wl'ights for kidnc)'s are indudcd in gross wt'ighlsfur lumbar vl'rlt'!:>rae given inT,lble 1.1.

" Thl'St' '.lJ\lI:~Jo n~.t indudl: wd~hls fUrh,"~Ul' .lnd brain~sinn' lh.y W"n' II1Clud-l"\ in ~rnss wt-i~hls .. f mandit'ol.. .lnd skull in Tilt>!ulcht'n'd wilh \n., t,nd.'rloin n\,1 nmuv...l ~lrilr.ll.ly .

nformin solution (sce Creen 1934: 1-3). Thebonos wore thcu wctghed, ylclding "I'!-I Am('wt'iSlrts, Subscqucntly wc measured thc vol-ume uf the marrow cavlties. Sorne of the dataobtained nre summarized in Tablcs 1.1 and12.

For the carbou the butchering operationwas the same, with ene exception: The clean-ing of the mea! from the bones was not perforrned so no "cleancd weights" were ob-tained. Dry bone weights were cbtainedthrough boiling in antifurmin, as was done forIhl. Shll'p.

II should bl" stressed that al! threl' animillsWl'R' butdll'rl'd slightly diffl'rl'nHy with rlg.ud to tt'Jlltl'r1oin rl'tnoval. For thl' t.Id femalcShl'l'P thl' tl'ndl'rloin (pmclicillly nothing but

Tin this case a section of deer antier, was used.Cleaning consisted only uf thc removnl of theeres nnd bratn in each case.

Thus, data collccted at the time uf sheepbutchering were (a) weght o each anatcmtcalpart or unit o dismemberment and (/7) weghtof each bone after alJ meat and tendn hadbeen removed from it.

To obtan completely clean and degreasedbones, we boiled them for 7 hours in an an-

J. T1Ieo Economlc A_10m)' o/ Slteep fIfIdCorlbou

~ each Ieg bone was cleaned it was(sawe,d--fn half al both ends jusi below the'arttuJatur end. The marrow was removed,bagged, and stored in a Ireezer Ior later weigh-iog on a more eccurate balance.

Thl!'F1nd s'Mbotb'he9f' ..! &ti! , Le eain-..he::Naapdertball~..,....,.. that is. thc entirehead was disrnembered for removed of thebrain. exposure o the fal behind the eyes andthe Iat and cartilage of the nose. A bludgeon,

n AII wt'ighl in gr,1nlS (453/> ~rn = I 111, Gr"~s skull w,'ighl indud.,~ br.lin." Gr .. ss m.mdit>I.' wl'it;hl inflllJl'~ Itln~u"

~ Gross tuml'M wl'it;hl indutll" kl

-T'

",. J.OJV'7' - cM4 .lekve . {~rj;.,4JZ

1181 l. TIw fconomlc AlIl1tomy o/ SlIeep ond Corlbou Construdlon o/ a Meat VII"" Index /or Analomh:IlI' Pom o/ CllIrlhGU ondSh~ 119 J

TABLE 1.3

W"iKhl (Km) Pl'I'(,nloilb'( W,'ight (Km) P"rt:C'nl,IK"' WdKhl (Km) 1'I.'I'(,'nl'lKI.'

A. Grurrallmaflll7lifa/ (Qkgc"'~Blnod l.tlClH.4 4' 2,5'14.5\1 5.' f>.J%.llCl ~.f>Ski., 4,4IlI.M 17..1 7.4:l ll lH l./o IK.'l40.K4 IIl,MOr';,llls X.7S4.-lM 33.H 14,X75.54 .\..1.1 Jt,.33~.5X 32~Dry bone 1.54'1.75 . 0 J.2tKl.22 7.3 5.93H.7'J 5,4Mt'al + (,11 10.001.7"" 38.6 16,mS.66 31.2 43,430.44 :W.J

TI'lal 2~.AA5.30 '19.' 44.905.05 HJO.O 110.44S.S 100.11

R. M/I;l'ff I11111IPmic111 ~.'{II1f'"~A....ll p,lrls 1,.mW.32 ~2 ..1 11,737.44 '>1(.2 n,2:N.MI lh,nl-r,,,,l Il'~ 2,h2M54 22.1. J.'J'I2.11h I'I,M 1lI.""".:l2 22.1Rl'.lr Il'); 2,92'1,40 25.2 4.445.2" 22.n 155.'iJ,'n :lU

1',,1,11 11.1>42.21, 11I11.1 2U,174~ IlItUl 4'1,7.11.0'> l(llUl

Cemp.r.t1Y. Body Proportlon. 'or Sh.ep .nd C.r1bou

difference between sheep and caribou. In fect.the data indicate that the 9O-month-old sheepdiffers more from the -month-old sheep thanfrom the caribou. However, this suggestion isnot statistically demonstrable. In part B ofTable 1.3 sorne meaningful dlfferences ap-pear. Compared lo the sheep. he caribou isheavier in the rear quertcrs and lighh... r in thcaxial skeleton. Also, the poorly nourishedsheep has a heavier axial skeleton and ghtcrleg muscles than the youngerbut nutrttionallysound animal. This finding is in agreementwith Eskimo opinions that caribou in poornutritional condition have essentially usclessfront quarters, that the bone marrow bt!comes"runny" and nnncompact, ilnd that thl' nr-gans art' Il'asl affl'ctl'd by pour nulrition. TheEskimo also bclieve thal Il1l' necks of caribl.lustrongly reflect nutritional state and are theleast useful parts ol .,0 underfed animal.

I rcalize thal the Sitmple size is quite smal!. Ihad originally planned lo study thl'

- r

~0t. o- CUA>ta.

1201 1. The Economlc A_lo..., o/SlIeep ond ClJrihou

TABLE "4

The Con fucllon al MC'at Utllll, Index for Sheep and C.rt.bou

(A) (H)Cross WE'iShl 01 "..rl J():I - dry bone ':Y~~

Oross weighl 01 animiSl Cross wl'i~hl_.- ~ -

--

Sht,p C"riN,n Sh.,.,1' ( ',.ril .. ,,,-,--~

---------

fl munths ':111 monln" 411 m,onU" (, mtmlhs 91J months 4H 111""11. ..

Analomical par. (1) (2) (3) (') (5) ()

(ranium 2.72 '.(,4 2HO .52 .9 7Mandibll'

With tengue .l~ 5.'11 3.57 .78 ... .~IWilhout tengue !.S5 260 1.54

" ""rr

Atlas-axis 2.33 2.02 1.26 .81 HU .R.lCervical vertebrar- 6.23 5.39 4.24 .'10

"".~I

Thllracic vertebeec 5.47 K.71 S.60 .. .84 .H7lumbar venebeae ,.,,, 4.31 3.'10

" .".""[,('Ivis + sacrum 9.79 8.04 '.311 H' so ..,

Ribo; n.ee 'HN 7.41"

HI .72Stemum 7.7'1 '1.21 7.2'1

.'" ." .'!4St:.lpul.l 4.7H 4.tH Ha .'1'>

" ""Humerus DI 2.Iw 3.:l4 .H" .114 .~IR"di"-4:ubilus 1.10 I.l 1.114 7'1 .73 .InMel.lcarpal + carpals .74 .66 .75 .63 .62 .72Fernur 8.46 7.30 1074

"sz

""Tibia + tarsals 2.42 2.47 3."" ., rr liMt'latarsal un .14 1.51 .(,3 6" rrFoo!" .47 ..,

".71 62 '~1

" Indudl'" "tti'III,lh'lll'h,I.m~~''.

Constructlon 01 a M~at Vtlllty'nrkx lor Anatom'cal Pan. 01 Carlbou and Sheep

(O (D)AxH Slandardi",,, ml'oll

(M,,lllIlililvimll'x) IIlilily intl""

Sill"'P l,m't111 Shl"'l' lMil.. ru-._-- --------

h nU'l1lh, '111 mtll1th" 1l'llllt"1Iil!o h I1ltlllth" '1\1111

---------------- ---- ---_...

122J J. T1tc&onomk A...Iom.,o/ Slteep and Carlhou

r

ft1ee(. - =ee

Bone MCHTOUl _"d die CoMtructron o/ MamJUl Indo:

c0u1' ):':'/ .~':J _jJt..I-:>uuI.Az !...,.,\(231

Slandardi/Td ml'lll utilily indin's In' tWtl Sh"I'P and 11m' canbou.

~-

~ -,i:

1:;.

~,~

Figure 1.1.

~ ~ ~ ~ > ,:: ~ ,. ~ < ~ ~ ,> ~

t.egendtARI'OU

S"l(.l~_f""

SOOU.II_'''lI

TABLE 1.5Sum.mary of Mut Utlllt)! Indlcea

101Sheep and e.ribou

Anillunli""r 1"."- Sht'tp C.Uit>tIU--

Skull 25.11 (12.86)1' 18.1 (9.05)Mdndiblt'

With tengue 43.36 31.1Without ton.:;ut' 14.12 11.4

Atlas-axis llU,5 10.1Cervical vertebrae 55.32 37.0Thorncic wrwbrac 46.47 47.2Lumbar v,'rh'l'r.w :lH,KH :'1.1.2P,'lvl'; + S

r.-m/tTM ._1>'-l.~-...-fe:J!J,J. - rtu~t:.

7 , dis-eriminating thiln tlw dWlllir,ll l!'O~.l)'; .1 Tl'W";-

the mctapodlals and phalanges of the front legbut the uppcr-Hmb bones are considerablylower than their anelogues in the rear leg. Themean value uf the front lcg of sheep is R2.5%uf Ih,11 Ior thc b.wk I('~. Thcse Iacts would belikely to condition the differential U5t! of Limbbones dependng on the desred use of themarrow (a) as a Iood (Ir (b) as a source oflow-melting-pomt fnts for speciel use.

In .order"Q.'Qnfl~d,an- Index.of utility forexploitlng boncs-for merrow, both vcleme-perpart ilnd quality pt.'r part rnust be--considcred.Al (rst Ilhou.;ht this mi);ht bea rather simplepfll(.lut't rdali'lnship. However, informantt.'valuations uf marrow showed that they wcreapparently giving greater weight to qualitythao to quantity. In addition, experienee withthe Eskimo It..,d mI..' to believe that their dc~dsion m.,kin); rt.;arding: ..h,'ndonment OT rc~It.'nlion of parLs for Ihe l'xlr,Ktion of mMruwwas fl'laled lo Iht'ir experienn' wilh Ihe l'aseof extraelion. Quality was rnllnitored by thepercentage of oleic acid and quantity wasviewed (rom the perspeetive of retuTOper unitof work investcd in ~btaioing the marrow.Fortunatc1y, rny field erew had eonducted ac-tualm,urow-CTtlrkin,; ('Xperiml'nts so WL' Wl'rl'abll' to evalute the work needed per unituf marrow rduTO from different anatornicalparts. I was not p(.rSlllla!ly present at thetiml' Ilf th(' marrow-cracking l'xperimcnts andam thtflfort' reporting obsl'rvations made byDan Wit!t'r, a ml'mb(.r of my fidd erew, dur-inJ.; th\' summl'r uf 1972.

lJuring thl' courSl' of four s(.'par..')tcm.lrfl1w-nneking sl'ssillllS tillll'-and-motilmdat.l Wt'rt..' collec!l.d. Each partidpa'tWaStimed from the point at which deaning of thebones was initiillcd until the last percussionblow was t'xt'cut(.d. Thcrt'ore, the data pre-st'ntl'd rl'l'r l'xclusivt'ly to the acls of modify-in,.; thl' bone for m.ufOW cxtraction .'00..1 do nolnt'n'ssMily nft'r 111 tinw sr,'nl t'ilhl'r ('xtr,,("t-ing Uf I'.llin,~ th, m.1mlW ils\lf. 11.11,1 on lhl'm,lIldihll-. pl'lvis. SI.lpI11.I, ,md ph,ll.mg('s ,r,'~ In'llI UlY Illl!t'S 1111 ~\lIl'r.11 "xpcrit'nn'with the Eskimos. Fur instanee. data onthl' milndiblt,s W('f(' Ilhtililwd ('arly in thl' ft'-

for parts of caribou not studied by Irving wereobtained by Crange 00 samples shippcd loAlbuquerque spcriflcally Ior rhis purposc.

Clcarly, Ihl' fntty acid composition of bonemarrow is v ..arlabh-. The ,.;n',lltsl coruvntr.rtionuf low-mclting-point Iats is found in lile Iowcrextremities. This is what the Eskimos refer teas whitt' fat and it is considered thc most dcsir-abl e nutritionalIy and for certain spccia1 pur-puses. euch .15 the watcrprooflng of skin bootsand the treatment of bowstrings lo ensureflcxibility.

The quality of the marrow varit's bt'twel'nIh(.' fronl anti n'ar Jt.'g uf the sheep. As s,'t'n inTable 1.6 the valu(.'S .1feconsisll'nlly hi.;h(.r fur

lowest melting point, approaching nn Di! in itsproperties. For very different rcasons thanmine, Meng, west. and Irving (1%9) con-ducted an assay of oleic acid conccntrattons inthe bOI1(' marrow (If caribou (mm thc Annk-tuvuk rcgion. Sino..' this dSS.1Y wus most pro-vocave and useful, I encouraged a gradatestudent in chemtstry, Robert Grange, toundertake a similar assay (oc thc bonc marrowrecovered from OUT -month-old shcep. Thcresulte of Grange's analyss. together withdata on caribou taken from lrving (J972: 149),are summarized in Table 1.6. Also lislt.>d arcthe ml'asutt.'d marrow cavity vnluml's (lit b(lthshcl'p and caribou. Oleic acid conn'ntr.1tions

. ~

-r -

1261 J. The Economle A_tomv o/ Slteep ond CDrtbou BoneoM_fTOUI ond the Constnlctlon o/_ MllrtouIlndex 1271

TABLE 1.7

SlUIImary of Edr.ctlve Efflclenc:y Mur for Cartbou 80". Murow TABLE 1.9

I\l'latomical par! (11 (2) (:1)

Mandiblt> 5.2 752 Pelvis 2.0 7.41l .17Scapul.l l.. 7.44 .25Ilum\'rus "',2 7.H5 2.44Radill-("utrilus J4U 7,73 1.111Mt'lilrarpal 0.1 7.~ l.(1f,r\'mur 24.2 7'47 1.01I'nlJ(mallibia 2.1.'J 7% 3(XIOislallibia 23.'" 7.% 1011Calcanl'us 12 7.41 16

M\'lal~rlloll 9,.'; 7,(,2 124Firsl phal.,"~{' 2.11 7,4.'; 2.St'('llnd I'h.lIIl'lW I,n 742 .1.1

Elltlm.tl'd E.'r.cthl. Elfldf'nrl.1I10f 5heep Bone M.no..

~ Ob!l('rvatjon~on Ihe proc"!;!ling n the calcaneus were nevcr made.

nilion threshold was operating, with low va l~ves gcncratly bl'inr; lumped .l!i "poor" nndhighl'r vnlucs scah-d.

The value for efficiency was transformed byusing the value of its squarc root. The valuewas so modified because we suspected thntthere was (a) a bias in informan! evaluations infavor of grease qua lity and (b) a recognilionthreshold below which recovery was not con-sldered worth the effort end aboye which acomplicated scaling employing evaluacns ofboth quentity and quality wes operativo. Thcrnarrow Index wes thercfcre constructcd bymultiplying the square of the grease valudivided by 100 by tht.'square root of thc effi-ccncy measure. The rcsulting valul's aregiven in columns 5 and 6 of Tabll' 1,9. Tuconverl this array lo a standard scale fmm 110100 (Ihe conventional scalc fur rcporling bonefrequencies from archaeological siles), Ihevalues in columnsS and 6 were nonnalized bydividing all values by the highesl values in lhearray, in this case 87.20 for sheep, and 129.49fur caribou.

As in thl' caSl' uf lhl' cumpM

rcdcU-~~1'a-

1281 1, The Economle Anolom, ofSMep and Carlbou Bone MarFOUl and the Comt,.ud'on al a MtJrrouI'ndex 129 J

'"

,..

mea! distribution, minor diffcrcnccs botwccnthe caribou nnd sht,(,p MI.' sccn in thc valucssummnrized in Feble 1.9. Fur thc axial skele-Ion and front quartcrs the vales aro nenrlyidentical. In shecp the distal tibia yields thehighest value whereas in the caribou the mas-sive metatarsal is the most valuable marrow-yiclding bonc. A linear rcgrcsson wns celcu-lated for the relationships betwcen sheep andcarbou and the two were found lo be corre-lated (r "".97) al ao astonishing level. Thisrclationship is described by the formula y =- .543 + 1.0lx, where y is the value of the

marrow index for shccp and x is Ih(' compara-bll' v.1Iut.' fOf caribotl. This nI.lli(lnship is !lus-lratcd in Figure 1.3.

Here again, there are minor differences inthe proportions of Ihe animals, particularly inthe front to rear quarter proportions. How-l'ver, thl' ovcmlJ distribution of milrrow is Vl'rysmil .. r, ~uR:E;l'sting once morl' th ..1 thl'S!..'sludk's ('an be utilizt..'

r[301 J. n.eEeonomlc Ancrlom, ofSlteep end Ccrrtbou Bone N'lIrIVUIaruI file Con.trudlon o/GMonvu IndeJc 1311

TABLE 1.10

Controlled O.t. on Ihe Seledlon o, Bon lor U.e In M.kln. All:u'uk~

~ I-"IIT (lis.:ussiull uf MNI v_llm'S, ....1l'h,ll'h'r 2. I'Mls wilh lI,.,llimurn L1hhly wilhill I"."'h 1>"11( ,Ir 1>

~6~~

.. > .~ -g

-1! .-~ o ~~]~"'~

~.- ~'.1 'Z 9

,

Ji

"

!z1;

1"""' ~0-E ;:

~:E"i-3 ]

~ ~r;] ~~ ~ ~~ ~l.50]

~ E~ , eE "'6 ='~ ;lo:.c.:2 .~l~.l~; 'O:ii~~ t. z.ih, .2 tt.3 :~ . " > o E1"1".

-5

.

ion ;; -% %% 2;:1 ,~ !t; ~ - "~~~ ,,~y~ ~~~ ~~ ~"~ ~ !t ~ ~ ~ t 3 E..1 11I '" t ~ t'o.i ~~~~ ..eEl':~ E~~~;::!! ~~E~~l~~ ;;,~: E~7lil;;~",;;~7li~;;! f~;;~~~~~._ ",V] ='"'3EE-EEEIII"vEo."~~-gJ '~ee'~ Eo.;'~i~-~]-~]~]l~;;~3-~

: ..lI. .:! _ 'g ",g =' i ~ !! ~ e611I e.':!! .. e ,,:!! e':!! e,,:!! .. -( v e -':!! ~ ~..c-(~/.-(~u~~~~~~~ ~OU~O~O~O~ ~o~~~

00000000000000000000000000000~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~g~

oooooo&~0000oo6~~000o~0000ooo~~~~~~~~~~~~~~a~~~~~~~~~g~~""'~

000000000000000000000000000:=.00~~~~~~~~~~$$~~~~~~~~~~~R~~~~~

~~~h~$~8~~~Sh~~~~R~~8$~~~~~~~............ .,.; ...... ,, ... ,.-)~N ... ,... ... ~~,...rN,... ... ,... ... - ...

~2~e~=5;8~~~~6.~~6~~~!~~~~~=e~.,;~"'gg"'~~ ..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~i~~

'" o.,., O'> l. -t' .... ,,., et,

'=:;:~e~

,,.; !

~ : ~ Q

..,

;eee

~'"

o different parts of the caribou for renderingbone grease, we extracted samples of tissuefrom the cencellous zone of all boncs and aquantitativc an.llysis was perforrucd byRobcrt Orango. who had also analyzcdbone-merrow samples. Grenge's analysis wasreported in terms of the percentage of oleicecid in the total Iats making up the sample. Asmentioned earher, Ihis ts the fat with the low-est melting point and Is believed lo be theagcnt contributing to the Eskimo diffcrcna-tion bctwecn yellow and white grcosc. Thcresults of Grange's analysis nre surnmarizcdin Table 1.11. The table also gives thc bonedensity and the mcnsured volume (lf cechpart. These data providc accumte mcasurvsfor each part on the thrce dimensions of utllltypreviously mentioncd.

To construct a scalc nI uhlity (Uf cach boncpart, il was nt.'Cl.'SS

1341 l. The Economlc Anolo"" o/ Shf!qJ Gnd Carfbou Done Greue and die Constructlon 01 GreoH Utllltv lndlcu 1351

TABLE 1.12Gr lndle lor Whlte Grnd V.llo.. Gr In Sh.ep and C.,lbou

White gll.'a5e Yellow gn-.lSl'

Shl"t'P Caribuu Sht'l'P ClribulI

Anatumical rarl (1) (2) (:\) (4)Anlll'rSkullM,1Iltliblt, 1.(1 I.ll :\.1.'11 42 7"i\tl,IS I.U 1.0 2(l.7~ ',1 HIi\_ls 1.11 111 27,.1.1 44,1"Cl'rvicdl vl'rld'r,ll' 1.11 1.(1 43.2'1 5'1.7Thoracic wrlt'bfae 1.0 1.0 28.34 41.00Lumbar verlebrae 1.0 1.0 42.54 5064Pelvis 1.0 1.0 100.00 100,00Ribs 1.0 1.0 26.84 25.63Sternum 1.0 1.0 31.89 M.tl6Scapula 3.tl5 7,0'1 l.O I.nPnlllimal huml'rus St..t.7 75.40 1.0 1.11Dislal huml.'rus ':l.:lN 27.M 1.0 1.0I'tullim,tl r,ltlit,cubittls ~2.'>4 ~7 ..ilus 1!'I,n :\2,7ll 1.11 I,nCarpals 22.WI 36.47 1.0 1.0Prollimal melaCatpal 13.24 16.71 1.0 1.0Distal ml'lilcarpal :\15l,l 42,47 1.11 1.11I'rOllin1ol1ll'mur 2:\.Il 2.':l0 I.U I,nDislal fl'ffiUr 101.).00 101.1.00 1.11 1.11PWlIimallibia Stl.40 6'1.37 1.0 LODistal tibia 26,M 26.05 1.0 I.lJTarsals 23.59 29.87 1.0 1.0

Aslr.l~i11us 24.:lN :\2.47 1.0 1.11Calcam'us :W.:lN 40,% 1.n 111

l'rt>llil1MIIllt'I.lt.lrs,ll 12.~7 17.1-1K 1.0 111Di~l.d ml"l.ll,\r~.ll XLl:\ un I,n l.nFir~t rha1.1"K"S 15.711 33.27 1.0 I.nSo.'Ctln phal.m~l"

--

136)

a.y/".u;~,:]' -~f,""w41t1Mf('"h~

, 1M Econamla: ANito..., o/ Shp G,w C."bou TBon~ Greas~ (1M elle ConslrUctlon o/ Gl'ease Ulllltv1nd1ca 1371TABLE 1.13

80n... Selected lor Ih. Manuf.ch,,r o, Whltl' 80n. Gre

ce

1"11I' .I~' AUI:,,.I 1-1, "'1 Al'nl '. IH, 1'171

Number Numbl" PNCl'nt"~l' Number Number l'l'rn'nl,l~l'intrl,lJun'J saved savt',l introduced saved savcd

Analomical part (ll (2) (3) (4) (5) ()

Scapula 2.0 11 11 5.U O 11Proximal hcmerus 20 20 100.0 5.11 4.0 HO ()Distal bumerus 30

'"3..1.3 SO 2.0 41W

Proximal radio-cubituw 7.tI 4.0 57.1 50 3.U tJO.ODistal radiu-cubitus 7.0 3.0 42.M J.O 1.0 :n.1Carpal.. 111.11 O O 10.0 O 11Proximal metacarpal O O O 2.0 u 11Distal metacarpal 11 O 11 2.0

'"500

Proximal remur 40 3,D 75.0 30 2.0 M.'Distal femur 4.11 4.(1 1000 311 30 IOnuPrn"imal tibia 4" 30 75,11 4.11 30 75.0Disl.lltibi.l M.O lU 375 4.U 2.(1 541 nTarsalx 24.t1 JI.n 4.'>.H 12.{1 e.o so.n

Astr'l~.\lus M.O 4.11 :i(UJ 4.tI 2.11 .'HOCalcenccs 11.1) 5.{) sz.s 411 2.0 ~I.()

Pnudm31 mL'lalilrsal 11.0 10 27.3 4.0 lU 25.11l>lst,ll nwtatarsal 14.11 vn "'.3 4.11 3H 7'''1fir,,\ phillilllKL' 40 IJ IJ 2.11 IJ IJSocond phalilogl' e.u IJ IJ 20 IJ IJTnird pnill'-In~(' 4.0 11 11 2. IJ IJ

A!lbflllghllwl~'t-.Sbejween. ,flle~parts '~onsumed,-.duriJ\g,:,thesprill'R-period M1d.thosec()n...med-~

sltm~, there is a strong corrclation bctweenthe percentages of each part present that wassaved for bone grease manufacture. Figure 1,6displavs the relationship between rhe per-centages for the two records.R s clcar that thepercentage uf parts saved I(J parts prescnt is aslrungly linear relationshtp.

Figures 1.7 and 1.8 display thc pcrccntagesfor both sets of data with respcct to Ihewhitc-grl'ilse indexo Therl' ilrl' tour conspku-uusly low villul'S in hoth silmplt, pllpul'l-lions-thn't' villut's for Ih1.' ph'-lliln~I'S ilnd ont.'fur tht., carpals, ThL'sC parts are simply nutprocl'sscd by th ..., contt.'mporary Nunilmiut forhum' gmls(' in~' uf tht'ir lluillily. Th,'y aH'

considcrcd too small and th ... work is omsid-ered too great for the yield. If thcsc parts areclimtnatcd frorn the cornpnrson. that rcla-tionship between percentagc parts sclcctedgoes up lo astonishing vales of .95 and .91 forthe june and April sarnples respectiveiy.Tbus, in this set of data we observe a phcnom-enon similar lo that ObSCTVl'd in thl' data onmarrow-bone selectlon-c-smal! parts. particu-larly phalangcs, are Ignorcd by thc conn-mpo-rilry Nunamiut. lt is my cpmion that Ihl' de-gree to which lowvalue parts as measurcd byIhl' scal ...s pn'sl'nh.d here Il'nd lu c111s!t'r is anll'asurl' (Ir 11U' subsish'llCl' sl'ulrily l'njoYl'dby thl' J.:rtlUp. Thesl' par!.o.; Ml' bl'in~ lrl'illl'd"calcgorically" in lhe bchilvioral dal.1 prt.'-scnled and no di((erenct.'s amon); Ihl'm are

bt.'in~ rl'cugnized. Wherl'il~ parls consid ...rl'd

""

os o so

~t:

Figull" L. Rt'lationsnip be-

tween two SoHl1pl,'s {lf rones savod~

fllr bone gn',lsl' pn";t'

J, 11Ie&onomlc A-tomy o/ Sheep ami CClrlbou

wf i1~.

138)

- ,;/il." ,>;w[t-ff'f:'/.;; ;~ ~"t'tk f"""l..b *) ~ l..k-k .f..kkK'hda"'1

Such .111 urgumcnt al least sccms congrucntwith much humen cxpcricnce, pecple tcnd tolike what is gcnerally availablc and nutritious.Howevcr, milny pcoplc likc thi(lgs that areseemingly netther abundant-ncrhutritious.

1''W89".e'lI'r.iMe:ii '9 Tep,,,' ........poten-tial variable in my l'est'arch,,~~NunaMitlt. Clcarly the WilY tu control Ior jhisvariable was to interview persona and elicitthelr food preferences, lo ask the informantswhich piccos of Ihl' caribou thcy likcd mcst.This "ppears lo hl' a slr.lightforward, un\-omplk,'ll'll slfillt'gy. 'rhe bikirnu rt.,.llily turnt't!out lu bl' ntlt so straightfurward and uncomplicilted, 1 could not make thcm understandwhat I ml..'ant by "likl' besl" or "your personalprcference," or "if you had unlimited parts ofthe caribou bd"re you-which part wouldyou eat firsl?" Such modes of questioningelicited puzz!t'd slares and Ooods of ques-tiuns. "Do YOII mt'ln in Ihe wintl'f, Of sum-ml'r?" "Do YOll mt'nrl dllrin~ migrnti~lt1 hunt

in~ nr whcn Wl'

'0

l. i..IlOr-I....o

:~.r:;!il;=~

.,

~2:i

i.

IoIo

.~/.o

X30Nl.u

n1.L/lJ."]"

Il.

o

~~

--

--

--

--

-~

--

._-

~o

"'l=

=l'>

f'-

.Ot-

-N

CC

C=

l'-r-.=

""

.:S2,..;,..;.,..;,..;....

:J>~~!:::!-e~_

_

j

~3.soE;;...E~~lO:!:

~..

..~

..lO

"-

-e

E..

~-e..~~.!.E..>:~..;i

obccause (1f ambiguitics in thc intcrvicwing.and difficulties thnt informants exprcssed inequatng phalanges to the other bones. Bothold men, fur instencc. acknowledgcd the

ph'11ia 5 3' 5 5 22

,Mt'tatarsal 2 1 2 2 2

, 1.8Mt'lacarpal 3 2 3 3 3 14 , 2.8Radio-cubitus 5 21

, 42Ft'mur , , 6 , ,

", ~.K

Iiurnl'rus 7 , 7 7 ,"

, 6.'Pdvis 7 , I tUI

rhalangt"S~Mandit>l ...

7 , , '(1

" "Sc,lru1a

, , I ,Calcant'us

, , ,

" Inftlrm1tnl did ""1 .tislint;uish b!:IWl'l'" disl.11 .ltld pmld::'t l'xisll'nn' ,,1 m.urnw in ni!! p.ut." Ehmin,\t\'d frllm ranking t>t-c,ltlSl.' uf ,lmbi~ullil's in int\,rvit'wint;.

0 0'

'1 ..,'--'Me-

,u

:j.

"'"u

'" Rdationship be-S Fi8u~ 1.10.

twel'n infunn"ols' food prdt'rt.>nees .-.

,and Ihl' m,uTUW indl'll.

-~ , x_x ti~ P'ELV o CAL

eMAN

o,,,

'oo 'o 20

'" "" '"60 ro 80

'" ""MARROWINOEll

--

1441

there 18 a strlklng relatlonshlp between th~choices made and the anatomically evaluatedvalues of the bones. Much of the variance inthis relationship derives frcm having inde-pendent values for the opposng ends of thebones on the marrow index bul no such dit-ferentiated information for the informan!choice data. As in the case of the relaticnshipbetween anatomically based seales of vnlue formeat we find that the Nurmmiut choiccs omerrow bcncs are excccdingly realistlc andcertalnly besed un a phcnomenal undcrstand-ing of tht.' anatomy uf the canbou. In bothcases meat and milrr

2Sorne General Considerations:Butchering, Kili Sites, andRecording Procedures

Butchcriug (Ir disllH'rilb""rrJwnl has frc-qucntly bccn trcated .1S the dynamic t.'xpres-sino of a set of cultural rules. The Nunamiutbutrher animals one way and the Navajo do itanother. If we treat butchering technique ordismembcrment strategy as an independentvariable-e-that Is, free lo vary independentlyof ,lIly1hinv. hui ideatlonal plu-nonu-na Ufwhat llli~hl 1... tcruu-d Ir.ldinu-nsions: mcat. m.urow. ,111d ~rl"lsl'. 1.1S-signed cach bonc Uf part uf l bOI1l.' a value unan interval seale from 1 to 100. vee may viewthese scales as analytically relevan! to humanbehavior in the following manner. Jf we as-sume that man is eontinually making choicesas lo which parts will N' used for certainpurpoSl,.'s, rncat consumption Ior nstancc. apurcly Ill.tXiIUi;in~slr,I(l'~ywould l'nsun'lllolthis first choice wuuld be the fcmur. sccondchoice the stemum, third choice thc ribs, andso un. In reality man is rarely Iaccd with such acontext of decisin maklng. Originally theanimal is complete ond thc W,l:rS in which if isdismcmbcred m"y condition llu- dq;n'~' towhich ccrtain boncs arcliukcd tll othcrs in thcdccision-making pn}(l'ss. Jf thc normal pat-tern of butchering is to WnlOV(' the metatar-5

[481

.~._,--

2. Some Ge_rol CO/dI;k".tJoM: Butcherlng. Kili SlIn. _nd Recordlng Procedure. Butcherfng Procedure1491

Fill:u~ 2..1. !I 11"'.11,,1\lit' "11 lln' hl1l.lr" in ,.,11

animal as a population uf totnlly independentparts. Instead, decisions lo kcep or dlscardparts are ccnditoned by the character of thcdismemberment unirs, sets of bones if youwill. Howevcr, we may retum to our originalqucstion. What determines or conditions lllt.'way men dlsmcmbcr animals? Is this nn inde-pcndcnt variable-e-n purcly cultural bi.'S---tlris It conditioncd by situanonal and cconomicconditions?

Kecping this qucslion in mind, Id us ex-plore the butchering procedure of thcNunamiul Eskimo.

BUTCHERING PROCEDURENunamiul butchcring is not 01 singlt' 01(:1 but

a series uf acts beglnning whcn 11w animal iskilled and continuing .,t various juncturesuntll Ihe animal is totally consumed or dls-carded. Nunamiut butchering can as a resultbe discussed in terms of two categories: NUriAIor primary field butcherng. and :.:at~he"or

secondary~~ieW btjlt"hering. I 5h.,1I discuss Ihetwo junctures al which bUlchcnng

[501 2. Some Ge"~' Coru'derotloru: 8utche-l"In Kili S'w. ClndRecord'", Procedure. R~

7 ......---------------.r

,

1521 2. Som~ Genero' Cons'drrotJo"": Sulcherl,.., Km SUn, ond Record'", Procedurea Recorded Coses 0//"11I(11Fleld 8ulchering 1531

men dragged tbe animals together and pro-("~d"d 1" ildd buleh", 111,,11I ,.ipidly. 'l'heyflrst cut thc hende (lff .,11 the l"OWS, lIslng akmfe tocut between the occipitnlcondylcs andtbe atlas vertebra. For 6 of the cows they thencut between the carpals and the distal cnd ofthe radio-cubltus to remove the metacnrpals,and between the tarsals and the distal end ofthe tibia lo remove the lower rear lcgs. Altermaking a cut from jusI ~Iow the poinr of theslernum lo the anus up "nd around the ehsirle, the hunters removed Ihe abdominal contents. They Ihl'n cut the (()ws in h.,If, sl'vl'ringthl' bilCkhonl' jusi bdnw lh", L\st lhoracil' V\'T-tl'bra. Nonc of thl' .mim.lls Wl'rt..' skilllWll. Tlwc.llvcs werc simply gutted and relurnl'd com~plete with heads and metapodials. The hunt-NS Idt al the sitc eight unskinned cows' hC.ldshl',ltiS wilh arliculall'ti anlll'r~. six Idt ,lnd sixright .uticulalcd lowl'r front Icgs unskinned,,lnd six Idl and six ri~hl lrlil"ulah.'d IOWl'r n'arIl'gS unskinmd. In addilion were Ihe sepolrah.'piles of abdlll1linal contenls from Ihe animals.

October 9, 1969: Nlne BullaDuring Ihe ht:'ighl of Ihe fall caribuu migra-

tillO a single hunter killl'd ninl' bulb oul uf aI"rger herd that passed IU'.lrhis hunling standduring ille ilftl'rnoon. Thl' hunh.'r ilb.lI1tJ\JIWdfurther huntngami bc.'g'lnthl' lilSkufbutdwr-ing. The dead anim,lls were e1uslen'd in "small Mea su the hunter dragF;ed lhem to-gt'llwr

[541 2. Some Genero' Co",'drrgtlOnll: 8utcherfng. Kili Sltu, and Ruonf'''9~urn Cachfng ond Secondary Ffe/d Butderlng [551

from fronl lo back, and a second cut trom thestemum to the vertebrae between the secondand third ribs. He pulled the rib sectionabruptly up, cracking the heads of the ribs altheir attachment with the vertebrae. Grabbingthe slab of ribs al the rear, he pulled it up andforward as he ran his knife along the crackedheads. Ireeing the rib slab Irom the vertebrae.The ribs were then piled lo ene sirle. With hishands the hunterlifted thc heart and lungs outof the thoracic cavity. then freed them by a fcwshort cuts. Then he placed hls knife inside thethoradc cavity al the poiot of th(' sll'roum andTan iI fllung Ihe att.,chments bt.'lwt:'cn Ihe slcr-num md Ihe right rib stab. He bent lhe sler-num, oc brisket, down and, holding it at therear, pul1ed it up and forward whilt;' runninghis knife along the broken cartiJage, thus re-moving lhe- brisket. Using the one rem.1iningantier i1S a h.mdhold, he twish.'d the h..-.,dcountcrdockwisc. He m"d..' ilcut duwn to thebone just behind the second rib, and removedthe complete head, the cervical vertebral', andthe firsl lwo thoradc vertebral' with atlachedarliculated ribs as a unit. Running his knifealong the base of the remaining rigbt slab ofribs and back to the crolch, he freed the dia-phragm and the abdominal musc!es com-pletely. This compleled the field butchering,and lhe followng parts were loaded on fhesled (see Figure 2.6) fur transpurt bilCk tu thevlllnge; aH four leA"complete; the head, neck,ilnd tirst two thur.lCk v..'rt,,'bra..' wilh atlach..'d

~."".''''.''';'''' ,. ";'~'."'.""""'--::

j 1561 2. Some General COM'cWratJom: Bu'c/lmntl. Kili Sita. ond Rec:on!'ng PtwrduIY. Cachlng and Secondary Flrl' Butehertng (571

kili and cooked ovcr a (irl.!' kindlcd by hishuntingcompanions whi~~\ busy skin-nmg and butchenng t ~. nder thehead the skin of the se w visible. Hethen began slipping the -po nted end of hissnow probe under the snow and alcng theskin, breaking up large chunks of the rorn-pacted snow end eventuatly excavating themound of meat covered by the ski". NeM theedges of the ski n he encountered iced snow,which WilS Vl'ry hard and had adhl'rl'd lo thl.!'mnosc skin. Ag.lin usil1~ his ax, hl' rhoppl'daround Ihe edges, (inally freeing one edge.The two of us pulled Ihe stiff ff(lZt.'11 .c;kin back,revcaling Ihe butchered p.1tls of lhe moost'.He took out one rear quarter and re-coveredIhe cache with the skin, pladog the head ontopo He also kicked snow back over Ihe cache.We returned lo his trap, which hl' b.,ited withpart of 11n' ml'al. Till' n'lllolimll'r 11( tlw lllHIl!OCIlll'at w ..!' aslll'd un lup uf 11lt.' (Olil. hudy m'.uthe fronl uf Ihe slt.,d. Wl' thl'n prtll.'I'l'dl't.J ..snort dislance up thl' north furk of th ... Anak-lillt'luk, Wht'rl' Wl'sighll,d fiVl'cilribou high onIhC' sides uf Ihl' muunt,lins. Thl' cMibou Wl'rl'nwving sluwly, in a nurthl'rly din'dion. Thehunler commenled thal he could not ..p-proach the caribou directly, since we would beetlm:ing and they would run along the sideso 1 e Olountain leaving us far behind. Wewould hilve lo go quickly along Ihe valleyfloor, getling in (ront of thl'm, and Ihl'n wcwould have lo move inlo a small valley, dimbthe mountain, and lay in wait for them. Wefollowed Ihis plan but not long after we werein po~ition Ihe cMibou turncd up a small drawhigh on lhe mountllin imd pruc:ecded directlyup 'he mountain, presumably to gel inlo thevalley on Iheother side. The hunterc:ondudedIhnt we had no chance of gl'tting Ihl'm at thispoint and Wl' wenl bac:k duwn lhe valllY. Westopped al a large stand of tall, matuTe willowsand the hunter began chopping firewood. Weloaded the sled with a respeclable pile ofwillow brllnches and we moved off in thedirection of the village, returnin,:; ilftl'r the sunhad set.

I asked thl' huntl'r why hl' did nut In.,d Ihl'1l11'.1! frlllllllh' ll1uosl'l.lcht.llt-t'xplaillt'tllh.11

thcre werc pnrts uf threc cartbou quarll.'rs :-;tillen his roof and he had the partial renr quarterfrom the moose. He had meat but they hndburned all the flrewood the previous night. Heleugbed, saytng that a hunter never comesback empty-handed. "lf he Is unsuccessful infinding game he can always brtng back n--wood, thet is something onc always neods."

On the moming uf April 11, 1911, JohnnyRulland, an unmarricd huntcr, inforrncd meIhat he was guinH uut tu a ml'at l",ll"hl' .lm',lsked if I w;lIlll,d Iu F;0 ..luIlA' Ill' dl'.Hly h.1danticipated that J would go, since he had alarge Sll'd and ,1 12dog lea m already hit(hed. IqUickly galhered my camera and noll'buokand c1imbed onlo his sled. He slraddll'd thl'sled, pulled back on Ihe dog traces, whistled,and Ihe team moved out al a swift pace alonglhe snow lrailleadin,:; (lul (lf Ihe Vill.1Al' ~llinF;Iltlrlll. It was .1 l"uht ll.IY (.lpproxim.ltt'ly-.12"1') ami 11ll' wind WlS (mm t1ll' l1orlh. Tlw

wind on our flCl'S WlS biling, so Wt' ~lth h,ll!pulll'd Ihe wulf ruffs uf our p,nklS forw.nd tnmakl' a kind uf lunnl'1 nut in frlmt uf ulIr f.l(l'S.Thl' dtlgs knew thl' Ir.lil ilnd both uf liS s,ll ()Ilthe Sll'd, mun' (nnn'rned with kl.'l'pinF; 1111..'wind off our faces than with where Ihe dogswere going. As we approached the Jow (hills)just south of Surnmit Lake, Johnny Rushedback his parka ruff and called lo the learl dog,who responded immediately by taking lheWl'st branch of a furk in thl' Sll,d Irait Wl' tJwnproct.'eded the fl'maining 4 mill's along th lwest side of Ihe valley without additionalcommands to the dogs. As we apPrtlached Ihemouth of Kongumuvuk Wl' saw il sm,lll irl'/akc fornlt'd In a sw,lll' (sel' Figure 7.2b), Insummer Ihis is a low wet arca or smalJ ice field.But in winl('r the nearby springs continue lofCl,d undl'r Ihl' l'arly faU in', which aets as adam. Water flows over lhe icl', and gr,ldu.lllylayers of ice arl' built up, forming an t'xknsivt.'ice lake. This particular lake W.lS uf clearaquamarine ice with a large ice blister ncar lhenorth sidl'. Such blislers Me commun; as ic:l'cxpands il sumt'timl's cr.1ck.

(58( 2. Some General Cons,choroatoru: 8Uk'herlng. Kili $11". lUIdRecordlng I'rocedu~.ButcMrfng Varlabllltv 159(

4. Cows are generally cached with bullswhen possible since bulls' antlers arelarger .10d willstick up highcr Ih.1" cows'ag,tlers.

5. In early winter cows that are not cachedwith bulls are retumed lo the villageprefercntially lo cnsurc tbcir bcinb uscdbcfore thl'Y are covcrod by snow.

6. Caches o unbutchercd anlmals must beplaced on more exposed kames andoriented east-west (in the main valley) sothat if l drift fonns around the cariboubody the antlers will be lo the side of thcmaio body o Ihe drift. Positioning anunbutchered animal so that lhe antlE'rsstkk straight up is sometimcs difficult.Unbutchered animals killed aftcr theTe issorne snow on Ihe ground aTesoml.'timcspropped upon their front legs with snowso lhat their heads are quite high, andless likely to be covered by snow.

7. Unbutchered animals are more oftenused as dog foad during winter, sincebutchering the frozen body into Ihl' pcutspreferred by Ihe Nunamiut is difficult.Such animals ilre gl'nerally brnughl intulhl' arca adjacent lo the d(lg Yelrd andbutchercd with

., .....--~-------r--------------

1601 2. So""", Gen....ral COnllldera'lom: Butch....rlng. Kili Sltu. cmd Ruordlng Prouduru S~moryo/ Butch....rlng Dato 161 J

l"trl~ ,b,llllt"""ti"

TA8L.E 2.1

Pan. 01 Animal. Abandoned 1.. the FleJd nr.u. Type 01 Kili

.. 1'\'rCl'lll.l~t>butchered ver-sus head.and-Iegs sites, iIlustrates thl' choieesmade as to whether lo return to el kili and therelevance of the amount of ml'at CelChl'd there.At sites where sevt'ral animals (Sl'l' Figure 2.7)wert.' killed, unly 8.1% (lf llw .mim.lls klll.'dwere ab.lndont.'d .1S pit.'Cl-buIChtrld eachl.'s,whereas 32.9% of the "nimals killed atsingle-animal sites were abandonl'd. On the

Kili. ,'h'hury l'il blllt'lHr...1".U,.IS" 1It',,I,ll1tll"w... I\~s 11t'.ld 'lllly ],,1,,1

Single 19 (32.9%) 8 (13.4%) 31 (53.6%) SIlMultiple 6 ( 8.1%) 32 (43.2%) )6 (48 6%) 74

Tolal 2' 4() h7 132

t1w Itrr.If. and ~,lW him ""lIlill'; ,kr".... In.' 1--m"I,ll,n~,11 wiln ,'rtinll,lled fno!-hall b",'n !"ss,'daSldl' : (a) sites with pit'ee-butehered animals, (b) sites with heads andantlers only, and (c) sites with the head,antlers, and lower Il'g parts primarily andnecks sometimes present. Piece-butcheredanimals are represented in the field by nearlycomplete although sometimes dismembcredskelctonsi only certain selected parts uf theanimal have been removed. The context ufsuch ki1lsand the eonditions undef which thedifferenl types may occur were observ~ld firston luly 17, 1969. The following account islaken fmm my juurnal:

luhnny IRullamll.lnJ I w,n. pll'kin.; up nu. 1"

1621 2. Somr cnn~mlCO",.,,d,ro'Io...: Bu'chf:rfns. Kili SU.... ,.,.d RrC'oml"R P~f'.'U"" SllrnmlllY o/ BUlrh"rlng Dolo 1631

TABLE 2.2

Bone Breake P.ttern. on Kili Sil.... (btl Slluon)

Thr- J,lTKl' mi;r,ltion huntinf; IIlCilli(,ns. Wbt'ft'thl" ax is rarely used, are no! includcd in Ihis1,IUy, Kills indudl'd are is}llll'd, indivhJual kills Irom t'lrly sprin~ (prior 1\1mi;r.llillnl. ..... hr-nn-nux-returcs ilrl;' slilllairly low.

,

"

Summer

72

Spring"

Numbt'r of kili!

bones that were already broken when broughtinto the village.

we.have.seen ,th.1t,butchering ;5 inreality allsk ..P.f. .OiS1l\J.'Qlbcrmcnt. Thrllu~h it theanahm,y uf a l.ugl' .lnimal is p.Hliti

MEASURING DISMEMBERMENT

2. Some Genero' Con.I.nr'&O..: Butche'rlng. IWI SIte., (Jnd Reconllng Proc,dures

-e

~z~;] ~ ~.~"Ji" ,o ~

~"

~~~~II 11e ,

~ . u, ou,::>0

"t~.g~o;r:I

:::~::,o 11 U

~ el::: ::.. o. ,~o..:JCl

,

,

!'~

"l~~g,

e,

og

:;B

-Il.:!! i::B ~u,.o::>0

~O.o;,;:

~..

0.], e

11..~~

o O", 000 ..... ~000"''''': ~a''''';~ gN _

11 11 , u , 11 JI "oC "O ;.~

u":J-;;

]8~"u,'~e

3 S e0-"

~~

!'o~~u,

-~ .:!l ;O"E.. ~~ ~0_.u, E

"E ~t

" .~ij

-~

'o ~

~ '0

~ '.

,,~

.. , "

~~:

,,',.s"!oulO.s"::>

!o

u,,.s..

..D..

The closer one is lo the initial activities relativelo a living animal (sueh ai"i at kili sitos], thcgreater the degree of anatomical organizauonobserved. Conversely, thehmgcr the lime thntparte of animals are subjected lo extendeddecision-making sequenees, the lcss anatomi-cal organization observed. Given these sus-pected relationships betwecn logistics. dl'-layed usage, and anatomice! organization, Ideveloped methods for measuring the degreeof dismemberment characteristic of a faunalessernblage. Origioally I attempled lo developen unambiguous procedure for measuringdismemberment relative to the anatomy of ananimal. After sorne experimentation, I con-cluded thal seprate mea sures for thc fronllegs, rear legi"i, and axial skeleton would bemore usvful. Bccausv I wdntl'd to dcvvlop .1mensure that was mcanlngful .1Il0 relatlvc tothe actual eomposilion of ao assemblagl:'rather than lo the "living" analomy uf ananimal, 1 nceded to dewlop methods for l'S-timating thl' maximurn number of arliculil-tiuns th'll nlUld tll'l'Ur in .my giVl'll f.Wll.11assf'mblagc. I would then be ablt:' to l'UmpUl'the numher obsclVf'd to the maximum possi-ble, This procedure was judged desirablesinee wanled to mCilsure dismcmb

1671

For up articulations. two steps are involved.First, the up value for rows at the extreme letof the tableare read for a givcn upentry. Next,the up value at thc top of thc cclumn is readand subtracted frorn the mw valuc. rile re-mainder is then multiphed by th l ' MNI valuvin the column-row boxand Istcd. The sum ofall up vales ls then added to the sum o thedown articulations, yielding tbe tol.ll ob-served articulaton value for the assemblage.

Calculation of the maximum possible articu-lation value for the nssemblege is somewhatcomplicated and unfortunately less straight-forward. In the examples (Tables 2.3 and 2.4)

thin~s are relatively simple in that the (lb-scrvcd MNls ere slh'd down thc It,,: SIl th.llthe maximum articulattons possfblc will beexclusively down vales. However, this is nut.1Iw.1YS thl' (OSl' .1Ild I wilJ pruvidc..' l'X0

~,

~I;--

"~,

Q

~

c..~

~0g

~-,~ e~~

ji,U

01' 'n o Q< -cJo; o oc

.n .r. ,....... ", ", In ,r, or..,....;,..;.;. 'r) lf'

o o~ ,

[691

sure of the Irequences of the two classes rela-tive to the anatomy of the animal expressed in"animal" units (MNls).

Many invcstigators havc eleboratcd thi-,simple technique far beyond the baste idea.Most investigators have been interested inestimating the number of animals that con-tributed parts to a glven assernblage. Ir this isof interest then ene of the first steps Is todistinguish between lefts and rights for pairedclements. Fur instancc. if one observes 12proximal tibiac from thelcft sitie and 19 fromthc right sidc, then quite obviously timinimum uf "l9 anirnnls contributcd lo thcasscmblage. DOl' can ~o oven lurther by dis-tinguishing boncs frum animals of difh,rt'lltage. If one observes 12 right and 9 left proximal tibiae from adults and 9 right and 12 leftproximal tibiac from young anrnnls then ob-viously thcre are 12 anlmals reprcsented incach count. Procedures such as thcse havcbecn outlined in sorne detall by Chaplin (lY71:70-75). Regardless of the dl'tails employcd bydiHerent investigators in estimating minimumnumbers of individuals, almosl ,,11 invcs-tigators use the convention of labulating bonecounts in minimal units of une individull. Forinstann', if one observl's 1 rib and 1 ,nis Vt'f-ll'br,l in ,10 ilsSl'mbl,lge, bolh w(luld I.w labu-[ted lS rcprl'senting a singlt' individllill inspite of the fact that unly 1 out of 26 ribs W,lSobserved. The argument is that one animillhad to have bcen killed far the archaeologist tofind even 1 ribt Sueh procedurcs have bet.'nwidely used to estimate the pounds of ml',ltrepresenled by a faunill asslmblilge.

In "lhis..&tudy.Jhe-pr.t,lJ:ct.i,Ulc,..tW"~,;akt.M.l.li.n~MN~s.-djfft.'fs ..f.rom.....1:te -'Rlethodsj~mmJJf)use in a numbe.r-Uf~ The procedurt.'s incommon use make ccrtain assumptions thatMe at odds with my experience. Using Ir,lditionaJ procedures it is assumed that men( isuscd in units of animals, hence the standardtabulatiun of onc animal f(lf any bones recov-ercd from aoy idenlification dass, as in thesingle ob example. This assumption is furtherindicated by the concern with estimaling"how milny lnim"ls sl.lnd behind" thl' faunal

possible bctween thc distal rnetacarpal andthe distal radio-cubitos and these are listed.Finally, only une MNI is le! spanning thedistal mctacarpal and thc carpals. This isllsted. It should be noted that an addtionalMNI is left but it representa l single bone andtherefore is not an articulation and is notlisted. As in example 1 the listed up and clownMNIs are multiplied by the appropriate upand down column and row values from Table2.4; tfu- vales arelisted and summed, yicld-

in~ thl' rnaximum cxpcctcd vales for cachasscrnblogc

Thcsc procedurcs will be followcd inmonitoring disnu-mbcrmcnt in

1701 2. Some (;enil'tD' Conslderotlou: Batcherln,. Kili Sita mI Ril'c:ordlng Procedure. CalculCltlng the Number CI/lndh.lduClI. from Sone Coun'" 1711

assemblage. lA ..".. t .n. "l'... 1\Otnormally transported, S ared, storcd, cookcd,or otherwise treated-l ..... he'ul. h... its. Aswe hcve seen, butchcring is a dlsrrwmbcrmontstretcgy, nnd lhc resulting sl'gmt'nts of tlwanatorny MI.' whn nre trensportcd. proo-sscd.and cooked. Thus it sccms only rensonablc lotabulatc bone counts in such a W.1Y that seg-mental units are not obscured by the tabula-tion procedure. Therefcre, "11 MNls will becalcuJalt'd bydividi"g tlll'obsl'rol'li btme ceunt foraXiVt'" iIIl'tltifirnfioll Iwili'y/Jlt' mllllll('7 ll!"mu'" /1file a"atomy IIIacomplete animal fortllQt unit. Forinstance, the MNJ for the proximi\1 femur isdNermined by dividing the ellunl by 2 (thenumN'r in the animal). Similarly Iht.! MNI fmcervical vertebrae (exclusive vf the atlas andthe axis) is obtained by divding the obscrvcdcount by 4 (the number in the animal). Theresult is that aUMNls are undistorted converMsions (lf the actual count of bones into .1nimalunHs. Such conversions may result in frac-tiunal values, depending on tht, number ofbones in the identification unit. For instanct', ifwe observed one first phalange in an asst.'rnMblage .he MNI would b< .125 (1 divided by 8).

~hnr ~ object to this procedure,silteit"'itignores differencesjn'side (rights and lefts)anc:Un agE', However, 1have found that hunters make no such discrimination. Body sizeand "utritional stale condition the differcntialuse oC parts or segments of the anatomy, nolIhe entire animal.l have observed many siluaMtions wh(-'re bias in side may I:rt.'ep into anasscmblage, but this is inddt.'nt.11 and any

estima tes of meat available baSt.'d on data fromthe nurnbers of righls or lefts will always bein"ated. For example, J hwe noted how sornehunlers It'nd lo butcherone sideand th{'n turnthe animal ()Verand butchl'r lhe ~lppositl'siol',This tcndcncy normally varies wilh (ht.' h.tnUMedness of Ihc butcher. If a hunter is pil'cCbutchering an animal he almosl always puts tuune side fUf later Imnspllrt Ihl' frst rear quar-tcr rl'movl'd. If hl' i~ ri~hl-h.'ndl'll Ihi" wi/lalmosl .,IWi1YS bt' .1 ri~ht n'ilf ~Iu'lfl~'r. Ir ill1asscmbllgl' is characterizl'd by RlM1Y pi\,(t'-bUlchercd introductions fmm kiUs Wl'C.111l'X-

. ~

pect a bias in rights or lefts. This 5.1mC typc ofbias is chnracteristic of meet distributions orsharing done during bctchertng. In neithcr ofIhl'!'t' cases doce the blm. Imhcate that .,11 thl'm\'.1t (mm thc nnimals rcprvscnted by sidt,bi.\St'd counts evcr cntercd thv sil~,-.ll1 as-sumption madc by thosc who calculate MNlsin terms of side. In answer to those wbo wouldsegrega te parts by age or attempt lo croas-identify bune elements te glven individuals(see Chaplin 1971: 70-75), their MNls will 0.'grl'atly dislllrtl'ti, jud~il1h fmm my ~'x~l('rjence. For insl;mce parts from animals varyingin age are differentially selected for USE'. Theyounger the animal, the less use is gcnl'rallymadt, uf the total.1natomy. In lurn lhe murediscriminating d...'Cisiuns ilre thOSl' lo trilnsport, place in storage, or otherwise US(' partsfmm small or "poor" animals. Our inlerl'st isin the actual use made of animals as food, nolin making poorestimates for what could havebecn a kili populalion while ignvring the reality n( Ihe asscmblagc lx'fore us. Thl' laUl'rrl'ality is what tht' rcmaind...'r of this buok is al!abour.

Clearly, 1am writing thesc procedural sugMgestions from fhl' perspectivl' of l'xpl'ri\'nccsnot yet shared wilh thc reader. Let me tryto iIIustrate the reality situation soTl}cwhalmore clt.'arly. The Nunarniut make a b.i.ilsl'duse o the heads uf calves and cows, lo lh("neat exdusion l)f bulls' heads. On tht' oth-et hand IhcfC' s i\ biased sell'clinn of hl'avymeat-yielding parts fmm largl' bulls. Let usimagiOl' a situ.'tion where parts are tr,lI1SMported from a kili butchering location to aJocation of consumplion. lntroduced are 9calves' heads, 5 cows' heads and 1 bull's hl'ild;22 femora are selected (mm large bulls, h ff\)m

C~lWS, and zem fmm c.1Ivt's. Us,ing pr()(('durt'sadvocatl'd by ehaplin (1971) illlJ uthers w~'wuuld recognize 15 individu.1ls baSl'd lm Il1l'hl'.lds and an MNI of 11 m.1Il's,3 femilll's, ilnd7.er\l calves based nn the femom. The hlt.llMNls rl'Cugni"."bl(' (1.1king agt' ilnd ,,~') inlt)ill'l"~lunl) would l'\(, ti \'.lIVt's (Iw,\lts), !i nlWs,(ht.'ads), ilnt1 1I bu lis (fl'n1ofl) fur.l l

1721 2. Sorne GeM'rP'l Co,..,deratlo,..: BUlcherlng, K'" Slte arad Rrcord'", Procedure.

,~ .. - -~ ~.ti~ 2 -gz e.- ~- .... ~ ~ ~ oh ti> "'6 .g ~ e- 5 '11 ;; ~ ti> ~ ~~g tt{: ~-tiy ~~E"li .... t~~~c:~_ ~ttl> ~e~~ E~~~~'II 2~E~~~~".9~ ..... E -:::1-" _tI>_E_ll :Oc:-"''IIQ.~i~~.o ~. ,~~ ~E".E'II~~EEE.E~",~'II'IIEE~,,~~ " ... _ .!:!'II.D:!I :::l::l. __ '11 _ - ..!t -~c:..,~~c:;;~~'~E'.. ",E~'~~~e-~~~'~~~0~~~c"~~~~-~ep, 1 wasable lo estimate with considerable accuracy

Ihe actual by-wdght proportions uf rm-at.merrow, and grease in the appendicular skelc-ton of these two forme. Meat-cmuscle andtendon-c-accounted for 94.04% of the grussweight minus the dry bone weght in cartbouand for 96.74% in sheep. Marrow accountcdfor4.78% in ceribou and only 2.29% in shccp.Grease (bone grease only: grease contalned inthe meat was nct induded) represented 1.20%in caribou and unly .97% in shccp. Although Ihave not carried out thcse studies on othcranimals, the contrasta bctwcen shccp ilI11Jcnnbcu in thcse prnportillns ;lPIll',lr In rdl\'\'1 ,1general condition related to body size. Myexpertence with the bones of bison and ctherlarge mammaJs has led me to suspect thet thegrease-marrow prcportions Increase withbody sze rather strikingly al the expense ofthe rnuscle-tendon component of the totaluseble wcight. Thc recognition uf these dit-ferences betwccn species becomcs irnportantin the evaluation of hunting slr:tegies (to bediscussed later in this book) and the characterof target species during diffcrenl seilsons ofIhe year.

Using these propurfions we may obtain ,1general ulilily index by multiplyjng thl' un-weighted ndices thus far developed by thl'seproportions, summing the rl'sull, and ~t.lndardizing to a scale from 1 to 100. The reslIh isa weighted compound index of general utilitythat monitors quite dosc1y the adual proportinns nf the diffl'rt.'nt us.lblc fuud cufnponentsof Ihe animal. Thl' dl'rivation (.)f Ihis gt.'n\'ralutility intil'x (CU1) is Sll01 fnolrizl'd in T.lbh 2.l.

As we miv;hl L'xPl'CI, Ihl' diffl'n'n("\,s pn'-viollsly nult'd Llt'twl'\'n ~http ,md r,ujhtlU l"llJl-linul' lo bl'l'\fidl'nt in (lit' ~l'nl'r.ll utilily ilhh'x;lhe chest arl'il v( the ~hl'ep lhllllinl(l.'S thl'utilily scale bUI the rear quarlers are moreimportant in the caribou. Simil.uly the differenccs noted in the marrow distribution arealso manifesl in this scale as can beseen in thecomparison of the lower rear values. Dl'SpitCIhesc diffl'rences lhe corrl'lation oc'twl'l'n Il1l'

indiCt~s for shl'ep and cilribou is Vl.'ry hi!;h (r=.88) and is a positive linear reJafionship de-scribed by an equation that is very duse lo

..j-el)..

~"'".!~..

.!~

=ii"~ '!

j :"< :

o

oi>

=Q:..;;Q

~

i'"

so]]]

~

~o]n~.;,,

~

1;,i'.S

i~:Third ph,ll,lIlgl' 35.2 2K,1 11.11 44.0 .5.5 45.H 4,11 .5Hn t 15,;1 41./'

Oismrml>trml'"lIt rlllul!;frnnl leg .926 ~W .""7 .613Rl'ilr 1('8 .713 .(;24 .n4 .64

(781 2. Some Gefteral Co...,....,JoI'MI: Bufchering, KJII Slla. and ROfd'ng Proeeoduru '00

Figure 2.11. l",.mp.lf.lliv.",p,'rn'nt.l;"S Ior p.lrts rt'm.linin.; al Auavik and An.lkli'II.IUk kil1bukh,rin; ..,It's.

FOil kllll

lCI "'~ ~!lO&O ro ~90 IDO

,~~., .... AnO"11l,,,1,,,,

->/--;

.',,,

.-.,

il_/

~ 100 ......T

! ~" ~I ~~wg" 'o

!5 S ea " ......0:;;~.. "I~-:"'::N!lO Zi--~'::1 f5 eetllVellT 40 Tlfle-":::~!z OIiPfIClllt;nv-.l! en

-

-

i so LUII I ,ce:'_ ." _.,e~ ..~e ,.

e

..

-i~

~\ r-,\." i._ 1

1II11 I I1 ,I I, l, II 1 \ 1\ IV '1 \ IVI/-

\ " I\-..-/ ,.......

~~i ~3~~~ ~U~ ~~~~~~ rr~~~~~1c~~~~~l~~~~~~~a~~~'8~~~o~c~&!~

~ ~ ~ ~ !lO ~ ro ~ ~ w

...

--

\\

" \1OUl.. ea!;!",-:-r-:~ C::' ': Dl

u aOlICe -, e Af1:lV"I'ft(..L~iCe ... _._011 R ~,

-

e

00

'0

ree

4..

..>

I;'; 20>

~

~ ~~w'" ro~8g ..

(1) .:. CD"-.J('I.i !lOZ;z; ~i 40

~~"~ ro~ ,.

TABLE 2.9

Inv.ntorie. o, An.'ornlcal '.rt. Remalnln, .t Sprint KIII8utcherlngSlt o, A.nnlk (1971) .nd An.kUqt.ak (1972)

An.wik An.,kli'lliluk

MNI % MNI ')h

Anatomical part (1) (2) (3) (')- -

Anllt'T 5:\.0 100.11 SAn 1{1(1,(lSkull 44.o H3.0 46.0 7'13Mand'bll' 3~.O 73.5 27.0 4b.5Atlas 40.0 75.4 Ib.U 27,5A,i!l 44.11 1(.1(1 15.0 2.2 \jO 15.2CIfI'.lIs 2'J7 ~,.O 25.n 411l'wxim.lllllt'l.lf.Up.ll :'l1.~ ~.4 J5 eav

\)i~t.ll ""'I.w.lrpal :11.~ ~4 :lfI5 02.'1l'rtlxim.llll'mur v.u In,'1 4.11

"P'

1801 2. Some lknerol Cou'derotloM: 8utellerfng, Kili Sita. and Ro""nB Procedure. l.ooldng 01 11J~ Ernp'rlccJl World 1811

"..I El-eSll:

'''' -\ \"

.. ~ ..z ~ lIIe\l1l1lMCI~ .. I IL : \C@w ,ffi..J ~ '0 IU'I' \!:lB ' !!8 .. \5i_ 10 ~"15'" ~;~ .. .- ,~r" -:=:~ .. "","","" ~

-". .. :~ Et..TM~ *"1i.:., CMPDlle:&~ 30 \ i ~ lO ,.". \."'IY~1" ~,.~, ~! .. "~l*C "te;~II,

-.- ""'" ~ ).T10 ~ lIIIC.~.':" "'" 'o II LI. te Tpj:r I'T

"~ \ ~ " , ,o

.. '"..

" " '"ro ..

'''' "..

'".. .. ro

'".. ro

''''

ee-\~ ..*-..uIt: .~w~:T_.'MAl

ti ~ 10 bMj.~~~~ .. .,ll!IiDIII, eUM ePb.Vn ..

....~ .W.... ~TllIIlIIMlC eDH .- en~~ .. ell'M n..,,,,_

- ~,. ..~ ..

o10 10 30 40 10 10 10 10 10 100

MODlFlED GENERAL UTIL1TV INDEXTABLE 2.7 COl. I

Figure' 2.14. Rdationship between d.ll" fmm IheAn.1Vik kill-bulchl'rin; locauons nnd the motiifi"t! ).;,nl'r.llutihly iI1lJ,~.

MOOIFIED GENERAL UT1LlTY INDEXTABLE 2.7 COL. I

"gu!'\' l.l". R"I.11illllship !....W",'1l ,1,11" trom .;pril1~ki1l-bul(h,'rin; sil('s and Ihc mll(lili,'' g.'n.'ral UliJily in-d.,,,.

100 iUoIT

~ 10!> \."

!:lt : \""'~,~l;B.. ; ..~~~!lO ~-.o~ .-il 40 \ C COY~ liT '\ e1M."t JO IJI.' 'euM T::Yi

~l r-"

I te llIlCe .~~II'M~..cllI- ......T--~ ..

o10 203040 llOaClfO 1010100

MOOIFIED GENERAL UTILlTY INDEXTABLE 2.7 COl. I

Figun!' 2.15. Rl'I.llionship between d.11,1 frolll theAnilktitlliluk kill-btllch"rin; 11lC',ltillns and the mudili,',lf;"Ill'rOllutility nd"lo:.

MOD1FlED GENERAL UTILlTY INDEXTABLE 27 COL. 1

ngUR' l.17. R,I,lti'lI1..hil' bt'lw""ll tI,'I,1 In'lIl "11I11-m..r kill-hutchl'ring sitl'S .lnd lh.' Inlldili",t g"lll'r,ll ulililymdcx,

quencies, whereas parts of low utility are rep-resented by high frcquencics. Thc shapcs ofthe curves differ Ior sorne of tho asscmblages.Por instancc, the curve uf Figure 2.12 (dis-pcrscd f.lIlldlls) isa low curve rising grnduallyas ti". vales dccrc.rsc. thcn rising verystecply at the luw vnluc cnd to nccommodatethe frequency of head parts. On the otherhand, Figure 2.14 (mass kill-butchering datafrom the site of Anavik 1971) exhlbits a highercurve, with a gentil' and syrnrnetrlcal rlse offrequency as the index vale decreases. Figure2.15 and Figure 2.16 are similar in that thecurves nrclow bul symmctricol. Thus, wc scethat .111 kili osscmblogcs (cxccpt thc summcrdala shown in Figure 2. 17) reflect dccisions bythe Eskimo thnt were made in terms of thesame knowledge uf caribou anatomy. Theywere dcleting parts from the ktll-butcheringIocation in termsof their knowledgc of caribouanatomy npplicd tu considerntions of generalor multipurpose uulity. I lowcver. 1I11' .1S-scmblagcs diffcr in tcnus uf thc wcighting thatthe hunters gavl:' lo this sc,lle. Prcsumably,thesc differences Ciln be accollnled for in lermsof "other considcrations'" or contingencicsthat influenccd thl' dl'l:ision milking. Figure2.18 is i1 sl'ries of curVl'S related in .1 rl:'glllilrmannl'r In thl' MGUI. Thl' rllrvc..'S range fmmt1w Ilhlximizng of 'lu.ll1lly lo tht, Ilhlxml',ing01 \I",dily. t'ttrV,':-; m.lI'"..d 11//11.. n'pn':-;l'nlslr.llt.'gil's Ih.11 sl'l,'d lur 1.lrg,' tlll.mlitil's ofpilrts of bolh high .1nd motil'ri1te vallle i1ndabandon pmts of lhl' lowcsl utilily al rapidlyacrelerating rates. Curves markl:'dxollrmcl Tep-reSl'nt strategies that select for high frcqucn-des of parts of thl' very highcsl value andabandon partsof modera le and low valuc. Thesigmoid Uf mixc..d bulk-gollrmd stmll'gies methose Wlll'rl' largl' qllilnlitil's of pmts of highand modc..'r.ltely high v

[ 821 r, Sorne Genero' COM'dendlolUl: 8utclterlng, KJII Sita. ond Record'"g Proeeduro Looklng al~ Emplrlcal Worid 1831

ing were slow and mostly herds 01 cowspassed tbe Anavlk locaton. The brcakup ofthe ice tock the hunters by surprtse and muchmeat had to be abandoned. Hunting was in-terrupted in order to transpon what had beenkilled before thc rwcr crossing bccnmc mpos-slblc. In 1972, the early duys (lf huntmg wcresucccssful in that herd sizcs passing Anaktlq-tauk wcrc smaller but contnined greatcr num-bers of bulls in good condition. The huntersh.ld killL'd what Ihl'Y nl'('tkd by May 20 ilndtr.,"sport W.1S It.'isurl'ly .llld t,'ssl'nti,llly l"t11ll-plt.tcd prior In thl' thundt.'r-Iikl' sounds uf tht.,river ice breaking up. As Figure 2.14 shows.Ihe curve for Anavik is high .lnd ,llld .1S sUppt1rts flr slrings .1l1d pl'H'Sof doth lls('d fo fri~hh'n rav('ns .1W

1841 2. Sorne ~nlt",1Cotul,dltnltlo...: ButckrlJtB. XIII SIte. (lnd R~onIlnfl Procedurw. Sex ondA~ Dora [851

TABLE 2.11

Anlm.1e Kllled lo, Mul (by Su)"'

., NlIml'l'r, in ",II1.'nlh!''1'' .Irt' 111Oml) ~(76.1J) W(H1) 33':1(7) 71h'Il1,ll,'~ 1>2 (~7.1J) 24 (ni) 23 (IK,'l} Ill'/ (:!h.1

1'01.11 2.:!2 104 1:!2 .."

dimensional corrclation botwccn thc surnmcrkili data and the utilty indccs. Summer hunt-ing camps are discussed further in Cbapter 6.

SEX AND AGE DATA

An aspoct tlr Iouu.il m"h'rials fU'qUl'Il!Ivdiscusscd is Ilw ,Iht' ,llld St" distribution 111animals huntcd bv m.m. Threc octu.d rccordswere kept cf

\[86) 2. Some Generol Cons'dervtkml: Butderf"B. ,,11ISitand Record'"" Procedurn SUrrtmCIrY [87)

TABU 2.13

~ Numh...rs in pan'nlhl'!lt"!l an' pl'ro.,'nl,lgl'SI,f 1l.1.11 S1'asunall,r sil" kili f;ll1ing in l'aeh dl;l' call'g.. ry

5-0 1 Age V.ri.bllby .1 Kili SlIu .. T.bal.ted by E.ldmo Ale C.le.orlu~

~ NUm~~ in p.afl'nlht"'t'!1 an' tillO ~'t.fl""'Ilt,I~t'!l uf thl' lul.als I'l'l.:on.il'd fur ~'.ldl !Il'oISlln ur sill'.

game-density area-c-one une hunting expedl-tion l1sting 4 hours and S min a lotal (lf 75anirnals werc sightcd in ::w scparatc ~ruupsJ was at a 105:0 tu fl'((~ni7.t.' ,1ny variatlonsin the butchering procedurv. Each eptsodc ob-scrved was dcntical tn the othcrs wh nnlyone difference. If an animal W,lS killcd in themomtng and thc buntcr did not Intcnd to n--tum tu thc filmr immodatcly thc anirual woscvtsccratcd and sometime-s roastcd in thc fcld:otherwise it was returned to camp uncookedand uneviscerated. In no case was the animalbUlchercd anywhl'rt.' but in thl' cilmp sinn'buICh('ring tilkt'li plan' ilf"'r ((loking. Tht' dt,-sillns of whkh pnrls lo .lb.lOdon ur how Incut thl' animal up nt.'ver (.ame ur. Th" ilninMIwas always introduced {'ssentially whole ilndbutcherin