Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 110(2) 315 DA N I S H JOUR N Zooarchaeological...

Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 110(2) 315

DANISH JO

URNA

L OF GEOGRAPH

Y 2010

Zooarchaeological Analysis of a Late Dorset and an Early Thule Dwelling at Cape Grinnell, Northwest Greenland

AbstractExcavations were undertaken at the site of Cape Grinnell, Northwest Greenland, by the Inglefield Land Archaeology Project in 2008. A well-preserved Late Dorset semi-subterranean mid-passage dwell-ing and an early Thule semi-subterranean sod-block house yielded radiocarbon dates of ca. 700-500 cal. B.P. Faunal remains from both structures had marked differences in species diversity suggesting Late Dorset had a wider diet breadth and made more intensive use of locally available resources than early Thule. Spatial analysis of the house interiors revealed that Late Dorset tended to concentrate carcass processing and discard at the rear of their dwelling and bone burning is minimal. The early Thule processed their food in two main areas: in front of the sleeping platform and on the cen-tral paving stones adjacent to the storage alcove. Burned bone was concentrated near the sleeping platform and to a lesser extent on

the central paving in front of the entrance. Carnivore gnawing was virtually non-existent in the Late Dorset structure but ubiquitous across the early Thule structure.

KeywordsArchaeology, Arctic, Dorset, fauna, Greenland, taphonomy, Thule.

Christyann M. Darwent (Corresponding author)Jeremy C. FoinDepartment of Anthropology, University of California, DavisE-mail: [email protected]

Geografisk TidsskriftDanish Journal of Geography 110(2):315-336, 2010

Christyann M. Darwent & Jeremy C. Foin

The Inglefield Land Archaeology Project (LeMoine & Dar-went, 2010) conducted excavation of seven archaeological features and extensive mapping of the raised beach ter-races at Cape Grinnell in central Inglefield Land, Northwest Greenland, during the summer of 2008 (Figure 1). These archaeological features consisted of one early Paleoeskimo axial mid-passage dwelling, one Late Dorset semi-subter-ranean axial mid-passage dwelling, one Thule spring/fall dwelling, a Thule cache, and three Thule winter houses. Our focus here is the analysis of zooarchaeological remains from two of the best-preserved structures – the Late Dorset dwelling and one of the Thule winter houses. Little in the way of faunal biogeographic studies of central or eastern Inglefield Land have been undertaken, and previous ar-chaeological excavations in this region did not include detailed analyses of animal remains focused on relative species composition, skeletal part-representation, and prey demography. In addition to these analyses, we examine bone butchery and discard patterns as a means of recon-structing Late Dorset and early Thule use of household space. This study presents the first detailed comparison

of two distinct archaeological cultures in the High Arctic, who occupied Cape Grinnell just shortly after – or possibly contemporaneous with – one another, using spatial analysis and faunal remains.

Background

Cape Grinnell, situated in central Inglefield Land, north-western Greenland, is composed of a series of raised beach terraces spread out over one kilometer facing the waters of Kane Basin, which has been cut by two active, meltwater-fed stream channels that flow into the basin. The location was first named ‘Cape Cornelius Grinnell’ by Elisha Kent Kane (1856), whose ship, the Advance, was locked in ice just to the west. On the cape, Kane noted abandoned ‘Es-quimaux’ houses, constructed from stone and blocks of sod, which he thought could be reoccupied with very little effort. The sight of these houses was initially a source of hope for Kane that he might soon encounter living people in eastern Inglefield Land. From our own mapping of the

mailto:[email protected]

Geo

graf

isk

Tids

skrif

t-Dan

ish

Jour

nal o

f Geo

grap

hy 1

10(2

)31

6

Fig

ure

1:

Topo

-gr

aphi

c m

ap

of

Cap

e G

rinn

ell,

and

its

loca

tion

with

in

Ingl

efie

ld L

and

and

Nor

thw

est

Gre

en-

land

. Dis

trib

utio

n of

15

1 ar

chae

olog

ical

fe

atur

es n

otin

g th

e lo

catio

n of

Thu

le a

nd

Dor

set f

eatu

res e

xca-

vate

d in

200

8.

-20

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

65

sea level sea level

05

1015

2025

303540

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

51015

20

25

30

35 6065

7075

8085

90

75 7065 60 55 50

6560

55

Smith Sound

0

50

!

!!

!

A

!

A

Cache

Burial

!Cairn

?Boulder Structure

Fall-Spring Tent Ring

AActivity Area

Hearth

Hearth, box

Fox Trap

Hunter’s Bed

Watercraft stand

Thule Winter House

Tent Ring, Paleoeskimo

Tent Ring, Unknown

Tent Ring, Modern

Tent Ring, Thule

Midden

Stone Ring

Late Dorset Winter House

Legend

Snare/Trap Line

meters

Magnetic North

0 1001 meter contours to scale

2008

Feature 16 Feature 18

Feature 20

!Greenland

Inglefield Land

200km

Kane Basin

Smith Sound

Cape Alexander

Foulke FjordIita

Hatherton Bay

Cape Inglefield

Paris FjordJens Jarl Fjord

Qaqaitsut

September Lakes

Minturn River

Glacier Bay

Marshall Bay

Ruin IslandInuarfissuaq

Cape Kent

Rensselaer Bay

Cape Grinnell

Humboldt Glacier

Feature 88

Feature 107

Feature 78

80


area in 2004 (Darwent et al., 2007), we knew that this site had well over 100 archaeological features on these elevated beach terraces built over the entire range of human occu-pation of the High Arctic – a rare find paralleling that of Cape Krusenstern, Alaska (Giddings, 1967; Giddings & Anderson, 1986), albeit smaller in scale. The northernmost extent of Inglefield Land is separated from Washington Land to the east by the Humboldt Gla-cier, which is one of the largest outlet glaciers in Green-land. Deglaciation of Inglefield Land and adjacent regions began 7000 – 8000 years ago (England, 1999; England et al., 2006; Mason, 2010), with glaciers receding over Inglefield Land somewhat earlier than just to the front of the Humboldt Glacier in Washington Land. By ca. 7000 years ago the ice sheet margin was near to its present po-sition (Nichols, 1969; Bennike, 1998, 2002; Bennike & Björck, 2002). Plants and animals began to recolonize this region shortly after deglaciation (Meldgaard, 1986; Ben-nike, 1997, 1999), but people did not arrive until after the onset of a Neoglacial ca. 4500 cal. years ago (Bennike, 1998). Originating in the Bering Strait region (Gilbert et al., 2008; Rasmussen et al., 2010), people referred to by archaeologists as Paleoeskimo first moved into Greenland, including central Inglefield Land, as early as ca. 4400 cal. B.P. (Knuth, 1967; Grønnow, 1994; Grønnow & Jensen, 2003; Meldgaard, 2004; Darwent et al., 2007). Early Pa-leoeskimo ruins are situated more than 20 m.a.s.l. at Cape Grinnell (see Mason, 2010), thus a combination of isostatic and eustatic processes continued to alter the landscape after deglaciation. In northern Greenland, initial occupation is followed by period of abandonment after ca. 3600 cal. B.P. (Knuth, 1967; Andreasen, 1998; Darwent et al., 2007) culminating in another Neoglacial (Barry et al., 1977). The area was reoccupied by an archaeological culture known variously as Early Dorset, Independence II or Greenlandic Dorset ca. 2800-2300 cal. B.P. (Knuth, 1967; Maxwell, 1985; Andreasen, 1997), but then North Greenland appears to have been subsequently abandoned and not reoccupied until after ca. 1200 cal. B.P. (Appelt & Gulløv, 1999; Ben-nike & Andreasen, 2005a; Darwent et al., 2007) by Late Dorset migrants from Canada’s Low Arctic. They did not, however, extend their High Arctic movement farther east than Hall Land (Knuth, 1968; Andreasen, 1997; Bennike & Andreasen, 2005b). The Late Dorset are generally char-acterized by relatively larger population sizes, decreased site mobility, increased numbers of caches, and a wider range of subsistence strategies (i.e., more diverse) within a smaller foraging radius (Darwent, 2001, 2004). In other

words these hunters were more logistically mobile as op-posed to the more residentially mobile strategy that seems to have characterized the previous 3000 years of Eastern Arctic prehistory. Dwelling architecture is more substantial than structures made by earlier Paleoeskimo groups. Late Dorset dwellings are large, (ca. four meters or more in diameter) sub-rectangular, semi-subterranean house struc-tures, the exterior boundaries of which are marked by low gravel ridges or berms, and the interior of which are marked by axial mid-passage features, typically interpreted as a ‘kitchen counter.’ These semi-subterranean dwellings are often interpreted as winter or cold-season because lighter built tent-rings were also constructed by the Late Dorset (Maxwell, 1985; LeMoine, 2003). Following on the heels of the disappearance of the Late Dorset, a genetically and culturally distinct group of whale hunters migrated into northern Greenland. Originat-ing in the Bering Strait region ca. 1100 B.P., they appear to have moved across the Canadian Arctic ca. 800 cal. B.P. and arrived in Greenland ca. 600 cal. B.P. (e.g., Fri-esen, 2004; Darwent et al., 2007; see also Helgason et al., 2006; Friesen & Arnold, 2008). Along with large harpoon and float technology necessary to hunt large whales, the early Thule brought with them all their Alaskan trappings, which included pottery, distinctive harpoon styles, semi-subterranean houses with long cold-trap entrance tunnels, kayaks and umiaks (small and large skin boats), and dog-sled teams. In essence, a technological repertoire similar to ethnographically recorded Inughuit populations (e.g., Rasmussen, 1908; Holtved, 1967; Gilberg, 1976). Pottery making was short-lived in Greenland, however, and only characteristic of the ‘Ruin Island’ phase of the early Thule (Holtved, 1944). When the Thule moved out of Alaska and into the East-ern Arctic of Canada and Greenland, they often inhabited the same real estate that was equally appealing to the previ-ous Paleoeskimo groups, and had a habit of constructing their stone, whalebone and sod-block houses on top of abandoned Late Dorset dwellings, often using the sod built up from the decomposing remains of these dwellings as building material (e.g., Holtved, 1944; McGhee, 1984). Not surprisingly, if Thule houses are found adjacent to or on top of Paleoeskimo houses, a mixture of artifacts and faunal remains is commonplace. Consequently, attempts to discern which faunal remains were produced by which past group of inhabitants is often a guessing game at best. By contrast, Cape Grinnell provides an opportunity to compare household activities from a well-preserved Late Dorset (Feature 88) and Early Thule (Feature 20) dwelling

Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 110(2)318

situated on either side of the same stream (Figure 1). Ra-diocarbon dates suggest that they may have been occupied at the same time, ca. 600 years ago, or separated by only a few generations (Table 1), and yet there is no discern-able cultural disturbance or artifact mixing. Thus for our comparison between these two archaeological cultures both time and space are controlled.

Archaeological features

Scattered across Cape Grinnell’s prominent alluvial fan and associated raised benches are 151 prehistoric and his-toric features (Figure 1), including 11 Thule winter houses, which were mapped in 2008. During this same field season three Thule winter houses and one Late Dorset sub-rect-angular, semi-subterranean axial dwelling were excavated. Three other features, an early Paleoeskimo/Independence I tent ring (Feature 38), a Thule fall/spring structure (Feature 78) and a Thule cache (Feature 107) were excavated, but no artifacts were recovered from these latter four features and less than a handful of faunal remains. The recovered

fauna includes five small marine mammal fragments (<1 cm), likely ringed seal, from Feature 38; one muskox rib, heavily weathered white, with lichen growth, from the sur-face of Feature 78 (it was not submitted for dating because its association with the feature was dubious); and a few unidentified bone fragments and two caribou teeth from Feature 107, one of which was used to radiocarbon date the structure (see LeMoine & Darwent, 2010). Because of the limited nature of these findings, these features are not part of further analyses. Feature 88, the Late Dorset feature analyzed here, is a semi-subterranean, sub-rectangular dwelling, with a dis-turbed mid-passage constructed of boulders, but no floor pavement (Figure 2). The rear of the house had been dug down into the gravel beach matrix approximately 10-15 cm. The entrance is assumed to be the end closest to the sea shore, with the mid-passage running perpendicular to the shoreline. A total of 21.5, 1x1-m units were excavated in the house and 2, 1x1-m units were placed in an adjacent thin midden deposit situated two meters north of the structure. Radiocarbon dates from the house and midden place the oc-cupation of this structure at the terminal end of Late Dorset

Table 1: Radiocarbon dates from archaeological dwellings and associated features at Cape Grinnell, Inglefield Land, Greenland.

Arizona AMS

Cultural affiliation Feature Provenience Material d13C value

14C age BP

2-sigma calibration

AA83639 Late Dorset dwelling F-88 3N, 3E; NW Quad, Level 2

caribou/muskox long bone

-21.3 726 ± 42 AD 1217 – 1386

AA83640 Late Dorset midden F-88 7N, 4E; SW Quad; Level 1

caribou/muskox long bone

-21.6 828 ± 42 AD 1205 – 1276

AA83637 Thule house (floor) F-16 3N, 2E; NE Quad; Level 4

caribou rib -19.6 603 ± 42 AD 1291 – 1412

AA83638 Thule house (floor) F-16 3N, 1E; NE Quad; Level 6

caribou thoracic vertebra

-18.9 613 ± 42 AD 1289 – 1408

AA85146 Thule house (tunnel) F-18 4N, 0E; SE Quad; Level 7

caribou lumbar vertebra

-19.2 606 ± 58 AD 1283 – 1420

AA85147 Thule house (floor) F-18 1N, 3E; NW Quad; Level 8

muskox femur -18.9 672 ± 59 AD 1251 –1409

AA85148 Thule house (threshold)

F-18 3N, 0E; NE Quad; Level 9

caribou rib -19.8 655 ± 58 AD 1264 – 1409

AA85149 Thule house (floor) F-20 2N, 3E; SW Quad; Level 3

caribou rib -19.5 659 ± 58 AD 1262 – 1409

AA85150 Thule house (floor) F-20 1N, 3E; Level 3 caribou rib -19.8 714 ± 59 AD 1209 – 1398

AA85151 Thule house (under flagstones)

F-20 2N, 2E; Level 3 caribou rib -18.9 605 ± 59 AD 1262 – 1421


and contemporary with other dated Late Dorset structures in western Inglefield Land (Appelt & Gulløv, 1999). Three Thule winter houses were selected for excavation. All were located close together and part of a cluster of eight similar houses on a terrace 4-6 m above sea level, with a steep slope behind it. In front of the houses the ground slopes gently to a sharp bank above the modern beach. It is possible that erosion of this sea-side bank has removed some cultural material, but slumping from the steep slope behind the houses clearly has provided the greatest force of destruction. Although all eight houses were suffering the

ravages of time, the three chosen for excavation appeared to be the most intact. Radiocarbon dates from these houses place them all early in the Thule sequence. Testing in front of the Thule houses did not reveal the presence of any intact midden deposits. A total of 17, 1x1-m units were placed into Feature 16. Unfortunately, severe slumping of the steep slope behind the house had inundated the structure from above, entirely destroying the back of the house, which was likely exacer-bated by the apparent absence of structural stones. How-ever, the living floor and entrance tunnel were preserved

Figure 2: Planview of Feature 88, Late Dorset semi-subterranean dwelling struc-ture. Note the sloping berm at the south end of the structure where it had been dug originally into the beach terrace. Darkly shaded elongated stone is a vertical ‘up-right’ still in situ from the original axial or mid-passage structure. Unit 0N/0E is located in the SW corner of the excava-tion block.

20 cm

N 0 0.5 1 m


steep slope behind had obscured the walls and floors of the house, and structural stone from the rear portion of the house was missing. The well-preserved tunnel walls, on the other hand, were lined with large (~1m long) stone slabs, while the tunnel floor was covered with numerous long strips of baleen, as well as burned and unburned bone, dog hair, scat, and feathers. Feature 20 was the best preserved of the early Thule dwelling structures excavated at Cape Grinnell. Excava-tions confirmed that this was a typical semi-subterranean ‘Ruin Island style’ early Thule winter house (Holtved, 1944; McCullough, 1989; see also LeMouël & LeMouël, 2002), which had been dug into a sandy bank or slope near the shore. A total of 17, 1x1-m units were excavated in the house structure (Figure 3). In addition, the area to the east side of the entrance was tested with 2, 1x1-m units as the most likely location for midden deposits (based on previous experience). This house consisted of a main room with a paved floor, a smaller side room, or alcove, to the east of the entrance, and a stone slab-lined entrance tunnel opening toward the shore (Figure 4). The interior walls were also lined with upright slabs. Large stone up-rights at the back of the house suggest that it once had a raised, paved, sleeping platform with storage lockers below, although the platform stones were missing. The roof was supported at least in part by whale-bone uprights, as evidenced by the remains of a vertically oriented large (bowhead) mandible in the southeast corner of the house. The remaining piece of mandible was so securely embed-ded upright in the gravel matrix we could not budge it at the end of our excavations. All features were hand excavated with a trowel and all soil/gravel was screened with a mesh size of 0.635 cm (1/4 inch), and thus comparison of faunal samples is consistent across the features at Cape Grinnell. Detailed analysis of the faunal remains was restricted to F-88 and F-20 because both of these features were relatively intact. Comparison of these two features to the two other early Thule dwellings (F-16 and F-18), is made at a general level, but detailed spatial analysis was not undertaken because the interiors of both houses were severely damaged by slumping and soli-fluction from the steep beach terrace above and by storm events from the beach below as previously noted (LeMoine & Darwent, 2010; Mason, 2010). The faunal materials from excavations in Inglefield Land are currently on loan to UC Davis, and although the assemblages will eventu-ally be stored with the Zoological Museum, University of Copenhagen, they remain the property of the Greenland National Museum and Archives.

but buried under shell-laden beach terrace deposits from above and overlain by sand washed up during storm events. The front part of the house, to the west of the entrance, yielded the remains of burned bone and fat, which gave the sand beneath a cement-like consistency. Fragments of poorly fired ‘Ruin Island’ pottery (Holtved, 1944; Mc-Cullough, 1989) were recovered from this area and the entrance tunnel. Feature 18 is another poorly preserved early Thule house in which a total of 16, 1x1-m units were excavated. Although the house interior was nearly absent, a long en-trance tunnel was intact. As with F-16, slumping from the

Figure 3: Planview of Feature 20, Early Thule semi-subterranean, stone-and-sod winter house structure. Dashed line around perimeter indicates edge of sod walls. Unit 0N/1E is located in the SW corner of the excavation block; whale mandible upright is in Unit 1N/3E.

whale mandible(probable roof support)whale mandible(probable roof support)

whalebone fragmentwhale bone fragment

N

TU

NN

EL T

UN

NEL

0 0.5 1 m


Methods

Our use of the term faunal assemblage follows Grayson (1984: 17), such that it refers ‘to the entire set of faunal specimens from a given cultural or geological context, in which the defining context is provided by the analyst.’ A specimen is a ‘bone or tooth, or fragment thereof, from an archaeological or paleontological site, while an element is a single complete bone or tooth in the skeleton of an animal’ (Grayson, 1984: 16). We define assemblage fol-lowing Lyman (1994: 8) as ‘some analytically defined set of faunal remains usually, but not always from a particular spatio-temporal context’. In this case an assemblage is defined as a discrete prehistoric dwelling structure and its associated midden deposit. Quantification of the faunal remains follows zooar-chaeological conventions with the number of identified specimens (NISP) being the base unit of analysis, and the minimum number of individuals (MNI) being a derived

measure that takes into account element composition and age within a given assemblage (Lyman, 2008). Animal-bone assemblages are the product of two agencies: (1) human decisions concerning what to hunt and what parts of the animals to bring to the site, and (2) various destructive agencies that destroy bones before archaeologists can study them. The effects of both agencies on a bone also depend on the structure and density of the individual bone. Ta-phonomy, or the study of the transition of organic material from the living realm into the geological realm (Efremov, 1940; Lyman, 1994), and the investigation of prehistoric subsistence are thus fundamentally linked. Identification of the faunal remains collected during excavations at Cape Grinnell in 2008 was undertaken in 2009 using the comparative skeletal collection at the Zoo-archaeology Laboratory, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. Specimens modified into a ‘bone tool’ or osseous debitage are not included in this analysis with the exception of two well-preserved, nearly

Figure 4: Photograph of Feature 20 post-excavation, oriented the same direction as Figure 3. Dashed lines indicate the house outline. Note the location of the tunnel, flagstone paving, alcove, sleeping platform, and whale mandible upright. Photo: G.M. LeMoine.


complete, caribou metacarpals recovered from F-18 and F-20 that had been modified into hide-scraping tools, or ‘beamers’ (e.g., Gordon & Savage, 1974) (Figure 5). Their inclusion, however, does not increase the relative impor-tance of caribou to either assemblage. In fact, as discussed below, seals were the staple for occupants of Cape Grinnell ca. 700 years ago. Birds were identified to the lowest taxonomic level pos-sible based on comparative skeletal remains and osteologi-cal guides (e.g., Cohen & Serjeantson, 1996). Ribs, most vertebrae, and many of the phalanges cannot be identified below order Aves, but can clearly be differentiated from mammals. Indeterminate long-bone shafts remains were identified as bird based on the presence of internal struts, which distinguishes them from small terrestrial mammals (Driver, 1992). Since it is well known that the osteology of small seals is quite similar, only those specimens that could be clearly identified to species based on qualitative morphological criteria were identified as such (e.g., cranium, mandible, humerus). Ringed seal (Pusa hispida) was the only species of small seal identified at Cape Grinnell. Migratory spe-cies, such as harp (Phoca groenlandica) and harbor (Phoca vitulina) are not currently found north of the North Water polynya (e.g., Vibe, 1950). In all likelihood the specimens identified as ‘Phocid’ are also ringed seal, given the small size of all skeletal elements and the absence of any other small seal species in the distinguishable specimens. Thus for analytical purposes we combined all specimens iden-tified as small seal and ringed seal into one category and consider them all the remains of ringed seal. Arctic hare and arctic fox were identified to the level of species based both on morphology and on size. The fox remains from Cape Grinnell are considerably smaller than red fox and match closely to arctic foxes from High

Arctic Canada and Greenland, which are the smallest of all varieties in North America and Europe (e.g., Monchot & Gendron, 2010). In addition, other species of hare and fox are restricted to the mainland and southern ranges of the Low Arctic islands and have not been documented in the High Arctic of Canada and Greenland, i.e., north of Lan-caster Sound (e.g., Banfield, 1974; Vibe, 1981). Caribou and muskox were identified to species whenever possible, as their size and morphology is quite distinct from one another. However, non-specific long bone shaft fragments were not differentiated.

Species composition

We sorted through a little over 5000 specimens from four archaeological features at Cape Grinnell (F-16, F-18, F-20, F-88) and identified approximately 3500 of these speci-mens to the level of family or lower taxonomic category (ca. 70%). Detailed identification was restricted to the two best-preserved structures, F-20 and F-88, since the pur-pose of this analysis is to compare Late Dorset and early Thule faunal assemblages for similarities and differences in species composition, cultural and natural bone modifi-cation, discard patterns, and use of space. For general as-sessment of species composition across Cape Grinnell, all four features are included in %NISP calculations (Figure 6). According to Driver (1992) faunal %NISP tends to most closely reflect the relative contribution to human diet when compared to bone isotopic chemistry (e.g., Richards et al., 2008; Sørensen et al., 2009).

FishOnly one species of fish was identified at Cape Grinnell – arctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) – comprising 12 specimens from both head and vertebral portions. All were recovered from the F-88 Late Dorset assemblage (Table 2). Conser-vatively, these bones represent a single fish, and given the small size of the elements, it was most likely a lake char rather than a marine char. No fish were recovered from early Thule houses F-16 and F-18; however, two fish scales were collected from the central floor pavement of F-20 and are most likely arctic char as well.

BirdsBirds were recovered from all features at Cape Grinnell, al-beit in varying frequencies. The highest relative frequency of bird remains is from the Late Dorset structure, F-88 (n=65) at 24% of the identified specimens. The early Thule

Figure 5: Early Thule hide-scraping tool (‘beamer’) modified from a caribou metacarpal, recovered from excavations in Feature 20. Photo: C.M. Darwent.

Jeremy

Highlight


houses had lower relative frequencies of bird remains: 17% for F-18, (n=125), and 5% for both F-16 (n=20) and F-20 (n=82). Comparatively, birds comprise an even smaller percentage of the identified specimens (1.4%) from early Thule sites on Ellesmere Island (McCullough, 1989). The most common species identified at Cape Grinnell, based either on NISP or MNI, is dovekie (little auk), which is a small bird with an average weight of only 150 g (Roby et al., 1981). There are no current populations of these birds at Cape Grinnell and no evidence of any past populations. The closest known resident breeding colonies are on Littleton Island and the Foulke Fjord region of western Inglefield Land (e.g., Kane, 1856; Burnham, 2009, pers. comm). Dovekies, which represent nearly half the birds from F-88, are followed by other alcid species (murres or guillemots), and by shore birds such as gulls or terns. In terms of diver-sity, a greater variety of bird species were recovered from the Late Dorset house, including oldsquaw, ptarmigan, kit-tiwake and puffin. However, to put the quantity of birds into

perspective, if the MNI of birds is converted to a biomass estimate (i.e., ca. 2-3 kg for F-88 and 2 kg for F-20), their overall contribution to the diet of Cape Grinnell residents would be incontrovertibly overshadowed by the amount of meat provided by mammals – the Inughuit equivalent of “bird appetizers”.

Marine mammalsMarine mammals provided the majority of food for the oc-cupants of Cape Grinnell, although the relative proportion of species varies among the houses. Seals comprise the greatest %NISP for all houses; however, their contribu-tion to the Late Dorset faunal assemblage is considerably lower at 29% of the NISP compared to the early Thule assemblages which range from 61% (F-18) to 86% (F-20). Bearded seals, which weigh an average of 275-340 kg, only comprise a small fraction of the Phocidae remains in all houses compared to ringed seal, which weigh an average of 50-75 kg. This disparity could be related to transporta-

Figure 6: Relative frequency of identified specimens (%NISP) for major animal taxa from four house ruins at Cape Grinnell: Late Dorset Feature 88; Early Thule features 16, 18, and 20.

Fish4.5%

Bird24.2%

Fox/hare20.1%

Seal29%

Walrus9.3%

Caribou/ muskox

13%

F-88 %NISP(n=269)

Fish0.1% Bird

5.3%

Fox/hare3.9%

Seal86.4%

Walrus2.6%

Caribou/ muskox

1.6%

F-20 %NISP(n=1556)

Fish0% Bird

5.4%Fox/hare

1.2%

Seal83.6%

Walrus2.7%

Caribou/ muskox

7.1%

F-16 %NISP(n=1106)

Fish0%

Bird17.2%

Fox/hare5.1%

Seal61.1%

Walrus10%

Caribou/ muskox

6.5%

F-18 %NISP(n=725)


tion decisions by prehistoric hunters, a naturally lower number of bearded seals compared to ringed seals in the Smith Sound-Kane Basin region, or a combination of the two. Based on studies of bearded seals and ringed seals elsewhere in the Arctic, the ratio of bearded to ringed is

roughly 1:17 (Nunn et al., 1997; Bengston et al., 2005); thus, coupled with transport decisions associated with this larger animal, it is not surprising that the relative fre-quency of bearded to ringed seal is also low (F-16=1:27, F-18=1:60, F-20=1:42, F-88=1:14).

Table 2: Comparison of the number of identified specimens (NISP) and minimum number of individuals (MNI) recovered from a Late Dorset (Feature 88) and an Early Thule (Feature 20) dwelling feature at Cape Grinnell, Inglefield Land, Northwest Greenland.

Taxa Feature 88NISP

Feature 20NISP

Feature 88MNI

Feature 20MNI

FISHArctic char (Salvelinus alpinus) 12 – 1 –Fish indeterminate – 2 – 1BIRDSOldsquaw duck (Clangula hyemalis) 1 – 1 –Duck/goose (Anatidae) 2 – – –Rock ptarmigan (Lagopus mutus) 3 – 1 –Black-legged kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla) 1 – 1 –Gull/kittiwake/tern (Laridae) 1 6 – 1Dovekie or little auk (Alle alle) 32 23 6 3Guillemot/murre (Cepphus/Uria) 5 6 1 2Atlantic puffin (Fratercula arctica) 1 – 1 –Guillemot/murre, razorbill, auk, puffin (Alcidae) – 15 – –Bird indeterminate 19 32 – –TOTAL birds 65 82 12 6MAMMALSArctic hare (Lepus arcticus) 7 6 1 1Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus) 37 34 2 3Dog/wolf (Canis sp.) – 3 – 1Ringed seal (Pusa hispida) 7 280 – –Small seal (Phoca/Pusa sp.) 66 904 2 10Bearded seal (Erignathus barbatus) 5 23 1 2Seal (Phocidae) 25 410 – –Walrus (Odobenus rosmarus) 25 40 2 3Seal/walrus (Pinnipedia) 40 53 – –Whale (Cetacea sp.) – 7 – 1Caribou (Rangifer tarandus) 11 19 1 1Muskox (Ovibos moschatus) 9 2 1 1Caribou/muskox (Artiodactyla) 6 1 – –Small terrestrial mammal 10 20 – –Large terrestrial mammal 11 3 – –Mammal indeterminate 87 555 – –TOTAL mammals 346 2,370 10 23TOTAL NISP 423 2,454Assemblage richness (N taxa) 14 13


Walrus was also an important marine mammal resource for Cape Grinnell inhabitants. Even a single walrus would have been a huge resource boon, as the Atlantic walrus weighs between 800 and 900 kg, but it would also have been subject to even more severe transport decisions than the bearded seal – particularly for the Late Dorset who did not have the assistance of dog-pulled sleds (Morey & Aaris-Sørensen, 2002). However, with that being said, walrus do comprise a significant portion of the identified remains recovered from the Late Dorset feature (9.3%). This %NISP is similar to early Thule F-18 (10%), and both features have a considerably higher proportion of walrus than either F-16 (2.7%) or F-20 (2.8%). Neither large nor small whale bone was found in Late Dorset F-88, and although there is considerable other evi-dence of the importance of large whales to the early Thule occupants (e.g., numerous long lengths of baleen lining the tunnels of F-18, baleen rope and miniature sled/doll from F-20) the amount of whale bone from any Thule feature (0.4-0.5%) is minimal, which includes their use as con-struction material (Figure 3 & 4). With bowhead whales weighing in excess of 54,000 kg, the amount of meat is considerable to say the least. However, because a bowhead kill produces so much consumable meat and blubber, this also means that with the exception of their architectural utility (Savelle, 1997) bones are not likely to be transported back to camp to save on weight.

Land mammalsPinnipeds are the dominant taxa across all four dwellings at Cape Grinnell, yet not to the exclusion of other avail-able species. Although Late Dorset is represented here by a single assemblage, its faunal composition is similar to other High Arctic sites in the richness and evenness of taxa (Darwent, 2001, 2004). Arctic foxes, in particular, became a much more significant resource to Late Dorset than they were to earlier Paleoeskimo groups both in Inglefield Land (see also Bendix, 2000) and elsewhere in the High Arctic. Feature 88’s fauna is composed of 20% fox/hare, of which the ratio of hare to fox is 1:5. By contrast, early Thule assemblages tend to be less diverse with a comparative decrease in both richness and evenness, particularly with respect to land mammals (McCullough, 1989). Large terrestrial mammals include caribou, muskox, and bear. However, since only a single polar bear canine (F-16) has yet been identified from the Cape Grinnell as-semblages, unidentified long-bone shaft fragments are most likely the remains of caribou or muskox. As with small terrestrial mammals, caribou and muskox contribute to a

larger percentage of the Late Dorset assemblage than the to the early Thule assemblages, comprising 13% of the NISP – a similar relative frequency was found in the Hatherton Bay Late Dorset assemblages in western Inglefield Land (Bendix, 2000). By comparison, just over 7% and 6.5% caribou/muskox were recovered from Thule features 16 and 18 respectively, followed distantly by 1.6% in F-20. On adjacent Ellesmere Island, they appear to have contributed even less to the economy of the early Thule with only 1% identified as either caribou or muskox (McCullough, 1989).

Skeletal part frequency

Based on our detailed analysis of the two assemblages from well-preserved house contexts (F-20 and F-88), we turn our attention to differences in carcass transport and butchery. Because of sample size constraints, only ringed/small seals had a large enough presence to explore skeletal part frequencies (Table 3 & Figure 7) and butchering pat-terns. Statistical comparison using a rank-order coefficient indicates a significant positive correlation (Spearman’s rho = 0.62, p = 0.02) between F-88 and F-20 in the major skeletal parts represented by normalized or standardized minimal animal units (%MAU) (see Lyman, 1994). The positive correlation suggests that skeletal parts are repre-sented in a similar fashion across both houses; however, the strength of the correlation is likely dampened to a degree by the small Late Dorset sample size. Visual and statistical comparison of both assem-blages to food utility indices (Figure 7) for Phocid seals (Lyman et al., 1992) indicates that there is no correla-tion between relative skeletal element frequency and the amount of meat and blubber associated with those parts (F-88: rs=0.36, p=0.20; F-20: rs=0.02, p=0.95). Although the lack of correlation for F-88 could be dismissed as a product of low sample size, the same reasoning cannot be used for F-20. Given the compact ‘torpedo’ shape of ringed seals (which facilitates dragging them across the ice fairly easily) and their small size (ca. 50-70 kg), it is not surprising that processing of the carcass would have taken place in camp. An additional factor relates to ribs, which have the highest food utility but are not as well represented (using MNE as the counting unit). Ribs tend to become highly fragmented (i.e., butchery, breakage, dog consumption) and thus are typically underrepresented even in a well-preserved archaeological assemblage. Both archaeological cultures, however, likely transported seals whole for butchery onsite.


Butchery patterns, or the analysis of cut marks, are no-toriously difficult to interpret. Although these studies have met with some success in specific contexts (e.g., LeMoine & Darwent, 1998), most often attempts to discern differ-ences between and among prehistoric groups have been

fraught with difficulties (e.g., Lyman, 2005). Comparison of cut marks on ringed seals between features 88 and 20 is not possible because only three F-88 bones had cut marks. What we can say, however, from our analysis of ringed seal cut marks (Figure 8) is that most cuts were made during

Table 3: Small seal skeletal part frequency for Feature 88 (Late Dorset) and Feature 20 (Early Thule). Definitions for minimum number of elements (MNE), minimal animal units (MAU) and values for Phocid bone mineral density follow Lyman (1994). Food utility index devel-oped by Lyman et al. (1992).

Skeletal element Food utility index

Phocid bone mineral density (scan site)

Feature 88 MNE

Feature 88 %MAU

Feature 20 MNE

Feature 20 %MAU

Skull 27.4 n/a 2 100 8 100

Mandible – 0.84 (DN4) 1 25 9 56.3

Atlas 35.8 0.54 (AT1) 0 0 5 62.5

Axis – 0.56 (AX1) 0 0 5 62.5

Cervical – 0.35 (CE1) 2 20 10 25.0

Thoracic 24.9 0.34 (TH1) 0 0 22 18.8

Lumbar 32.9 0.38 (LU1) 3 30 2 5.0

Rib 100 0.4 (RI3) 9 15 *10 62.5

Sternum 2.7 n/a 0 0 4 50.0

Scapula 19.8 0.43 (SC1) 2 50 10 62.5

Prox. humerus – 0.43 (HU1) 1 25 9 56.3

Dist. humerus 10.7 0.6 (HU5) 1 25 10 62.5

Prox. radius – 0.63 (RA1) 1 25 11 68.8

Dist. radius 4.8 0.45 (RA5) 1 25 12 75.0

Prox. ulna – 0.44 (UL1) 0 0 11 68.8

Dist. ulna – 0.79 (UL4) 0 0 9 56.3

Pelvis 44.5 0.47 (AC1) 2 50 10 62.5

Sacrum – 0.43 (SC1) 0 0 2 25.0

Prox. femur – 0.5 (FE1) 1 25 10 62.5

Dist. femur 4.5 0.57 (FE6) 0 25 14 87.5

Prox. tibia 16.5 0.39 (TI1) 1 25 16 100.0

Dist. tibia – 0.48 (TI5) 2 50 10 62.5

Calcaneus – 0.45 (CA2) 1 25 7 43.8

Astragalus – 0.45 (AS1) 0 0 4 25.0

Front flipper 2.3 n/a 7 5 202 48.8

Rear flipper 7.7 n/a 5 5 179 46.3

*1st rib


meat removal (73%) rather than disarticulation (18%) or skinning (9%). Ethnographically, the woman of the house (wife of the hunter) would be the one to remove and pre-pare the seal skin and then divide the seal carcass into parts

for sharing or stores. Because of that role, they would be experienced butchers, familiar with the anatomy of a seal, and thus, likely more careful to avoid damaging their tools by coming in contact with bone. Removal of the meat from particular skeletal parts may have been a more random pursuit, thus resulting in more cuts and nicks. One tibia had an impact scar on the midshaft, but this was most likely the result of dividing the carcass rather than marrow extraction (i.e., pinnipeds do not have marrow cavities). Density-mediated attrition can often plague interpreta-tion of archaeofaunal assemblages. The faunal remains from F-20 were considerably better preserved than those from F-88, with some bone still retaining grease, marrow and dried tissue fragments. However, that being said, there is no visual or statistical correlation (Figure 7) between portions of ringed seal skeletal elements represented and their relative bone density (Lyman, 1994) for both fea-tures. Although the typical weathering stage for faunal remains recovered from F-88 is between 2 and 3 (Behrens-meyer, 1978), there is no correlation with density (rs=0.03, p=0.89). In contrast, the weathering stage for faunal re-mains from F-20 was between 0 and 1, but there was a weak positive correlation with bone density (rs=0.34, p=0.11). This slight positive correlation is most likely the result of carnivore destruction of skeletal parts rather than chemical and mechanical processes. Although the sample sizes are small, there does appear to be a difference between these two features in walrus skeletal parts that were brought back to camp. In F-88, a minimum of two walrus are represented by the follow-ing MNE: two vertebrae, two ribs, three radii, three front-flipper elements, one pelvis, and 10 rear-flipper elements. Feature 20 also contained a minimum of two walrus but with a different assortment of elements: one cranium (max-

Figure 7: Ringed and small seal skeletal part frequencies (%Mini-mal Animal Unit) for Feature 88 and Feature 20 compared to the relative amount of meat and blubber per phocid skeletal element or Food Utility Index (Lyman et al., 1992), and compared to the relative bone density per skeletal element portion or Density Index (after Lyman, 1994).

Figure 8: Location of ringed seal butchery marks for Feature 20 (n=52) and Feature 88 (n=3).

0

20

40

60

80

100sk

ull

cerv

ical

thor

acic

lum

bar

rib

ster

num

scap

ula

hum

erus

radi

us

pelv

is

fem

ur

tibia

fron

t flip

per

rear

flip

per

F-88 %MAU

F-20 %MAU

FUI

0

20

40

60

80

100

man

dibl

e at

las

axis

cerv

ical

thor

acic

lum

bar

rib

scap

ula

P hu

mer

usD

hum

erus

P ra

dius

D ra

dius

P ul

naD

uln

ape

lvis

sacr

umP

fem

urD

fem

urP

tibia

D ti

bia

calc

aneu

sas

trag

alus

F-88 %MAU

F-20 %MAU

Density Index

adapted from Dierauf and Gulland (2001)

jcf 2010©

n=2

n=2

n=2

n=2

n=2

n=2n=3

n=2n=2

n=2

n=3n=3

n=2n=2n=2

n=2

cutmark

scraping mark

impact scar

= F-88 butchery data

= F-20 butchery data


the zooarchaeological sample. In contrast, only 2% of the bones from Feature 88 had gnawing marks, and all of these were produced by small arctic foxes. A similar analysis was undertaken on a Late Dorset assemblage from Victoria Island (Howse, 2008), and the degree of burning (3.2%) and arctic fox gnawing (3.4%) is comparable to the Cape Grinnell Late Dorset (F-88) assemblage.

Seasonality and prey demography

Estimating the season of site occupation is one of the main questions asked by archaeologists studying hunter-gatherer groups worldwide; however, as noted by Morrison (1997: 33), ‘the ease with which food may be stored from one season to the next [in the Arctic] can greatly hamper in-terpretation.’ Migratory birds typically arrive in Inglefield Land by June and leave by September, but their bones have been recovered from heavily built Thule winter structures, thus season of animal death and season of site deposition can be quite different. Species presence and osteological or ontogenetic indicators (e.g., dental annuli, bird-limb ossifi-cation) must be combined with architectural and artifactual data to determine a season or seasons of occupation. Lake char and migratory birds would most likely be acquired in the summer, and both varieties of taxa were recovered from F-20 and F-88. Only three different species of bird (MNI = 6) were identified from F-20, and of the 38 bird specimens that had at least one assessable end, only one bird was juvenile or not ossified (2.6%). In compari-son, at least six species of birds were identified from F-88

illa), two vertebrae, five ribs, three scapulae, two humeri, one ulna, five front-flipper elements, and a single fibula. Because ivory was a highly prized resource and the remain-der of the skeleton was less useful, most large elements were likely left at the kill site, and the flipper elements might have come along as ‘riders’ with the hide. Other than the caribou metacarpal hide-scraping tool (F-20) and a distal femur fragment (F-88), all caribou specimens from both houses are axial elements without cut marks. Thus it is likely that the skeletal part represen-tation reflects processing long bones for marrow and use of appendicular elements for tool manufacture. It appears that a single muskox was butchered in F-88 (only a tooth and rib fragment were recovered from F-20), but it was heavily processed with elements representing all parts of the animal (cranium, vertebrae, front limbs, rear limbs). Six of the nine specimens had butchering marks, with the most impressive being a deep slicing cut on the center of a cervical body indicative of dismemberment of the cranium from the anterior aspect of the neck. These differ-ences among various taxa in skeletal part representation and butchery underscore their divergent taphonomic histories (e.g., Munro & Bar-Oz, 2004). The Late Dorset and early Thule faunal assemblages can, however, be characterized and distinguished by gen-eral patterns in bone modification (Table 4). Following Lyman (1994) we have compared the relative frequency of cut marks, burning, carnivore gnawing, and degree of fragmentation – measured as a ratio of NISP to MNE. General numbers of butchery marks is not likely a sig-nificant measure given that numerous mammalian taxa are combined (Munro & Bar-Oz, 2004; Lyman, 2005). The general extent of fragmentation is slightly higher for the Late Dorset assemblage, which cannot be accounted for by extensive carnivore damage or marrow cracking. It is more likely related to these bones being exposed to surface weathering and not being interred in the permafrost protection of a collapsed Thule sod house. The high percentage of burned and gnawed bone speaks to a very different taphonomic signature between Late Dorset and early Thule. Bone from F-20 is burned nearly twice as much as from F-88, which suggests very different cooking methods. Although only three Canis bone fragments were recovered from F-20, 11% of the speci-mens were carnivore gnawed. Dogs were an integral part of Thule culture (see Morey, 2010) and these dogs would have seized any opportunity to scavenge a meal, either by sleeping in the entrance tunnel waiting for scraps, or by foraging in an abandoned dwelling and thereby altering

Table 4: Mammal bone-modification frequencies for Feature 88 (Late Dorset) and Feature 20 (Early Thule) at Cape Grinnell. Cal-culation of a fragmentation index follows Lyman (1994); as the ratio of NISP to MNE increases the degree of fragmentation increases.

Feature 88 Feature 20

NISP 346 2,370

Cut marks 14 69

% cut marks 4.0 2.9

Burned 27 315

% burned 7.8 13.3

Gnaw marks 7 260

% gnawed 2.0 11.0

MNE 128 1,032

Fragmentation (NISP:MNE) 2.7 2.3


(MNI=11), and five of 46 bones were juvenile (10.8%). Considering sample size, birds definitely comprise a more noticeable portion of the Late Dorset sample, with more young birds caught in early summer. Interestingly, a total of nine fetal seal specimens were recovered from F-20 (Figure 9), which represent at least two individuals, and a total of two fetal seal specimens (calcaneus and metacarpal) were recovered from F-88, which represent a single individual. Given that implantation occurs in August or September and gestation is roughly eight months (Frost & Lowry, 1981; Kingsley, 1990), and based on the size of the specimens we estimate that they represent death of the fetus and mother in mid-winter (ca. December-February). These fetal seal bones were not, how-ever, used to determine overall assemblage MNI, nor are they included in our discussion of prey demography, as they would have arrived at the site incidental to the capture of an adult female. Arguably the most reliable means of determining prey age and season of death is through dental annuli or thin sectioning canines to count growth rings (e.g., Meldgaard, 2004; Woollett, 2007). However, in the absence of car-nivore mandibular canines from F-88 and only one seal and one fox mandibular canine for F-20, we are forced to explore other means of estimating prey demography. Storå (2002) developed an epiphyseal fusion sequence for Baltic ringed and harp seals from a large collection of known-age modern specimens at the Swedish Museum of Natural His-tory. We are aware that this provides only a rough estimate of age groups, as epiphyseal fusion stages can be difficult to interpret in an assemblage with multiple individuals. Tak-ing this caveat into account we have attempted to discern what age groups were hunted by the occupants of features 88 and 20 (Table 5) assuming a minimum of two ringed seals from F-88 and 10 ringed seals from F-20. Based on the results, Late Dorset hunters most likely took one juvenile and one young adult, whereas early Thule hunters appear to have taken one yearling, three juveniles, four young adults, and two old adults. Two of these adults were likely female (if the two fetal seals came from two adults), and at least one adult was male (baculum). Although the sample size is small, this mortality profile resembles a natural or living population (see Lyman, 1994 and references therein for discussion) with higher frequencies of yearlings/juveniles, followed in descending frequency by young adults and old adults. Assuming that pinniped epiphyseal fusion sequences are roughly comparable all three bearded seals from both features were adults. At least one of the two walrus from

F-88 was a yearling (unfused acetabulum and distal 1st metatarsal) and one of the two walrus from F-20 was a yearling (unfused supraglenoid tubercle), both of which would have been easier to catch and transport. All fox, hare, caribou and muskox skeletal parts were fused, and with the exception of a single fox mandible (F-20), there were no teeth available for further analysis.

Spatial analysis

A unique opportunity provided by these two relatively well-preserved house remains and their associated faunal assemblages was the investigation of spatial differences in patterns of discard and bone modification between Late Dorset and early Thule occupants at Cape Grinnell. Few detailed household spatial analyses of faunal remains have been undertaken in the Arctic (c.f., Savelle, 1984; Darwent, 1995; Farid, 2001; Friesen & Betts, 2006; Howse, 2008), and most have been focused on a single house from a single archaeological culture. The Late Dorset semi-subterranean dwelling at Cape Grinnell (F-88) is approximately 3.5 m wide by 4.5 m long, with the mid-passage constructed par-allel to the longest axis of the structure. The south end of the structure had a well-defined berm and was dug into the ground 10-15 cm; the entrance is interpreted to be at the north end closest to the sea (Figure 2). Both semi-subterranean and surface dwellings have been identified in Late Dorset occupations throughout the Arctic, with the former interpreted as cold-season and the latter as warm-season (e.g., Helmer, 1981; LeMoine, 2003). The early Thule winter house (F-20) is similar in style to those

Figure 9: Fetal seal bones recovered from units 2N/3E and 2N/4E, in the central flagstone area and adjacent alcove, of Feature 20. Upper row (l-r): scapula, zygomatic, humerus, mandible, scapula; Lower row (l-r): femur, three ribs. Photo: J.C. Foin.


identified by Holtved (1944) on Ruin Island and had a single entrance tunnel connected to a roughly circular house with an interior dimension of 3x3 m and a small 1.5x1.5 m alcove on the northeast part of the structure (Figure 3). Excavation of both F-20 and F-88 revealed no discernable stratigraphic breaks or indication of sequential occupation of reuse – deposition was also minimal (10-15 cm for F-88 and 30-40 cm for F-20, the latter including debris from collapsed sod walls). Bone density across both structures was analyzed at the level of 1x1 m unit, even though data could be generated at the quadrant (50x50 cm) level, in order to minimize small sample size issues. Intrusive surface bones were excluded from analysis. In order to compare the two features we pro-duced maps for both houses comparing the relative density of bone within a particular taxonomic category (Figure 10). In other words, the unit with the greatest number of bones within a given feature was assigned a value of 100% and the darkest shading, and all the other units were scaled proportionally to that unit. Thus each taxonomic category is

internally consistent and comparable between the two fea-tures because issues of sample size have been minimized. A midden area was not present in front of F-20 like that in front of F-88, which was most likely related to erosion – the entrance tunnel was approximately two meters away from a sharply eroded bank that dropped down to the mod-ern beach and likely destroyed any midden that might have been present. When examining all taxa combined, patterns of bone discard are less revealing; however, the largest concentration of bone in F-20 is at the junction between the southeast corner of the alcove and the central paving stones (Unit 2N/3E). By contrast the largest concentration of bone in F-88 is along the edge of the berm at the rear southeast portion of the house (Unit 1N/3E), perhaps the result of processing bone along the east side of the mid-passage and then discarding the bone in the rear ‘corner’. Since ringed seal make up the largest portion of the F-20 assemblage it is not surprising that processing and discard is also concentrated in Unit 2N/3E on the paving stones. Remains of birds and fox/hare are similarly dis-

Table 5: MNE frequencies of unfused and fused elements of ringed/small seal from Feature 88 (Late Dorset) and Feature 20 (Early Thule) at Cape Grinnell. Fetal seal specimens not included as these would have arrived to the site along with an adult female. Age groups and sequence of epiphyseal fusion in ringed seals following Storå (2002).

Age Group Epiphyses F-88 (unfused:fused) F-20 (unfused:fused)

AG 1 – Yearling Metatarsal 1, distal n/a 1:17

AG 1 – Yearling Pelvis, acetabulum 0:2 0:9

AG 1 – Yearling Scapula, supraglenoid tubercle 0:2 2:8

Yearling (%unfused) 0% 9%

AG 2 – Juvenile Femur, proximal 1:0 6:5

AG 2 – Juvenile Radius, proximal 1:0 1:10

AG 2 – Juvenile Humerus, distal 0:1 5:5

Juvenile (%unfused) 50% 60%

AG 3 – Young adult Femur, distal n/a 6:5

AG 3 – Young adult Humerus, proximal 0:1 5:4

AG 3 – Young adult Ulna, proximal n/a 4:7

AG 3 – Young adult Tibia/fibula, proximal 0:1 8:4

Young adult (%unfused) 0% 87%

AG 4 – Old adult Ulna, distal n/a 5:4

AG 4 – Old adult Metatarsal 1, proximal n/a 13:6

AG 4 – Old adult Radius, distal 1:0 3:6

AG 4 – Old adult Tibia/fibula, distal 1:0 6:3

Old adult (%unfused) 100% 70%


tributed on the east-central paving area. However, walrus and caribou/muskox specimens are not clustered on the paving stones, but rather are located near the rear sleeping platform, with walrus on the west side and caribou on the east. The metacarpal hide scraping tool was recovered from Unit 2N/3E where most of the processing activities seem to have taken place. Bird remains were thinly distributed but seem to have been primarily tossed in the tunnel. It is difficult to directly compare the spatial distribution of F-20 to that described by Friesen & Betts (2006) for an early Thule house in the Mackenzie Delta region, as the house design is considerably more complex in the delta (divided into nine zones) and species composition is dramatically different, being dominated by beluga & burbot). Feature 20 is more akin to the “Ruin Island” style house and seems to

have four main zones (platform, paving stones, alcove, and tunnel), which is more similar to the spatial organization and faunal discard patterns described for an early Thule house from Northern Québec (Farid, 2001). Ringed seal is less concentrated in F-88, but is primarily on the rear portion of the mid-passage (often interpreted as a ‘kitchen counter’ of sorts) and the southeastern edge of the house. This distribution suggests processing activities occurred at the rear of the house with discard along the back wall on either side of the mid-passage. Walrus, caribou/muskox, and birds were also concentrated at the rear of the house on the mid-passage and/or the back wall. This pattern of faunal discard in the rear of the house is similar to a Late Dorset structure on Victoria Island (Howse, 2008). Fox/hare remains were also concentrated along a berm edge, but

Figure 10: Relative spatial density of Feature 20 and Feature 88 faunal remains. Each square represents a 1x1 m unit (north is to the top). The darkest unit represents the highest density, or 100%, with all other unit values scaled to this unit’s value: a) all faunal remains, b) ringed seal, c) walrus, d) fox/hare, e) birds, f) caribou/muskox.

F-20 F-88 F-20 F-88

all taxan=2453

all taxan=423

a)

ringed sealn=1184

ringed sealn=73

b)

walrusn=40

walrusn=25

c)

d)

fox/haren=40

fox/haren=44

e)

birdn=78

birdn=62

caribou/muskoxn=17

caribou/muskoxn=26

f )


also on the central west side of the house. Fauna from sev-eral Late Dorset tent-rings and semi-subterranean houses on Little Cornwallis Island in the Canadian High Arctic were similarly analyzed by 1x1 m unit, but the number of bones recovered from dwelling ruins was so low there was no discernable pattern; the vast majority of bone was discarded in the midden areas (Darwent, 1995). Analysis of modified bone from the two Cape Grinnell houses revealed equally interesting patterns (Figure 11). In F-20 there is a strong concentration of burned bone just in front of the sleeping platform on the west side (Unit 2N/1E), which ethnographically was the location for cook-ing and tending the lamp and often characterized as the ‘women’s space’ (e.g., Boas, 1888; Birket-Smith, 1929; Mathiassen, 1927). Burned bone, most of which is charred

black, extends from this area to the bone processing area. In stark contrast there is virtually no burned bone in F-88 with only a few mildly scorched fragments and all along the southeast wall. Interestingly, carnivore gnawing is found throughout the early Thule house, but primarily in the central area near the sleeping platform. With the exception of the tun-nel, gnawing by dogs in the house interior was most likely from foraging after occupants had abandoned the structure. In contrast, little gnawing (all by arctic fox) was noted on the Late Dorset remains and all gnawed bone was along the house perimeter not inside the structure.

Discussion

Archaeological excavations at Cape Grinnell, Inglefield Land, Greenland, in 2008 provided the chance to inves-tigate faunal assemblages produced by two distinct pre-historic Arctic cultures while keeping both location and time consistent. Two well-preserved winter house struc-tures, situated on beach terraces separated by a meltwater stream, yielded a tight cluster of radiocarbon dates, ca. 1200-1400 cal. A.D., with the Late Dorset structure (F-88) possibly predating the early Thule structure (F-20). There was no stratigraphic or other evidence of multiple occupation or reuse of either house, and the Thule house was not constructed on the remains of a previous Paleoes-kimo structure, as is often the case elsewhere in the Arctic (e.g., Holtved, 1944; McGhee, 1984; Farid, 2001). We analyzed nearly 3000 specimens from these two houses and then broadly compared the results with an additional 2000 bones from two contemporaneous early Thule houses (F-16 and F-18) that were badly destroyed by slumping from the slope above them. Following our direct comparison of a Late Dorset and an early Thule faunal assemblage at Cape Grinnell, we unearthed an early Thule winter house built directly on top of a Late Dorset midpassage to the east in Glacier Bay, Inglefield Land, in 2009. It was carefully excavated to maintain stratigraphic and spatial separation of the artifact and faunal assemblages, and it will add to our current un-derstanding of the differences in how Late Dorset and early Thule procured, processed and discarded animal resources in High Arctic Greenland. Our current results support the interpretation of High Arctic Late Dorset as logistically mobile hunters who inten-sified their use of local resources by increasing diet breadth and regularly exploiting lower ranked species such as foxes

Figure 11: Relative spatial density of bone modification for Feature 20 and Feature 88. Each square represents a 1x1 m unit (north is to the top). The darkest unit represents the highest density, or 100%, with all other unit values scaled to this unit’s value: a) burned, b) carnivore gnawed.

F-20 F-88

burned bone(all taxa)n=316

burned bone(all taxa)n=27

gnawed bone(all taxa)n=265

gnawed bone(all taxa)n=7

a)

b)


(Darwent, 2001, 2004). Early Thule, by comparison, who possessed boats and dog-sled teams, were highly mobile, and had a much narrower dietary breadth, focusing their attention on bowhead whales and the ubiquitous Arctic staple, ringed seals. Consistent across Late Dorset and early Thule, however, is the transport of whole ringed seals back to camp, with butchery and discard of the carcass in the house. Late Dorset household organization could be teased out through spatial analysis of the faunal remains. Bone was strongly concentrated toward the rear of the house, which suggests that carcasses were prepared on or near the mid-passage structure and then discarded along the rear wall/berm. Very little burned bone was recovered from F-88, but it too was at the back of the house. There was no evidence of dogs, either in the form of skeletal remains or gnawing. Arctic foxes appear to have gnawed on bones only along the exterior edge of the structure. Bone distribution was considerably different in F-20, with activities concentrated on the central flagstones and the margin of the eastern alcove, along with in front of the sleeping platform. Burned bone was concentrated on the west side of the house and in front of the sleeping platform. Carnivore gnawing, likely the result of sled-dog scaveng-ing, was more than five times higher in F-20 than in F-88 and found nearly everywhere suggesting that dogs have been the greatest disturbance to Thule faunal assemblages beyond the general passage of time.

Acknowledgements

Funding for archaeological excavations at Cape Grinnell was provided by grants from the National Science Foun-dation’s Office of Polar Programs to Christyann Darwent (#0330981) and Genevieve LeMoine (#0328773), with radiocarbon dating provided by Arizona AMS, and logis-tical field support provided by VECO/CH2M-Hill Polar Services. Thank you to the 2008 field crew who helped map and excavate these features: Eli Bossin, John Dar-went, Frédéric Dussault, Joanne Goodsell, Trine Johansen, Hans Lange, Owen Mason, Martha Simigaq, Qulutanguaq Simigaq, Navarana Sorensen, and Morgan Wampler. Fig-ure 1 was produced by John Darwent.

References

Andreasen, C. (1997): Independence II in northeast Green-land: some new aspects. Pp. 23-32 in: Gilberg, R. & Gulløv, H.C. (eds.): Fifty Years of Arctic Research: Anthropological Studies from Greenland to Siberia. Publications of the National Museum Ethnographical Series 18. Copenhagen, Department of Ethnography, The National Museum of Denmark.

Andreasen, C. (1998): NEWland: Settlement Patterns, So-cial Organization and Economic Strategies at a High Arctic Polynya. Pp. 198-212 in: Arneborg, J. & Gulløv, H.C. (eds.): Man, Culture, and Environment in Ancient Greenland. Danish Polar Center Publication 4. Copen-hagen, Danish Polar Center and the National Museum of Denmark.

Appelt, M. & Gulløv, H.C. (eds.) (1999): Late Dorset in High Arctic Greenland: Final Report on the Gateway to Greenland Project. Copenhagen, Danish Polar Center.

Banfield, A.W. (1974): The Mammals of Canada. Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

Barry, R.G., Arundale, W.H., Andrews, J.T., Bradley, R.S. & Nichols, H. (1977): Environmental change and cul-tural change in the eastern Canadian Arctic during the last 5000 years. Arctic and Alpine Research 9: 193-210.

Behrensmeyer, A.K. (1978): Taphonomic and ecologic information from bone weathering. Paleobiology 4: 150-162.

Bendix, B. (2000): Aspects of Late Dorset faunal analysis from sites in Hatherton Bay, Thule District, Greenland. Pp. 77-81 in: Appelt, M., Berglund & Gulløv, H.C. (eds.): Identities and Culture Contacts in the Arctic: Proceedings from a Conference at the National Museum of Denmark, Copenhagen, November 30 to December 2, 1999. Copenhagen, Danish Polar Center.

Bengtson, J.L., Hiruki-Raring, L.M., Simpkins, M.A. & Boveng, P.L. (2005): Ringed and bearded seal densities in the eastern Chukchi Sea, 1999-2000. Polar Biology 28(11): 833-845.

Bennike, O. (1997): Quaternary vertebrates from Green-land: A review. Quaternary Science Reviews 16: 899-909.

Bennike, O. (1998): Environmental change in ice-free Greenland: A review. Fróðskaparrit 46: 305-209.

Bennike, O. (1999): Colonisation of Greenland by plants and animals after the last ice age: a review. Polar Record 35: 323-336.

Bennike, O. (2002): Late Quaternary history of Washington Land, North Greenland. Boreas 31: 260-272


Bennike, O. & Andreasen, C. (2005a): New dates of musk-ox (Ovibos moschatus) remains from northwest Green-land. Polar Record 41(217): 125-129.

Bennike, O. & Andreasen, C. (2005b): Radiocarbon dating of musk-ox (Ovibos moschatus) remains from northeast Greenland. Polar Record 41(219): 305-310.

Bennike, O. & Björck, S. (2002): Chronology of the last recession of the Greenland Ice Sheet. Journal of Qua-ternary Science 17(3): 211-219.

Birket-Smith, K. (1929): The Caribou Eskimo: Materials and Social Life and the Cultural Position. Report of the Fifth Thule Expedition 1921-1924, 6(2). Copenhagen, Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag.

Boas, F. (1888): The Central Eskimo. Sixth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology. Washington, Smithsonian Institution.

Cohen, A. & Serjeantson, D. (1996): Manual for the Identi-fication of Bird Bones from Archaeological Sites. Lon-don, Archetype Publications.

Darwent, C.M. (1995): Late Dorset Faunal Remains from the Tasiarulik Site, Little Cornwallis Island, Central High Arctic, Canada. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Depart-ment of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University.

Darwent, C.M. (2001): High Arctic Paleoeskimo Fauna: Temporal Changes and Regional Differences. Unpub-lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, University of Missouri-Columbia.

Darwent, C.M. (2004): The highs and lows of High Arctic mammals: temporal change and regional variability in paleoeskimo subsistence. Pp. 62-73 in: Mondini, M., Muñoz, S. & Wickler, S. (eds.): Colonisation, Migration, and Marginal Areas: A Zooarchaeological Approach. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Darwent, J., Darwent, C., LeMoine, G. & Lange, H. (2007): Archaeological survey of eastern Inglefield Land, Northwest Greenland. Arctic Anthropology 44: 51-86.

Dierauf, L.A. & Gulland, F.D. (2001): Handbook of Marine Mammal Medicine. Boca Raton, CRC Press.

Driver, J.C. (1992): Identification, classification and zoo-archaeology. Circea 9(1): 35-47.

Efremov, I. A. (1940): Taphonomy: a new branch of pale-ontology. Pan-American Geologist 74: 81-93.

England, J. (1999): Coalescent Greenland and Innuitian ice during the Last Glacial Maximum: revising the Quater-nary of the Canadian High Arctic. Quaternary Science Reviews 18: 421-456.

England, J., Atkinson, N., Bednarski, J., Dyke, A.S., Hodg-son, D.A., & Cofaigh, C.Ó. (2006): The Innuitian Ice

Sheet: configuration, dynamics and chronology. Qua-ternary Science Reviews 25: 689-703.

Farid, E. (2001): Spatial analysis of a Thule dwelling, northern Quebec. Anthropological Papers of the Uni-versity of Alaska, New Series 1(1): 23-34.

Friesen, T.M. (2004): Contemporaneity of Dorset and Thule cultures in the North American Arctic: new radiocarbon dates from Victoria Island, Nunavut. Current Anthropol-ogy 45(5): 685-691.

Friesen, T.H. & Arnold, C.D. (2008): The timing of the Thule migration: new dates from the Western Canadian Arctic. American Antiquity 73(3): 527-538.

Friesen, T.M. & Betts, M. W. (2006): Archaeofaunas and architecture: zooarchaeological variability in an Inuit semi-subterranean house, Arctic Canada. Pp. 65-76 in: Maltby, M. (ed.): Integrating Zooarchaeology: Proceed-ings of the 9th Conference of the International Council of Archaeozoology, Durham, August 2002. Oxford, Oxbow Books.

Frost, K.J. & Lowry, L.F. (1981): Ringed, Baikal and Cas-pian seals. Pp. 29-54 in: Harrison, R.J. & Ridgway, S.H. (eds.): Handbook of Marine Mammals. Volume 2, Seals. New York, Academic Press.

Giddings, J.L. (1967): Ancient Men of the Arctic. New York, Alfred A. Knopf.

Giddings, J.L. & Anderson, D.D. (1986): Beach Ridge Archaeology of Cape Krusenstern: Eskimo and Pre-Eskimo Settlements around Kotzebue Sound, Alaska. Washington, D.C., Publications in Archeology 20, Na-tional Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Gilberg, R. (1976): The Polar Eskimo population, Thule District, North Greenland. Meddelelser om Grønland 203(3).

Gilbert, M.P., Kivisild, T., Grønnow, B., Andersen, P.K., Metspalu, E., Reidla, M. Tamm, E., Axelsson, E., Götherström, A., Campos, P.F., Rasmussen, M., Metspa-lu, M., Higham, T.G., Schwenninger, J.-L., Nathan, R., De Hoog, C.-J., Koch, A., Nukaaraq Møller, L., An-dreasen, C., Meldgaard, M., Villems, R., Bendixen, C. & Willerslev, E. (2008): Paleo-eskimo mtDNA genome reveals matrilineal discontinuity in Greenland. Science 320(5884): 1787-1789.

Gordon, B. C. & Savage, H. (1974): Whirl Lake: A strati-fied Indian site near the Mackenzie Delta. Arctic 27(3): 175-188.

Grayson, D. K. (1984): Quantitative Zooarchaeology: Top-ics in the Analysis of Archaeological Faunas. Orlando, Academic Press.


Grønnow, B. (1994): Qeqertasussuk: the archaeology of a frozen Saqqaq site in Disko Bay, West Greenland. Pp. 197-238 in: Morrison, D. & Pillon, J.-L. (eds.): Threads of Arctic Prehistory: Papers in Honour of William E. Taylor, Jr. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper 149. Hull, Canadian Museum of Civi-lization.

Grønnow, B. & Jensen, J.F. (2003): The Northernmost Ruins of the Globe: Eigil Knuth’s Archaeological In-vestigations in Peary Land and Adjacent Areas of High Arctic Greenland. Meddelelser om Grønland, Man and Society 29: 342-395.

Helgason, A., Pálsson, G., Pedersen, H.S., Angulalik, E., Gunnarsdóttir, E.D., Yngvadóttir, B. & Stefánsson, K. (2006): mtDNA variation in Inuit populations of Green-land and Canada: migration history and population structure. American Journal of Physical Anthropology 130(1): 123-134.

Helmer, J. W. (1981): Climate Change and Dorset Culture Change in the Crozier Strait Region, N.W.T.: A Test of a Hypothesis. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Depart-ment of Archaeology, University of Calgary.

Holtved, E. (1944): Archaeological investigations in the Thule District, I-II. Meddelelser om Grønland 141(1-2).

Holtved, E. (1967): Contributions to Polar Eskimo ethnog-raphy. Meddelelser om Grønland 182(2): 1-180.

Howse, L. (2008): Late Dorset caribou hunters: zooar-chaeology of the Bell Site, Victoria Island 45(1): 22-40.

Kane, E.K. (1856): Arctic Explorations: The Second Grin-nell Expedition in Search of Sir John Franklin, 1853, ‘54, ‘55. Philadelphia, Childs & Peterson.

Kingsley, M.S. (1990): Status of the ringed seal, Phoca hispida, in Canada. Canadian Field Naturalist 104(1): 138-145.

Knuth, E. (1967): Archaeology of the Musk-ox Way. Contributions du Centre d’Études Arctiques et Finno-Scandinaves no. 5. Paris, Ecole Pratique Des Hautes Études – Sorbonne.

Knuth, E. (1968): The Independence II bone artifacts and the Dorset-evidence in North Greenland. Folk 10: 61-80.

LeMoine, G.M. (2003): Woman of the house: gender, architecture and ideology in Dorset prehistory. Arctic Anthropology 40(1): 121-138.

LeMoine, G.M. & Darwent, C.M. (1998): The walrus and the carpenter: Late Dorset ivory working in the High Arctic. Journal of Archaeological Science 25: 73-83.

LeMoine, G.M. & Darwent, C.M. (2010): The Inglefield Land archaeology project: introduction and overview.

Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 110(2).

Le Mouël, J. & Le Mouël, M. (2002): Aspects of early Thule culture as seen in the architecture of a site on Victoria Island, Amundsen Gulf area. Arctic 55: 167-89

Lyman, R.L. (1994): Vertebrate Taphonomy. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Lyman, R.L. (2005): Analyzing cut marks: lessons from artiodactyl remains in the northwestern United States. Journal of Archaeological Science 32(12): 1722-1732.

Lyman, R.L. (2008): Quantitiative Paleozoology. Cam-bridge, Cambridge University Press.

Lyman, R.L., Savelle, J.M. & Whitridge, P. (1992): Deriva-tion and application of a meat utility index for phocid seals. Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 531-555.

Mason, O.K. (2010): Beach Ridge Geomorphology at Cape Grinnell, northern Greenland: A Less Icy Arctic in the Mid-Holocene. Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 110(2).

Mathiassen, T. (1927): Archaeology of the Central Eskimo. Report of the Fifth Thule Expedition, 4. Copenhagen, Glyndendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag.

Maxwell, M.S. (1985): Eastern Arctic Prehistory. Orlando, Academic Press.

Meldgaard, M. (1986): The Greenland caribou: zoogeogra-phy, taxonomy, and population dynamics. Meddelelser om Grønland, Bioscience 20: 1-88.

Meldgaard, M. (2004) Ancient harp seal hunters of Disko Bay: Subsistence and settlement at the Saqqaq culture site of Qeqertasussuk (2400-1400 BC), West Greenland. Meddelelser om Grønland, Man & Society 30: 1-189.

McCullough, K.M. (1989): The Ruin Islanders: Early Thule Culture Pioneers in the Eastern High Arctic. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 141. Hull, Canadian Museum of Civilization.

McGhee R. (1984): The Thule village at Brooman Point, High Arctic Canada. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada, Paper 125. Ottawa, National Muse-ums of Canada.

Monchot, H. & Gendron, D. (2010): Disentangling long bones of foxes (Vulpes vulpes and Alopex lagopus) from Arctic archaeological sites. Journal of Archaeological Science 37: 799-806.

Morey, D.F. (2010): Dogs: Domestication and the Devel-opment of a Social Bond. Cambidge, Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Morey, D.F. & Aaris-Sørensen, K. (2002): Paleoeskimo dogs of the eastern Arctic. Arctic 55(1): 44-56.


Morrison, D.A. (1997): Caribou Hunters in the Western Arctic: Zooarchaeology of the Rita-Claire and Bison Skull Sites. Mercury Series, Archaeological Survey of Canada Paper, 157. Hull, Canadian Museum of Cvili-zation.

Munro, N.D. & Bar-Oz, G. (2004): Debating issues of equifinality in ungulate skeletal part studies. Journal of Taphonomy 2(1): 1-13.

Nichols, R.L. (1969): Geomorphology of Inglefield Land, North Greenland. Meddelelser om Grønland 188(1).

Nunn, L.J., Stirling, I. & Nowicki, S.N. (1997): Distri-bution and abundance of ringed (Phoca hispida) and bearded seals (Erignathus barbatus) in western Hudson Bay. Canadian Journal Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 54(4): 914-921.

Rasmussen, K. (1908): People of the Polar North: A Re-cord. London, K. Paul, Trench, Trübner.

Rasmussen, M., Li, Y., Lindgreen, S., Pedersen, J.S., Albrechtsen, A., Moltke, I., Metspalu, M., Metspalu, E., Kivisild, T., Gupta, R., Bertalan, M., Nielsen, K., Gilbert, M.P., Wang, Y., Raghavan, M., Campos, P.F., Munkholm Kamp, H., Wilson, A.S., Gledhill, A., Tridi-co, S., Bunce, M., Lorenzen, E.D., Binladen, J., Guo, X., Zhao, J., Zhang, X., Zhang, H., Li, Z., Chen, M., Orlando, L., Kristiansen, K., Bak, M., Tommerup, N., Bendixen, C., Pierre, T.L., Grønnow, B., Meldgaard, M., Andreasen, C., Fedorova, S.A., Osipova, L.P., Higham, T.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Hansen, T. v. O., Nielsen, F.C., Crawford, M.H., Brunak, S., Sicheritz-Pontén, S., Vil-lems, R., Nielsen, R., Krogh, A., Wang, J. & Willerslev, E. (2010): Ancient human genome sequence of an ex-tinct Palaeo-Eskimo. Nature 463: 757-762.

Richards, M.P., Taylor, G., Steele, T.E., McPherron, S., Sor-essi, M., Jaubert, J., Orschiedt, J., Mallye, J.-B., Rendu, W. & Hublin, J.-J. (2008): Isotopic dietary analysis of a Neandertal and associated fauna from the site of Jonzac (Charente-Maritime), France. Journal of Human Evolu-tion 52: 164-186.

Roby, D.D., Brink, K.L. and Nettleship, D.N. (1981): Measurements, chick meals and breeding distribution of dovekies (Alle alle) in northwest Greenland. Arctic 34(3): 241-248.

Savelle, J.M. (1984): Cultural and natural formation pro-cesses of a historic Inuit snow dwelling site, Somer-set Island, Arctic Canada. American Antiquity 49(3): 508-524.

Savelle, J.M. (1997): The role of architectural utility in the formation of zooarchaeological whale bone assemblag-es. Journal of Archaeological Science 24(10): 869-885.

Sørensen, M., Pedersen, J.T., Gotfredsen, A.B., Grønnow, B., Jakobsen, B.H., Gulløv, H.C., Kroon, A., Jensen, J. F. & Meldgaard, M. (2009): The Thule culture in rela-tion to changes in climate and environment in North-east Greenland, 1400-1850 AD. IOP Conference Series, Earth & Environmental Science 6, http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/7/072064

Storå, J. (2002): Neolithic seal exploitation on the Åland Islands in the Baltic Sea on the basis of epiphyseal fu-sion data and metric studies. International Journal of Osteoarchaeology 12: 49-64.

Vibe, C. (1950): The Marine Mammals and the Marine Fauna in the Thule District (Northwest Greenland) with Observations on Ice Conditions in 1939-41. Meddelelser om Grønland 150(6).

Vibe, C. (1981): Pattedyr (Mammalia). Pp. 363-459 in: Salomonsen, F. (ed.): Grønlands Fauna. Copenhagen, Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag. [in Danish]

Woollett, J. (2007): Labrador Inuit subsistence in the con-text of environmental change: an initial landscape histo-ry perspective. American Anthropologist 109(5): 69-84.

Pers. comm.: Kurt K. Burnham (2009), High Arctic Insti-tute, USA.

http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/7/072064

http://iopscience.iop.org/1755-1315/6/7/072064

Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 110(2) 315 DA N I S H JOUR N Zooarchaeological...

Documents

Transcript of Geografisk Tidsskrift-Danish Journal of Geography 110(2) 315 DA N I S H JOUR N Zooarchaeological...