Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology

1

-~~ " T1'r~ 'T" ~;--I A"QII~""·.. ~"""

... , '" ,.,T«:CA

,•.'

w.~

¡

:""~•.,u-.,·t!J

Nunamiut Ethnoarchaeology . ---,...

~

-'

\

~lJ

•• volume in

Lewis R. Binford Oeparlmenl 01 Anthropology University 01 New Mexico Albuquerque, !'Jew Mexico

@

1iilñiiiiU .-

Srudles in Arche%gy

ACADEMIC PRESS New York

San Francisco London

A compleu lLrI 01 t¡des in Ihh urlelsppea,s al tite end of Ihis volllme.

A 5ubsidiary of Harcourt Brace [ovanovích, Publishers

-~-,

ó O~

b

;;'Qt:II>I~-~";. ,~

~

,

~ U,:':''-~~;II 1.~

"}'-.-

",

"

e

:-. ... ,

r I

Thla book ,. dedlcated lo

CoPnlGtrT

e

ALBERT C. SPAUIDING ProJ...,,' oJ Aothropolog¡¡ Unlve""t]I o/ California, Santa Barbara

1978. aY ACADEMIC PaESS, INe.

ALL JJOHTS II.E$I!JI.VED.

NO PAll.T O.. TtUS PUBLlCATION MAY BE REPRODUCEO Ok TUNSNITTb 11'1 Al'iY ~M OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC oa WBOIANICAL, lNCLlJDINO PHOTOCOPY. II.EC01l0INO. 011. ANY INPOI:WATION 5TOII.AGIl AND IU!T1lIEVAL '"TEM, WITlIOUT P!IlNIISION IN WIIUTINO PROM TUI! PUIlLlsnER.

ACADBMIC PR.ESS. lHC.

111F1ftIII A,-.Ncw YIlfl."'" York 1001»

Unlt,d K intdDm &lido,. Pflbtlslt. by

ACADEMIC 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 seried 8ibliography: p.

Indudes tndex. l. fskimos--Aluka--Economiecondilionl. 2. Eskimos - Aliukll- -Food. 3. Eskimos- -Alaska- -Anlíquilies. 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

-.

Contents

Acknowledgmente. xl Abbrevlatlons. xiii Introductlon

1

1

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

2

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

Meosurlng Dlsmemberment, 64

I vil I

..,......-( vIII/

Cante_

Colculatlng the Number o/ Indivlduals from Done Counu. 69 Measurlng General Utlllty In Reall.tlc Terma. 72

Contents

6

Sex and Age Doto. 85

Summer Resldentlol Locallon. 01 'he Recent Pa.t, 320 Modellng the Summcr Re.identlol Sfte•• 327 Summary. 342

Summol'Y. 87

Meat Star.ge. 91

7

Dry Storage. 91 Butcherlng Procedure Jollowed for Drylng Carlbou Meot. 94

Sorne Emplrlcol Material Relatlve fa Dry Mear Stores, 111 Evo/uotfng the Ut/llty of Mode/. ond Indlce.. 111 ProceSl/ng Debrl. from Drylng Actlv/llee, 114 Frozen Storage. 123

8

Consumer DC!!mand. 135 Food Shorlng ond the Dfstrlbutlon 01 Anatomlcal Pom fa Consumere:. 139

5

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

food Prece••lng and Con.umptlon. 135

Consumptlon and Food Process'ng, 144 Partem, o/ ProceNfng Bones Jor Marrow. 152 Manufacture o/ BORe Greax. 157 Manufacture 0180ne Jufce ond Reloted Marrow-Proceu'ng In Summer Sltes. Summary. 165

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

Dry/ng Rocks. 97 Constroctlon o/ the Drying Utfllty l"deJe, 101

4

Summer. 255 ConllumptJon in the Contcmporary Villogc and In the Po.t. 257 Summer Huntlng and Logl.tics. 265

Looklng 01 the Emplrlcal World. 75

3

9

163

Sprlns. 169

Conclusl6ns, 451

Part 1: The Meanlnflful Anolysl. 01 Auemb'oge Contenta, 452 Part 1(: Toword 'he Meanlngful Anolyal. of Pattemlng In Aseemblage Characterlstlc•• Locatlon. and Re.ponslvenen to General Sy.tem Chonge, 482

References. 499

Index.503

Early Sprlng Mordtorlng and Encounter Huntfng. 169 Mld.prlng or Mlgradon Huntlng, 171 Lole Sprlng Hunllng. 178 Sprlng Con.umptfon In the Contemporary Villoge ond In the Post, 191 Mobl1lty. Sprlng Drylng Actlvllle•••nd Re/oled Logistfc•• 223

Glimp.es Into the Poat-Summer Storage under Moblle Condlllo,.. When Meat Waa Drled lar Humon Con.sump"on. 235 The Sprlng SV.tem. 245

.

~

( Ix I

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

I

Acknowledgments

There are no adequate words te express rny gratitude to the people of Anaktuvuk Pass, Alaska, for thetr patience and kind attention to educating me in the ways of Nunamiut subsístence and survíval. Through-

out my entire experience amoog the Nunamiut, Johnny Rulland was my constant companion and friendo Tohim 1owea very specíal thanks. He will alwajs occupy an equally spedal place in my memory. Many of the peo-

ple of Anaktuvuk Pass weJcomed me into their hornes, on their trtps, and in their camps; they were "informante." and they helped with the logistics for my research teams. The following people contributed time, guidance, information, encoumgement, and cornpanionship to me and rny crew membcrs: Bob Ahgcok, jack Ahgook, Noah Ahgook, Rhoda

Ahgook, Danny Hugo. Ellen Hugo, Martina Hugc. Zacharias Hugo, Arctic john. Elyjah Kakinya, Anna Morry, Billy Mcrry, Susan Morry. David Mekiana, Rachel Mekíana. justice Mekiana, Raymond Paneack, Robert Pa-

neack, Roosevelt Paneack, Siman Paneack, Suzie Paneack, jarre Rulland, Lazerus Rulland, Ruth Rulland, and Louisa Stein. 1owe a special

debt to Cyrus Mekiana, who permitted me to see the diary of his father (Horner Mekiana),

and the récords of his father's sto-c. My crew members were dedicated and chccrful, In-queuüy worklng undcr Vl'ry dlí-

ficult conditions and certainly enjoying very

few personal cornforts. Many of the resulta reported stem dlrectly from the hard work of the following persons: Charles Amsden, Clinton Binford, Martha Binford, Cathy Carneron, Don Campbell, T. Weber Oretzer, Patty Marchiando, Milo McLoud, BiII Morgen. Iohn Or-

fali, Caroline Reeves. [ean-Phllippe Rígaud, Mike Rotonda. Peggy Schneider, jack Snyder, Robín Torrence, Dan Witter, Allison witter, and Richard Wortman. Yetother persons contributed to the success of our fieldwork in Alaska. Paul Shannahan, our bush pilot, was elways cheerful at the prospect of aplane full of bones, dogs, Eskimos, students, or almost anything. He kept U9 in food and f1ew U5 out of sorne of the most improbable places one could Imagine. Jim Crowder, a former trader te the Nunamiut, gave me access to his trading records, provided many hours of fascinating conversation about the old days, and put up with very dirty anthropologists and students al his hotel in Fairbanks. William E. Woodcock, A. L. Miller, and Arnold Weichert flew their small plane aH the way from Miles City, Montana, to take the excellent aeriaI photographs that served as the basis for most of the regional maps of the research area. They suffcred bad weather, (1I1-

tUl\.' ShOl'k, and il flighl inhl ¡\ tXIX (¿lny~m

Ihi\(

Ixll

.

~

~

[ xII J nene of us will ever forget. 1 truly epprecíate their help, talent, and expertise. john Qack) Campbell convlnced me that Anaktuvuk was the place to work and Ihat 1 could in fact accompUsh my reseerch goals there. He visited my camps severa! times and was always a welcome source oí information and fun. My friend [ohn E. Pfeiffer made the long trek from Pennsylvania lo Anaktuvuk Pass and shared caribou meat and long hours of conversation. He helped me to see the goals of my work more c1early in the midst oí trying lo

get planes in to feed the crewe, making certain that bone bags did not get IOSI, and keeping crew rnembers from gettlng sick after they fell into an iey river. Here in Albuquerque severa! students have

contributed significantly lo the analysis and organization oE the data presented. [ack B. Rertram, Robert Hitchcock, Richard Taylor, and Robert Vierra have helped me a great deal. To them 1 am most gratefu1. The ílluetretícne were prepared by Alen Osbome and Emily Abbink, and Figures 3.5,

AclmouN'edgmentll

3.8, and 6.18 were rendered by [ene Gulko. The typing was done by Lisa Edelhoff. These people made a substantial eontribution, and became nearmembers of the family during the preparation of this book. 1 am particularly grateful lo the following persona for the use of their photographs: Wendell Dswalt (Figure 5.34), Robert Rausch (Figure 2.1), and John M. Campbell (Figure 5.1). Without the support of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropologieal Research (grant No. 2376), the National Scienee Poundañen. end the Doris Duke Oral History Foundation, this work could not have been aeeomplished. Lita Osmundson of the Wenner-Gren Foundation was encoureging and supportive ot the early phases of the work, particularly that done in 1969. Major financing for the 1971 and 1972 work carne from the National Science Foundation. Funds for my work in 1970 and during the winter of 1971 carne from the Doria Duke Foundation. To these agendes simple expresetcns 01 gratitude are inadequate.

Abbreviations

The fcllowíng are the abbreviations most commonly used in thís volume. ANATOMICAL PARTS

ANT 5K

MANO AT

AX CERV mOR

LUM

PElV SAC

R 5T

se H

PH

OH RC

PRC

OC CARP

MC PMC

OMC F PF OF T

PT

Antier 5kull Mandible Atlas Axi. Cefvícal vertebrae Thoracíc vertebrae Lumbar vertebrae Pelvis Sacrum Rib. Stemum Scapula Humeros Proximal humeros Distal humeros Radío-cubitus Proximal radio-cubitus Distal radio-cubítus Carpals Metacarpal Proximal metacarpal Distal metacarpal Femur Proximal femur Distal fe-mur Tibia Proximal tibia

OT TAR AST

CAL MT

PMT OMT PHAl1 PHAl2

PHAl3

Distal tibia Tarsals Astragalus Calcaneus Metatarsal Proximal metatarsal Distal metatarsal Plrst phalange Second phalange Third phalange

INDEXES FOR MODELlNG GUI General utility index IGUI Inverse general utility index MGUI Modified general utility index IMGUI Inverse modified general utility index CMGUI Conservative modífied general utility lndex ICMGUI lnverse conversative modified general utility index MUI Meat utility index MI Marrow (utility) index GI Crease (utility) index WG¡ WhHe-grease (utility) index IWGI Inverse whtte-grease (utillry} Index [ xlIII

--

-~

Introduction

Befcre 1 delve inlo the details of my work aOlong the Nunnmiut, Iwant.t€Jlo'iel.feAh.-tIw

ideas thjlt prompk>d.,J;bestudy. These are very basic ideas, indeed-they focus on the ques-

tion of precisely what archaeologists do. Archaeologists attcmpt lo make systcmatic obscrvanons on the remains of past human bchavior: Ihat is, thev investtgatc the archaeological record. The archacological record, howcver, is contcmporary, and any obscrvations thal 1, as ,10 nrchaeologist, make through the excavatlon of an archaeological

site are contemporary observations. My interest is in (he past but rny observations are on

the present. Tu pursue my interests 1 mus! accompllsh two quite separare kinds uf acts: (o) I mus!

variabilíty in pnttemed configurations. l ha ve sorne evídcnce for dynamics, changos that occurred in the pasto I know that somcthing happened. that sorne dynarnics were upt.'ratíve, but 1 do not know why thc changos occurred: neither do I know anything about the charactcr nf the rhanges. 1'0 makco statcmcnt abouI the charactcr uf changos I must first QSSigll ml'atlillg to the conternporary fects oí thc archacological record. Supposc 1 observe that a meta' hlUI is prl'sent in a particular archaeologlcal sttc. Exarnining additional sttes. I may note that metal tools are present in some but not all of 'he sites. Accurate dating tells me that all the sites without metal tools Me older than the sitos with metal tools. I may nsscrt Ih.11 this pattem

prnjl'('( my HlIlh'll1l'"rMY obscrvatlons .1l'(U-

n-ñccts lllt..' cvcuts of thc iuvcntiun uf 11H.'1.11·

ron-ly illtu t111' p.rst and (/1) I mustassígu meaning lo my observations. 1 accomplish the first through methods of dating. J may then examme these proicctod and ternporally arrangcd obscrvuñons for forms of pattcming. Jf I find

lurgy. If I also discovcr 1l1l't.11 louls ;\1 .1(chaeologlcal sltes in adjacent regions .11 time periods increasingly more recent as a function of their distencc from the reglen initially obscrvcd. I may asscrt thet th¡s paucrn rcflccts

11 I

-~

-

.... IncroductJon

[2]

the spread DE metallurgy to other places. The definition DE such pattems in no way tells me why they existo My assertions are descriptions of the world as known and do not provide enswers to the question oí why the world is the way it appears. Let's take anotherexample. tf 1 (a) observe a series of smaU, molded objects in the form of a human Iemale, (b) assert that each object is a mother goddess, (e) project into the past a series oí archaeological assernblages, sorne DE which yield mother goddesses, (d) recognize a

Thus. the archacologíst might vlcw a recovered artifact and make judgments as to the skill of the maker, his artistic sense, and the degree that he seemed to share certain artlstic vetues of the archaeologist's culture. The meaning archaeological remains carried becarne a statement on the character and quality of the maker. If artifacls were crude by the archaeologist's standards then the makers were crude. If artífacts were "beauñfu!" then the makers were advanced and had "ad·

patterned distribution both temporally and

Gradually, this paradigm for giving mean~ ing to the contemporary faels gave Wé1Y to other arguments. It was rt'aStmed that il person's overalJ intelligenn' or capacity for "humanness" is not necessarily directly transiatablc into accomplishments, and that many intdligent m,-'" can produce crude pmducls. Fi\cturs ulht'r than thust' inlrinsic Iu thl' d as a result of excavation wilh other, similarly re· covered remains, t'valuate the differences and similftritit'~, ..nd arran~l' Ihem laxnnomicnl.

spatially, and (e) ask the

qu~slion.

mother goddesses invenled and

"Why were incr~asingly

distributed over wider geographical areas?" I have already restricted rny thinking lo a particular context involving religion, cults, ritual behavior, and the like. 1 may then seck lo understand Ihe distribution and lhe cuntext of appearance of these Iittle fernale effigies in terms of arguments about the role of religion in human life, the symbolic importance of females and fertility, and so on. But suppose 1 had a time machine and was able to determine that thl? objects are not mother goddesses but toys, or perhaps magieal devices used to divine the sex of children before birth. Under these ascriptions of "meaning" I would be directed to pursue very different lines oí thought in seeking an explanation for tht.' cffigies' appearance and geographical sprcad. If 1 am to make aceurale statements abauI the past or even to engage in relevanl forms of thought I must have a relatively aecurate understanding of the context in which Iht' Ifacts of the archaeological record carne into b€.'ing. The-reJevant put to a let 01slatic facts of the contemporary ardteological record can--onJy be Ihe conditions that brought,the obwrved lads into existenc:e. Much of the history uf archacological work has becn characterized by ehanging vicws as lo Ihe conditiuns produdn,; archacological faels. Far many years--and even today in many places-the dynamic standing behlnd an archaeological fact was Ihought lo be simply Ihe maker of Ihe arlUact.

.

~

venced" aesthetíc senses.

IntroductJon

This vicw propOSl'Sthat culture, the ideas or "idcational guides for living" hcld in thc minds of men, is simply projected into theír products. The products can thus be víewed as accurate reflections of mental templetes, so culture in turn can be seen as a model of past dynamics nurmally discussed in the context of artifact production. Few would disagree Ihal planning Is characteristic of acts of fabrication and that fabrication plana are guíded by sorne ideas regarding the desired outcornes. This "fabrication model" comes ínto question whl'n Wl'ask whether it is relevant to al! facts and palterns observable in the arch represented. The aS~l'mblagt.· is t'l)uated wilh lhe comll1unily. The expectation is that if we are dealing with the (t'milins uf idcnlkill ur rclill,-'d gruups uf pt.'oplc Ihe cnmposition of Ihe assemblages should be similar since they share a common body of culture. 1 challenged this paradigm: Thl' b..·hilvil'rill m, ...lt·1 n..("~ni"_l'S that bl..havit'r i~ llw tlyn,lInk~I,1 ,1\I,ll'l,lti"ll. 1"'1'1'1\, draw IIp..tn ól n'J'l'rltlin.' tll rullur,¡l t>.\lk~T1 ~gehetwoon-~ ~.na-mics' ... nd 1'1'('5ent stalie-data, 1 was issuing anothcr chal· lenge lo the lhen prl'vailing view of Ihe past. Under the fabricalion model characlerislics uf the archaeological record were linked directly to differing mental lemplales, which in turn were labulatl'd ilnd summ.lriud as a "Imil lis!" uf t'nullleralt'd cullurl'. I wa!' sUAA,-'sting not only that tht' archaeolu~icill (t'cord deriV\.'~ (rom num,'nl In 111\' 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'r p"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 ","illitl,m. whi."h ,,1 "'lIrs,' ml'"ns in pr,lrliú' 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..'n lllll'stionl'd, wht'n Ilw ddinilional conVt.'n· tions fur givin~ nll'ilning lo e.'xperit.'nCl' .1fl' unth'r i\U,Kk, lhl'r", is gre.11 confusion. Some s"'l'k 111 t'valual", "n4,.'W" (nnn'pts and ddi· nitions through Ihe melhods o( normal sl."Íl'nc,,'-lh,,' USI..' l,I~'''' in \I'rm~ lIt v,lri,lliIIIlS in hum.m ,Illivlli.'s Tht'factllr!l dt'lt'rmining Iht, rilngl' and rurm llf hum.ln acti... itil"s conducll'd by .1ny gmur ill a !iinglt, k'C·.11iun (11'11' site) may \'ary in terms of a large number vf possible "causes" in variou~ (ombinations. Tht' Inoadt'r amcmg Ihese may OC> st"i\S(Inally rl'gulated pht'nomt'n,l, l.'nvironmt'nlal conJilions, l'lhni: 24 t l.

.

~

Thls "nssumcd" view lIUl'StiUOI'd t1ll' rclevanee of the previously discussed Iabrtcation model and Ihe linked additive or enumerative víew of en edaptation. We were suggesting that the dynamlrs out of which the properties of an asscmblagc were derived were diU.,Tt.'Ot from thc dynamics lraditionm!mtty,,~. 0.. '"r tfu- wtlnwn-f"ll ,111,1 rbtl,tr"n h • u.... ,jI h,m1\' 11 ).nl 1'1!'t7,40 .1,1,2IUIII 2 1.I,1H.h1

1,5240 324.':12 1:\5.tll:l 1Iw:,,41 1.'>"I6.ll:'\

2,3WQI I,MI31 ':I1Il.54 37'¡.22 1-17.111 5,4':l'l.M

90 m.. nlh!'

--4H m.>nlhs

/l.

..

. ""

294.K2 1(,7.60 H7.'JI1 1)7.411

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

461U16 171U15

~547

214,15 Il(,.tll 71.04 I,JI4.27

~.5(l

75, tu '15.10

45.311 J2.1O lf'2U 17':/.1>11

NS5U 5150 :VUtl 341l.htl

2'1,5(1

--------.

6 m.. nlh"

A.

L\lJl~S

Rmrl.,; I"'","r

'1I'l';.7~

lihi.l 1 t"rs"l~ Mt'!,.I.lrMl I·h,\l.,n¡.;'''' Tol.11

2~2

,,t,

1·IO.hl 55."S IAl>4711

n AII wt'ighl in gr,1nlS (453/> ~rn = I 11» 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" kl4.11 147.5H 7,775.90

~ih.'H.

51.~1l

1f>.::W 1':17,143

121 e.1 II-IINI ';'I.·N .JS.4U J3Vl'l

:'ll~ '1(1 2,'2,111 17l 11 54.UO ó52.1I

.md wi.,.ll'il''''

I k.lrl IIr.>lI1 l.in'r Vise,'r"

BllloJ Skin Tt'Il,h'rloms rra.· Lumbolr verlt·bral:· l''''vi. + ~.\num KiI's SI(I.714.611 2'.17'1.111' 10.,"1.12 \"."'>1 ti:! Iltl,·llr. h'; 24.1.-111

" Wl'ights for kidnc)'s are indudcd in gross wt'ighlsfur lumbar vl'rlt'!:>rae given in T,lble 1.1. " Thl'St' '·.lJ\lI:~ Jo n~.t indudl: wd~hls fUr h,"~Ul' .lnd brain~ sinn' lh.·y W"n' II1Cludl"\ in ~rnss wt-i~hls .. f mandit'ol..• .lnd skull in Tilt>!ulch· t'n'd wilh \n., t,·nd.'rloin n\,1 n·muv.·..l ~l·rilr.ll.·ly .

",.

OJV'7' -

-

J. cM4

.lekve . {~rj;.,·4JZ

T'

1181

l. TIw fconomlc AlIl1tomy o/ SlIeep ond Corlbou

derJoin and this in turn was attached to the ribs when removed. Therefore, weíghts for the ribs of the é-month-cld lamb are inflated with respect to both the 9O-month-old sheep and the caribou. weígbts for the thoracic ver-

difference between sheep and caribou. In fect. the data indicate that the 9O-month-old sheep differs more from the é-month-old sheep than from the caribou. However, this suggestion is not statistically demonstrable. In part B of Table 1.3 sorne meaningful dlfferences appear. Compared lo the sheep. íhe caribou is heavier in the rear quertcrs and lighh...r in thc axial skeleton. Also, the poorly nourished sheep has a heavier axial skeleton and üghtcr leg muscles than the youngerbut nutrttionally sound animal. This finding is in agreement with Eskimo opinions that caribou in poor nutritional condition have essentially uscless front quarters, that the bone marrow bt!comes "runny" and nnncompact, ilnd that thl' nrgans art' Il'asl affl'ctl'd by pour nulrition. The Eskimo also bclieve thal Il1l' necks of caribl.lu strongly reflect nutritional state and are the least useful parts ol .,0 underfed animal. I rcalize thal the Sitmple size is quite smal!. I had originally planned lo study thl' Illtlnlhs

nwnll1~

4M nltlnlh~

kimo my plans were quite unrealistic. The Nunamiut considered the "objective" dlsmemberrnent of animals and my weighing of parts something approaching a sacrilege. Alter the butchering of the caribou reported here 1 never attempted to butcher another animal killed by the Eskirno. Killing animals rnyself was out of the question, bccause te kili an animalnnd not share it wilh one's compenions was viewed as an act of extreme antisocial behavior by tuc Eskirno. My comings and goings were common knowlcdge to the Eskimo and 1could not bave killcd eithercaribou or sheep wilhoul my companions It.'arning of il-and, insofar as my work was dependent tlO E~kinw (oop('rJti\m, I n)uld n(lt risk Ihl' los5 of th.11 (.'oop,'r.lliull. My ,,'.-ulier l'xperience wilh "nmlwlled" butchering taughl m\.' that the meat rcsulting from sueh extreme dismembermeot w.,s in the Eskimo eyes lit cnly for dog food. I! is bt.'t"ilUSl' uf th"Sl' f¡('ld jud~ml'nts, and my illtlbility lo nlllvinn' illÍllrmanl~ th.lt .lninMls cnuld rl'ilsOIlc1bly be studil'd .1S well as eaten, that I havl' ooly one caribou and lwo domestic sheep to us~ as approximations of the economic an.ltomy of sheep and caribou in general. I first judged this to be a major short· coming of this study. However, 1 proceeded to use the data, and lhe results were such th.lt 1 no longt.'r consider Ihe sample size of Ihe anaIt1mi('ally studil'd .lnimals tu bt,> a con· Iribulllr in .111)' m,ljllr w,'y lo bias in my results.

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 Ski., Or¡';,llls Dry bone Mt'al + (,11

l.tlClH.ó4 4,4·IlI.M X.7S4.-lM 1.54'1.75

10.001.7"" 2~.AA5.30

TI'lal

R.

4'

17..1 33.H

2,5'14.5\1 7.4:l l l lH 14,X75.54

5.' ló./o

5.93H.7'J 43,430.44 110.44S.óS

5,4 :W.J 100.11

'>1(.2

n,2:N.MI

·lh,n

I'I,M

22.n

1lI.""".:l2 155.'iJ,'n

IlItUl

4'1,7.11.0'>

22.1 :lU l(llUl

11,737.44

25.2

J.'J'I2.11h 4.445.2"

11I11.1

2U,174~

J.2tKl.22 16,mS.66

IIl,M 32~

44.905.05

•. 0

~.f>

Jt,.33~.5X

.\..1.1 7.3 31.2 HJO.O

38.6 '19.'

f>.J%.llCl IK.'l40.K4

M/I;l'ff I11111IPmic111 ~.'{II1f'"~

A...¡.ll p,lrls l-r,,,,l Il'~ Rl'.lr Il'); 1',,1,11

1,.mW.32 2,h2M54 2,92'1,40 11.1>42.21,

~

~2 ..1 22.1.

119 J

Construdlon o/ a Meat VII"" Index /or Analomh:IlI' Pom o/ CllIrlhGU ond Sh~

CONSTRUCTlON Of A MEAT UTILlTY INDEX fOR ANATOMICAL PARTS Of CARIBOU AND SHEEP In nntl'r to evaluatt' thl' eontt.'xts of dedsion manifesl in faunal frequencies preserved 00 archaeological sites, a reference di· mcnsion ur sland.1fJ fur comparisoo is necesS.1TY. Civl'n Ih\' d¡.lta .1V.lil.1ll

1.'11 ,45

"

.

''''

!.lb

1M

44.1

7Ul

42." 26."

fl'fl'n(.'t'S bctwcen t111' two slwup wlth rcspcct to skutl. rnandiblc. and pelvis; all other values appt!'ar consistent. Sínce the data surnmarized in Table 1.4 are variable for sheep, r fclt it desirable to approximatc a single Indvx. Thc proccdure adopted W.1S simple. Thc mean vnlue of thc indcx for the 6~ and cü-montb-old animals was uscd except in the case uf the thorildc vertebrae, where the valut.' uf lhl' younger animal was adopted, ilnd lhe lumbMvertebrae, where the value fm the older .1nimaJ was adopted. For buth par(s Ihl.'difh'rl'nCl'S ClJuld b1.! Clmfjdt.'ntly rdatl'd lu diffl.'n'nü's in tht.' bUlcht.·ring of the twn "n¡m.1Is, .1nd thl' v.llul's adopted reflt.'ct anim.lls butcht'red in a fashion comparable to

.,

52 25.5 11.2 1.7

thc nu-tbod uscd tor tho l'.uibou. T,lbk' 1.5 summarizes the índices to be uscd in future cornparative studies for sheep and caribou. The values reported for sheep are the means cr adopted valucs rescalcd tu al-lOO distribution. Differences bctwcen t1ll' shcvp and caribou are c1early shown in lhl.· CllOtrasts betwl't.'n pelvis, ribs, and sternum Vl'rsus thl.· fl'mur. Caribou are heilvy in the Ihigh, whl.·rl·as shl'ep are more equally pmporlJonca bt'twl'en fmnt and rear quarters and have mmt' uS.lble ml'at (o bUlle in lhe ch